FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Lana Reverse on November 17, 2016, 08:35:12 pm

Title: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 17, 2016, 08:35:12 pm
Since the election has ended, I think there should be a new thread about the most obvious result. Hope you don't mind me starting one.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Stormwarden on November 17, 2016, 09:58:07 pm
By all means..looks like a lot of my countrymen have decided that the US needs to hand the psychos the keys to the asylum. Lovely.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 18, 2016, 12:32:54 am
It's kinda sad that so few people voted in elections. This is not just USA though, other countries have the same problem too.

And despite the complaint about Trump losing the popular vote you have to admit that it was really, really close.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 18, 2016, 01:17:05 am
And despite the complaint about Trump losing the popular vote you have to admit that it was really, really close.

Bush and Gore were close. Clinton won by almost 1.5 million.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 18, 2016, 01:25:58 am
Yes, but because she could not win the votes of a group of testaments to the devastating mental effects of inbreeding, she lost.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 18, 2016, 01:40:25 am
Yes, but because she could not win the votes of a group of testaments to the devastating mental effects of inbreeding, she lost.

Which is why Clinton winning the popular vote is only a demonstration of how the Electoral College is massively flawed. I'm curious what the numbers would have looked like if the votes were distributed proportionately to the popular vote as opposed to the all or nothing system that I think I'm safe in saying has proven itself to advantage the Republicans after two Republican presidential victories in my lifetime that lost the popular vote.

Of course, my point was that saying it was close isn't as much of an argument as it was for Bush and Gore. Now, granted, I am not saying that the Electoral College is the only factor in Trumps victory (of which I give the most blame to the media for treating him with kid gloves while constantly harping on the fucking e-mails), but I do think it is a factor.

EDIT: Also, low voter turnout is not why Trump won, by the way. Turnout was down from 2012, but by only 1.3%.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 18, 2016, 03:56:10 am
Which is why Clinton winning the popular vote is only a demonstration of how the Electoral College is massively flawed. I'm curious what the numbers would have looked like if the votes were distributed proportionately to the popular vote as opposed to the all or nothing system that I think I'm safe in saying has proven itself to advantage the Republicans after two Republican presidential victories in my lifetime that lost the popular vote.

I'm already planning to do this on another forum as soon as all the results are certified. I'll definitely post it here, as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 18, 2016, 04:17:30 am
Question to the Americans here, is it true that the electoral college was devised as a way of giving more votes to the slave-owning states? Is there anything in that?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 18, 2016, 04:28:15 am
Generally speaking, I usually see people claim it's to prevent the tyranny of the majority (ironic how they're so concerned with that when it benefits them, but happily cite the majority opinion on things like gay marriage), but I would be more likely to wager that it's an efficiency measure due to difficulty in counting ballots in the 18th century.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 18, 2016, 04:38:57 am
Keep in mind that states have an exclusive and plenary power to decide how to allocate their votes in the Electoral College--even today, Maine and Nebraska allocate by congressional seat (hence 2 votes to the statewide winner for the Senate seats, and 1 to the winner in each House district--and Obama won Nebraska's 2nd district in 2008 and Trump won Maine's 2nd district this year). The winner-take-all system was not in common use early on; congressional district apportionment was used, or having the state Governor choose, or what have you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lt. Fred on November 18, 2016, 06:26:15 am
It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 18, 2016, 06:34:25 am
It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.
Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 18, 2016, 07:54:45 am
It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.
Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on November 18, 2016, 09:10:23 am
It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.
Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.

Still, Fred (and Niam as well) isn't doing anyone any favors by talking about "coups" and "Nazis" and "incompetent degenerates". I wonder how many people realize that many, many people voted for Trump because he offered a change, and Hillary did not? That many people voted for Trump because Hillary had no platform aside from "don't vote for that other guy"? That a lot of people were concerned with the absolute multitude of baggage she was trailing around behind her? Or that she actively attempted to shut down all other fronts and information in her campaign?

...Nah, it must just be 60 million racists and sexists, right?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 18, 2016, 10:20:49 am
She lacked passion is what she did and had the arrogance to assume the cat was in the bag.  It was never in the bag.

Ironbite-next 2-4 years will be hell.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on November 18, 2016, 12:46:13 pm
She lacked passion is what she did and had the arrogance to assume the cat was in the bag.  It was never in the bag.

Isn't that almost exactly how she lost the primaries 8 years ago?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 18, 2016, 01:10:10 pm
Let's be honest here... The Alt-right is just a rebranding of white-power racism to make it more acceptable to general public. http://qz.com/841036/is-steve-bannon-a-white-supremacist-trumps-advisor-wants-to-rebrand-racism-as-american-nationalism/?utm_source=qzfb
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 18, 2016, 02:20:46 pm
She lacked passion is what she did and had the arrogance to assume the cat was in the bag.  It was never in the bag.

Isn't that almost exactly how she lost the primaries 8 years ago?

That's part of it, yes.

And speaking of primaries, there's also the fact that the DNC essentially rigged them in her favor. Say what you will about Trump, but at least he got his nomination fair and square (as far as we know), despite the GOP establishment's constant efforts to stop him. It would be admirable if he wasn't such an extremist asshole...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 18, 2016, 02:49:11 pm
DNC tilted the Democratic party's primary for Clinton's favor but looking at her victory margin it was far from the decisive factor. The main factors were that the southern black voters usually (and for very understandable reasons) go for what they see as the safe choice and Sanders started his campaign way too late. There was also the fact that she didn't have any real challengers besides Sanders and even he didn't realize at first that he had a chance to actually pose a challenge for her.

While it's interesting and kind of cathartic to speculate what would have happened if Sanders had jumped in earlier or if a third serious challenger like Biden had been in the race that was not how things went. In the end, the DNC's schemes only hurt both them and Clinton and the bitter irony is that she wouldn't have needed them to win the candidacy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 18, 2016, 03:13:07 pm
DNC tilted the Democratic party's primary for Clinton's favor but looking at her victory margin it was far from the decisive factor. The main factors were that the southern black voters usually (and for very understandable reasons) go for what they see as the safe choice and Sanders started his campaign way too late. There was also the fact that she didn't have any real challengers besides Sanders and even he didn't realize at first that he had a chance to actually pose a challenge for her.

While it's interesting and kind of cathartic to speculate what would have happened if Sanders had jumped in earlier or if a third serious challenger like Biden had been in the race that was not how things went. In the end, the DNC's schemes only hurt both them and Clinton and the bitter irony is that she wouldn't have needed them to win the candidacy.

That reminds me of how my uncle said Nixon still probably would've won in '72 had he played fair. But he just had to cheat, and he screwed himself over in the long term.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 18, 2016, 06:02:48 pm
It was a military coup. The FBI and the NYT told everyone to vote for a Nazi, so they did.
Fred, I've got to tell you. Sometimes, you make some very good points. Other times, you sound like a hysterical tin foil hat enthusiast. Guess which category your latest post falls into?
Comey's timing was a bit on the sus side.

Still, Fred (and Niam as well) isn't doing anyone any favors by talking about "coups" and "Nazis" and "incompetent degenerates". I wonder how many people realize that many, many people voted for Trump because he offered a change, and Hillary did not? That many people voted for Trump because Hillary had no platform aside from "don't vote for that other guy"? That a lot of people were concerned with the absolute multitude of baggage she was trailing around behind her? Or that she actively attempted to shut down all other fronts and information in her campaign?

...Nah, it must just be 60 million racists and sexists, right?
I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, nor do I think it's a coup but racism certainly played a part. You know what else played a part though? People not voting! Voter turnout was lower than the last two federal US elections. So yeah race-baiting, Comey's fuckery and economic malaise all played  a part but the "eh, both sides suck" crowd also owns a big share of reponsibility for this mess.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 18, 2016, 06:42:13 pm
I think before we start pointing fingers, we should try to understand why Trump got the support he did. From what I can see, two of the big factors were anti-establishment sentiment and just how divided America has become.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 18, 2016, 06:47:33 pm
Third parties got, depending on the state, two to five times more votes than the last two elections, so I do think the protest voters were a factor because apparently worthless principle is more important than keeping a fascist out of the White House to the Bernie or Bust crowd.

The problem I'm seeing on the Democratic side is that everyone is trying to find a smoking gun reason why Trump won. This is reductionist and little more than finger pointing. Comey, the fucking e-mails, the "both sides suck" crowd, Clinton being unlikable to a hell of a lot of people (still don't get why, but this is the reality), the media treating Trump with kid gloves, sexism and racism are all factors, but none of them are the smoking gun people want to point to.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 18, 2016, 06:52:19 pm
It's less of a single smoking gun and more.like the aftermath of a John Woo Mexican standoff gone wrong!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 18, 2016, 06:55:43 pm
It's less of a single smoking gun and more.like the aftermath of a John Woo Mexican standoff gone wrong!

Which is pretty much what I'm getting at. It's another case of people wanting an easy answer to a difficult problem. The Democrats have four years to sort this shit out, but I'm afraid that they're going to pick one or two of the numerous factors that lead to their defeat and ignore the rest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 18, 2016, 06:56:13 pm
Third parties got, depending on the state, two to five times more votes than the last two elections, so I do think the protest voters were a factor because apparently worthless principle is more important than keeping a fascist out of the White House to the Bernie or Bust crowd.

The problem I'm seeing on the Democratic side is that everyone is trying to find a smoking gun reason why Trump won. This is reductionist and little more than finger pointing. Comey, the fucking e-mails, the "both sides suck" crowd, Clinton being unlikable to a hell of a lot of people (still don't get why, but this is the reality), the media treating Trump with kid gloves, sexism and racism are all factors, but none of them are the smoking gun people want to point to.

I think the first step in trying to figure out why Trump won is looking at why he got enough support in the first place. When I join a new forum, I generally listen first, talk later. So I'd be interested in hearing what you guys have to say.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 18, 2016, 07:22:59 pm
Trump won because he was highly successful in speaking to disenfranchised rural blue collared voters who have been largely feeling ignored for a long time. Their jobs have been disappearing for a long time and  what once was large booming towns filled with steel mills, or mines, or manufacturing plants are slowly turning to ghost towns filled with meth dens and crumbling infrastructure. Trump spoke out against NAFTA and TPP which a large population of middle america hate and blame for jobs going over seas. Truth is these jobs have been starting to leave way before NAFTA became a thing. Trump and Clinton were already both highly disliked candidates. What hurt Clinton was that the same people who came out for Obama didn't come out for Clinton this time. Southern blacks and younger voters didn't feel energized by Clinton's more moderate democrat stance. Blacks didn't feel they were helped out much from eight years with Obama, so why would they turn out for someone who doesn't understand them. Younger voters are growing more progressive and Clinton just seemed more status quo.
Trump was able to excite a large group of voters that were previously ignored, and they came out in droves to vote for him. Not all of them are racists, not all of them hate foreigners, but some feel he can bring their jobs back and they were willing to over look the dangerous borderline racists, sexist shit Trump has said in the past.
The truth is Trump is not going to bring the jobs back, and any jobs he tries to force to stay here will be costly. Wall street big wigs will fight him on that. He can try to impose tariffs on businesses importing goods into the US that manufactured in foreign countries, but that will just end up hurting the consumer with higher prices in an already stagnated economy with stagnated wages. Republicans want to impose tax cuts on the extremely wealthy again which is just going to hurt the middle class even more. He's not going to be able to build a wall. Republicans hate spending on infrastructure and they certainly are not going to spend billions on a pipe dream that will most likely take way past Trumps four years in office to even start development, and no Mexico is not going to pay for it. The same will happen on deportation.
Every candidate makes promises or goals that they want to accomplish that will never pass, like Obama and Gitmo. The problem is Trump spoke of grandious promises that will most likely never come to fruition. A lot of voters will most likely see this and not turn out to vote next time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 18, 2016, 08:06:44 pm
I think before we start pointing fingers, we should try to understand why Trump got the support he did. From what I can see, two of the big factors were anti-establishment sentiment and just how divided America has become.
That and he promised to bring some measure of prosperity back to the lower classes, especially the rural poor. Now that US manufacturing is uncompetitive, those who live in the country and aren't farmers have basically no opportunities. There's fast food, and that's about it. Between that and the high cost of living in cities making it nearly impossible for those people to simple move there, they're pretty much trapped in poverty with no way out. It used to be the case that small towns would have a factory or a mine or some other large industry that would be its primary source of wealth. Nowadays those have been mostly outsourced, and the government has done nothing to help the those who've lost their livelihoods as a result. Now, Trump comes along and is the first politician, well, ever, to not only not ignore them while throwing what's left of their livelihoods under the bus with trade deals like NAFTA, but actually promise to help them by bringing back America's manufacturing industry, it's no wonder he was so well received. "Make America Great Again" didn't mean "get rid of all the Mexicans and put the darkies back in their place", unlike what some seemed to think, it means "bring back wealth and opportunities for everyone, not just the urban elite", which ironically is what the left is supposed to be about.

Which brings me to the left, which as a whole completely missed the point and assumed that Trump supporters are all just racists, and decided that hurling insults instead of actually talking to and persuading Trump supporters would ensure a win for Clinton. Well, given that people tend not to side with those that insult them, Trump's victory is far less surprising that some people seem to think it is.

Now, if anything good can come of this, it's the left getting their shit together and realising they have to do better than ignoring their opponents when they're not hurling insults at them. That they have to make the effort to talk to Trump supporters and find out from them why they support him, instead of just assuming they're racists. What can I say, it'd be nice to see activists of my ideology (well, more so than their opponents) do a little better than a campaign of name calling, followed by literal tears when, surprise fucking surprise, they lose.

Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 18, 2016, 09:35:37 pm
Art acts as if econmic malaise and racism is an either/or proposition. It isn't, in fact the flames of racism and other bigotry are fanned by economic problems.

Trump not only promised to reopen mines and factories. He did it in tandemn with promising a stonking great wall between North America and it's brown skinned southern neighbours and intentionallu conflated refugees fleeing ISIS with ISIS.

FFS economic stagnation has gone hand in hand with nationalist movements promising to make their country great again AND cosh minorities and foreigners since at least the thirities.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 18, 2016, 09:53:18 pm
Never underestimate the bottomless stupidity of the average American. It doesn't matter what Trump promises. Just about all of his campaign promises were empty, except the ones that will specifically benefit the extremely wealthy and actively hurt the poor. Nothing Trump can do will bring jobs back from overseas. Nothing Trump will do will get his useless wall built. The only things his presidency will do is legitimatize racists (which his election already has), cut taxes on the wealthy, wreck the economy and repeal Obamacare. There's also real danger of Roe v. Wade and marriage equality being overturned. Trump's presidency will be a complete disaster and the worst part of it is that his voters won't just fail to realize that the Republicans have been everything that's been wrong with the federal government for the last 6 years, they have their heads so deep in the sand that they'll believe Trump every single time he pushes the blame on everyone else.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on November 18, 2016, 10:23:21 pm
Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren.

...yes, if there's one thing no one's ever accused the alt right of, it's being a bunch of melodramatic manchildren
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 18, 2016, 10:32:30 pm
Art acts as if econmic malaise and racism is an either/or proposition. It isn't, in fact the flames of racism and other bigotry are fanned by economic problems.
I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.
Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren.
...yes, if there's one thing no one's ever accused the alt right of, it's being a bunch of melodramatic manchildren
Good point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 19, 2016, 12:19:25 am
Art acts as if econmic malaise and racism is an either/or proposition. It isn't, in fact the flames of racism and other bigotry are fanned by economic problems.
I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.
Honestly, it's shit like this that almost makes me consider going alt right, if only to not be associated with a bunch of melodramatic manchildren.
...yes, if there's one thing no one's ever accused the alt right of, it's being a bunch of melodramatic manchildren
Good point.
Can we be clear who we are talking about when we say "the left"? Because I can certainly  see the Democratic hierarchy doing that but I thought we agreed in another thread they weren't really the "left". Identity politics supremos with weaponized offence would probably also be on board but surely if "left wing" has any coherent meaning it should cover an economic dimension.

A Democrat doner who thinks he's left wing because he has a gay butler, eco friendly light bulbs in his mansion and a Hispanic maid is no more left wing than Australia's own Malcolm Turnbull who recently rebuked Trump by singing the praises of "fair trade", which is to say, not in the slightest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 19, 2016, 12:41:50 am
Can we be clear who we are talking about when we say "the left"? Because I can certainly  see the Democratic hierarchy doing that but I thought we agreed in another thread they weren't really the "left". Identity politics supremos with weaponized offence would probably also be on board but surely if "left wing" has any coherent meaning it should cover an economic dimension.

A Democrat doner who thinks he's left wing because he has a gay butler, eco friendly light bulbs in his mansion and a Hispanic maid is no more left wing than Australia's own Malcolm Turnbull who recently rebuked Trump by singing the praises of "fair trade", which is to say, not in the slightest.
I meant it as a catch-all term for pretty much everyone opposed to Trump. Obviously it's rather vague and nebulous, but that's generally what happens when you try to put basically every political ideology in the world into one of two categories. I guess we can call them something else, if you'd prefer.

Besides, it was far from Clinton's campaign that was conflating Trump supporters with racists. You'd be rather hard pressed to find any anti-Trump activists who didn't.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 19, 2016, 01:37:49 am
As to my comments about them being incompetent degenerates, I don't feel the need to sugarcoat what I feel about these "people". They say they want change, and I say they don't deserve it. They dug this hole with repeatedly voting for people who do nothing but make sure they're miserable. There is no magic Trump can do to reopen those mines and factories. I say let them climb out of it themselves instead of burdening reasonable society.

I saw all I needed to of Trump Supporters - their "Trump that bitch" shirts and their flags and their horrific hairdos and below average intelligence and inability to tell when a joke is on them.

I would rather chat up a chimpanzee than ever have dialogue with the Trump Supporter.

As far as I am concerned, they've done well to earn me ignoring their problems - in fact, if I had the choice to, I'd make their problems worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on November 19, 2016, 05:32:29 am
As to my comments about them being incompetent degenerates, I don't feel the need to sugarcoat what I feel about these "people". They say they want change, and I say they don't deserve it. They dug this hole with repeatedly voting for people who do nothing but make sure they're miserable. There is no magic Trump can do to reopen those mines and factories. I say let them climb out of it themselves instead of burdening reasonable society.

I saw all I needed to of Trump Supporters - their "Trump that bitch" shirts and their flags and their horrific hairdos and below average intelligence and inability to tell when a joke is on them.

I would rather chat up a chimpanzee than ever have dialogue with the Trump Supporter.

As far as I am concerned, they've done well to earn me ignoring their problems - in fact, if I had the choice to, I'd make their problems worse.

And this is why you lost.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 19, 2016, 05:42:25 am
I see a large part of the Republican voters as victims. They live in a bubble where they are convinced that their best bet to improve their lives are the same people who keep screwing them over. Instead of fighting the cultural attitudes that feed ignorant racism in these people the Republican party and their other leaders work to maintain them. Having Democrats and minorities as scapegoats for their problems is an easier way to keep them in line than actually trying to help them.

The kind of racism that is bred by ignorance is a global phenomenon and a part of the human condition, it should be fought by fighting ignorance. This requires both an understanding attitude at their problems and attacking their leadership and the Republican party as an institution. This is not easy to do since the Republicans will do their best to turn any attack on those who deserve it to an attack on the whole group. A good example is how Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment was taken out of context. The mistake she made was apologizing for it - and implicitly admitting fault - instead of doubling down with a wording that isn't so easy to take out of context and make into a sound bite.

Then there is the other kind. The KKK types, neo-nazis and the worst of the alt-right crowd who are so hateful that they are just human scum. Even they aren't all lost cases but as a group the only useful strategical option is to fight them as hard as you can.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 19, 2016, 06:28:23 am
I see a large part of the Republican voters as victims. They live in a bubble where they are convinced that their best bet to improve their lives are the same people who keep screwing them over. Instead of fighting the cultural attitudes that feed ignorant racism in these people the Republican party and their other leaders work to maintain them. Having Democrats and minorities as scapegoats for their problems is an easier way to keep them in line than actually trying to help them.

The kind of racism that is bred by ignorance is a global phenomenon and a part of the human condition, it should be fought by fighting ignorance. This requires both an understanding attitude at their problems and attacking their leadership and the Republican party as an institution. This is not easy to do since the Republicans will do their best to turn any attack on those who deserve it to an attack on the whole group. A good example is how Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment was taken out of context. The mistake she made was apologizing for it - and implicitly admitting fault - instead of doubling down with a wording that isn't so easy to take out of context and make into a sound bite.

Then there is the other kind. The KKK types, neo-nazis and the worst of the alt-right crowd who are so hateful that they are just human scum. Even they aren't all lost cases but as a group the only useful strategical option is to fight them as hard as you can.

The original "Basket of Deplorables" quote said much the same thing

Quote
...I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."

But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Given that about 9% of the US population voted at all (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0) one half of the Trump vote doesn't put Clinton's guess at the size the alt right at such a huge number-but you don't have to be a huge number to be influential.

The other problem is, of course, that neither Clinton nor Trump actually had a plan for the people who the economy let down in America-and why would they? They don't form part of the donor class that makes Washington's beltway run and they aren't part of either's favored inner circles.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on November 19, 2016, 09:32:10 am
Given that about 9% of the US population voted at all (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0) one half of the Trump vote doesn't put Clinton's guess at the size the alt right at such a huge number-but you don't have to be a huge number to be influential.

About 131 million people voted (http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174), the population of the US is about 325 million (https://www.census.gov/popclock/). That's 40%, not 9%. Your source  is talking about the number of people who voted for either Trump or Hillary in the primaries.

(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 19, 2016, 10:09:41 am
(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 19, 2016, 10:43:10 am
I think the Democrats made a big mistake when they decided to focus on identity politics over economic populism. There are so many Americans who are poorly off in this economy, Americans of all stripes. They could have used that fact to unite tens of millions of the disenfranchised in their favor. Instead, they decided to play the game of divide and conquer, and they lost. And now we're stuck with Trump for four years (assuming he serves out his term).

Nice job /s.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 19, 2016, 10:48:25 am
Honestly kinda hoping he does.  As bad as Trump is, Pence is far, far worse.  Trump may be a buffoon, but Pence is downright dangerous.  Trump will take us back to 2004...Pence would take us back to the Stone Age.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Murdin on November 19, 2016, 11:23:21 am
I didn't say no Trump supporters were racist. My point is that racism was not the be all and end all of Trump's campaign, and the left assuming that it was is almost certainly why he won.

Even among "SJWs" (the smart ones, anyway), from what I've seen, the consensus is that Trump managed to harness the intense anti-establishment sentiment by running his entire campaign on "political incorrectness" and "going there". Most people are so misinformed and lacking in critical thinking skills that they interpreted Trump's constant signaling of his status as a political outsider (in both senses of the term) as a guarantee of his sincerity, his willingness to tear down a corrupt, out-of-touch establishment, and replace it with... well, I have no idea, and I think I'm already pushing my reflection further than most people are willing to.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 19, 2016, 04:35:40 pm
Hindsight is always 20/20 but it was a huge mistake for Clinton to go after the Republican women. They have been in an anti-Clinton propaganda and conspiracy theory bubble since 90's and she even more than Bill has become a symbol of all real and imagined that is evil to them in politics. A big part of her selling pitch in primaries was that her image has been stabilized but the campaign didn't realize how true that was in this context. Yes, there is an authoritarian and racist sentiment involved that responded to Trump and women can also support structural sexism but when you make the campaign about competing personalities you cannot ignore your own baggage in their eyes.

As for the economical perspective: statistically there is no real correlation between unemployment and voting Trump but when you look deeper you start to see a pattern. In areas where the job market is dominated by low wage service jobs or manufacturing jobs that are in danger of being moved abroad people voted for Trump.

People are generally very self-centered when they are going through difficult times and if they think someone cares about their problems they are willing to rationalize away things they that don't like and they would otherwise not tolerate. This is where things like institutional sexist and racist undertones come in: these people were willing to ignore Trump's flaws and take a chance that he could actually improve their lives as he promised. When Clinton crushed Trump's facade in the debates they started to see through him but she allowed people forget his weakness and get lured back to his con. She is not only a more capable leader but also a way stronger leader than Trump and she could have tried to build on his weak debate performance instead of taking attention away from it.

I would really like to see a test where people who defended Trump's sexism and racism were given anonymous offensive statements and asked to comment on them. Some of these would be Trump's less known statements and others taken from other loathsome people with a few of Trump's more recent and famous ones included. If the test could be performed so that the people were not aware of what was being tested the results might be interesting. My guess is that anything that they'd know is by Trump they'd defend but would not be as eager to defend things that they wouldn't connect to him.

I'll end with something that is based on hearsay from someone who claims to have been involved in statistical analysis for Clinton's campaign in his state so take it with as much salt as you want:

The statistical model they used gave union workers in his state a large score in loyalty to the Democratic party. A big reason was that they had reliably voted for Obama in the last two elections but there was also a data mining operation involved that mapped people's consuming habits etc. The campaign calculated that since the model said their vote was guaranteed any resources needed to court their vote would more productively be used to get more votes elsewhere. Of course, when it came to voting drives, these reliable voters needed to be activated. Guess who these people ended up voting in the end? The campaign gifted these votes to Trump on a platter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 19, 2016, 06:37:05 pm
There's a lot of chatter saying that the fears of the left are unfounded or that Trump is exaggerating, I'm not so sure. I don't think he'll build a wall or return the factories or the coalmines but post election his behavior hasn't really deviated much from his campaign persona (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/18/donald-trump-presidential-transition-norms). Thin skinned, bloviating, vengeful and chaotic. I'd recommend Autocracy:Rules for Survival (http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/). Trump may not be a Warcraft style God-Emperor yet, and he may not get there but it won't be for lack of trying.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 19, 2016, 06:48:31 pm
I'm much more worried about the crowd he is surrounding himself with. His own ambition is probably pumping as much money as possible to his companies and fattening his investment portfolio while basking in the limelight as the president. The real damage is going to be done by his cabinet and advisors and of course the Republican Congress and Senate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 19, 2016, 06:58:06 pm
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 19, 2016, 07:09:36 pm
I'm all for it but it should be a long term project. The only way it would be possible to start during Trump's presidency would be to submit to the Republicans. Like I said earlier, I think that the party institution and the leaders of the conservative movement need to be fought as long as they promote harmful policies. Without a position of strength it is not possible to accomplish much since the Republican agenda involves making sure the country stays divided.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Murdin on November 19, 2016, 07:16:07 pm
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I"m... not sure what you are going for. Can you give some examples of characteristically right-wing talking points that are treated by the political left, not just inadequately, but with undeserved intolerance? Preferably from those divides that Trump was able to "exploit to his advantage"?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 19, 2016, 07:23:24 pm
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I can tolerate people being pissed off because they are unemployed because their factory moved to Mexico just fine, it's perfectly justifiable. I don't see why anybody should tolerate people who then go on to blame Mexicans specifically. Shittiness is shittiness.

I'm much more worried about the crowd he is surrounding himself with. His own ambition is probably pumping as much money as possible to his companies and fattening his investment portfolio while basking in the limelight as the president. The real damage is going to be done by his cabinet and advisors and of course the Republican Congress and Senate.
I'm seeing a lot of worrying comparisons with Bush's relationship with his advisers. Ambitious ideologues who want to steer the country in their chosen direction and a president who can't be bothered with the technical details. That's what happened with Bush/Cheney and it led directly to Iraq and the implosion of that country and neighbouring ISIS.

Now we have a national security adviser who thinks that fear of Muslims is rational (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/19/michael-flynn-will-be-a-disaster-as-national-security-adviser) an attorney general who has opposed every legal immigration measure in his political career and once quipped that he liked the KKK until he found out they smoked pot (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/18/10-things-to-know-about-sen-jeff-sessions-donald-trumps-pick-for-attorney-general/) and of course a chief strategist and senior counselor to the President who ran the public voice of the alt-right.

These guys will have the ear of a fickle, easily distracted and thin skinned president. That's scary stuff.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on November 19, 2016, 07:34:15 pm
(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.

I don't deny that the alt-right was significant (if nothing else, in drawing the focus of the left away from things that mattered more). I'm saying they are not a substantial part of Trump voters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 19, 2016, 07:57:22 pm
I think a good way to make sure Trump doesn't get a second term is to try and heal the political divides. He was able to win partly because he exploited them to his advantage.

Really, I think we could all stand to be a little more tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I"m... not sure what you are going for. Can you give some examples of characteristically right-wing talking points that are treated by the political left, not just inadequately, but with undeserved intolerance? Preferably from those divides that Trump was able to "exploit to his advantage"?

That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the  dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 19, 2016, 07:57:56 pm
(also, the alt-right, neo-nazis, the KKK, maybe add up to a few tens of thousands of people. Their votes don't win elections. It was the good old regular right that mattered.)

When their voice is raised above the rest and legitimized it becomes a powerful political weapon. Their rhetoric uses the ignorant racism to pull the right as a whole closer to them and shapes and directs the largely legitimate anger of the white poor and working class people. Attacks against the extremists can be twisted into an attack against all the right wing voters and make the liberal elite, the minorities and the left wing in general a common enemy that is an existential threat to their identity.

I don't deny that the alt-right was significant (if nothing else, in drawing the focus of the left away from things that mattered more). I'm saying they are not a substantial part of Trump voters.
The alt-right has never been big and that's never been the point of them. Alt right fester-holes like /pol/ are filled with imagery and attitudes designed specifically to chase away outsiders but one thing the alt-right learned from the campaign that must not be named (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6886.0) is that you can appear larger than you actually are and have a real impact (at least in the short term) disproportionate to your actual size merely by strategic trolling.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 19, 2016, 11:43:37 pm
I've heard people say that these results are less a victory for Trump and more a defeat for the political establishment. What say you?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 20, 2016, 12:55:53 am
I've heard people say that these results are less a victory for Trump and more a defeat for the political establishment. What say you?
I say that the Republican establishment is laughing its arse off. It is a body blow for the Democrat establishment, whether they'll learn any useful lessons from this? Only time will tell.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Murdin on November 20, 2016, 05:36:17 am
That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the  dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.

I don't know. The DNC emails were less "skeletons in the closet" and more "dirty laundry". Disgusting, depressing, for sure, but there's nothing there that I would call surprising. If anything, the amount and extent of media collusion revealed by the leaks was actually less than I expected.

As for the "liberal mainstream media" phrase... well, its history put aside, the accusation in itself isn't exactly wrong. CNN, NBC, NYT & co do tend to favor views that are seen as "left-wing" in the context of American politics, and while it is true that "reality has a liberal bias" on science-related issues, it cannot explain everything. Coupled with an inherent slant towards the societal (not just political) establishment they are an integral part of, this typically translates into tacit support for the Dems.

What makes it eyeroll-worthy is that the loudest accusations of liberal bias tend to come from people who either trust, work for, or are propped by media outlets on the other side of the fence that have rather flimsier claims of basic trustfulness, let alone objectivity. It is almost never used as a warning to keep a critical and analytical mind, and almost always as an incentive to use the "right" sources of information.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 20, 2016, 08:57:37 am
Yeah funnily enough. I never hear anyone complain about the conservative media. They just have this stigma that the Jews control everything and that the Jews are liberal.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 20, 2016, 10:20:05 pm
Yeah funnily enough. I never hear anyone complain about the conservative media. They just have this stigma that the Jews control everything and that the Jews are liberal.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that only anti-Semites complain about the conservative media?

And I've heard plenty of complaints about the conservative media, especially back during the Dubya years.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 20, 2016, 11:42:51 pm
No I'm saying anti semites complain about the liberal media. They tend to think the liberal media is some big Jewish conspiracy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 21, 2016, 10:50:57 pm
That's not quite what I was getting at, but I guess I can give you an example. I used to roll my eyes at right-wingers complaining about the "liberal media". But now I think they have a point. Just look at the  dirty laundry Wikileaks aired.

I don't know. The DNC emails were less "skeletons in the closet" and more "dirty laundry". Disgusting, depressing, for sure, but there's nothing there that I would call surprising. If anything, the amount and extent of media collusion revealed by the leaks was actually less than I expected.

As for the "liberal mainstream media" phrase... well, its history put aside, the accusation in itself isn't exactly wrong. CNN, NBC, NYT & co do tend to favor views that are seen as "left-wing" in the context of American politics, and while it is true that "reality has a liberal bias" on science-related issues, it cannot explain everything. Coupled with an inherent slant towards the societal (not just political) establishment they are an integral part of, this typically translates into tacit support for the Dems.

What makes it eyeroll-worthy is that the loudest accusations of liberal bias tend to come from people who either trust, work for, or are propped by media outlets on the other side of the fence that have rather flimsier claims of basic trustfulness, let alone objectivity. It is almost never used as a warning to keep a critical and analytical mind, and almost always as an incentive to use the "right" sources of information.

I wish there was more dialogue like this on the Internet.

No I'm saying anti semites complain about the liberal media. They tend to think the liberal media is some big Jewish conspiracy.

Anti-Semites think everything they don't like is a Jewish conspiracy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 22, 2016, 12:28:50 am
Part of that "Liberal bias" is that the "conservatives" in USA have some policies and ideas that are simply unacceptable in today's society. They support torture and then act like they have been betrayed when the media points out that torture is unconstitutional. They support militias arming up and having a stand off with the police over stolen property and believe that the media is part of some government conspiracy when they do not support armed insurgents. They have specifically decided to oppose GLBT rights time and time again and it is true that liberals are more likely to support equality for all but on matters like this the younger generations are generally more open minded regardless of political ideology so conservatives being proud of their opposition to any changes that would end discrimination (or even trying to make new laws that would discriminate more) is another thing where the conservatives themselves are the ones who cause this rift between them and liberals in USA.

Granted that not every conservative thinks like that but when more and more of them shift towards the right it makes them think that everyone else if moving to the left. "Clinging to their Bibles and their guns" as a reaction to a world that is evolving and scaring them is just making the divide between the people of USA bigger.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 22, 2016, 11:59:08 am
Except the liberal media can be worse than "just" biased. Sometimes, it's outright dishonest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SxHOLWiUnA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SxHOLWiUnA)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 22, 2016, 02:56:17 pm
There is also the factor that the reporters and other people in mid to low positions tend to be socially liberal (at least in Finland and based on hearsay it's similar in the States) and that can lead to distorted reporting. On the other hand, when you go up the corporate ladder the social issues start to fade more to the background and the economical right wing ideology starts shining through. In this macro scale any liberal agenda only matters as a tool for making more money which means the corporations don't let their underlings ruffle too many feathers. Superficial, easily swallowed product is what they are after and the socially liberal issues are easily shaped into feel-good fluff or superficial outrage.

I'm not saying that the fluff or outrage is always bad or misleading. It just isn't in the interests of the big media companies to dig deeper into structural and economical issues since these work for the corporations's advantage which keeps the reporting superficial. This deeper reporting is what the newspaper media excels in and hopefully this type of reporting not just stays alive but actually has its voice heard.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 22, 2016, 03:00:25 pm
Speaking as someone who studied journalism, I think people have a complete lack of understanding of how much work a journalist is supposed to do to avoid editorializing their work. There is such a thing as a "creeping bias." You have to remember that journalists aren't emotionless robots and that they have their own views on the issues they're covering. It's why a diverse press is not just important, but vital to the health of the field of journalism. It's also why I pay more attention to outsider outlets like the BBC and Al Jazeera than MSNBC or Fox.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 22, 2016, 03:16:22 pm
Interesting: http://qz.com/843972/donald-trump-is-not-even-in-the-white-house-and-reince-preibus-his-chief-of-staff-is-allegedly-already-lying-to-him/

This would explain how Pence came out of nowhere to replace Christie. If true then Trump really is nothing but a puppet for Manafort/Putin.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 22, 2016, 03:42:08 pm
Interesting: http://qz.com/843972/donald-trump-is-not-even-in-the-white-house-and-reince-preibus-his-chief-of-staff-is-allegedly-already-lying-to-him/

This would explain how Pence came out of nowhere to replace Christie. If true then Trump really is nothing but a puppet for Manafort/Putin.

Which won't really sit too well with him once he's in office and has "real" power.

Ironbite-I expect a blood bath in the White House.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 23, 2016, 01:28:13 am
It would be just perfect if Trump's little board of executives fought each other so bitterly he ended up doing absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 23, 2016, 03:46:42 am
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.?  ;D
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2016, 03:50:52 am
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.?  ;D

Don't worry. He'll still dismantle the Affordable Care Act, repeal all of Obama's executive orders on things like overtime pay and climate regulations, and give massive tax cuts to the rich.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 23, 2016, 04:14:48 am
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.?  ;D

Don't worry. He'll still dismantle the Affordable Care Act, repeal all of Obama's executive orders on things like overtime pay and climate regulations, and give massive tax cuts to the rich.
I don't doubt he'll do all of those things, slightly sadder will be the promises he'll break to the rust belt.

Folks, your new president won't bring back your factories and coal mines. And as for clearing the lobbyists out of Washington, they all have sweet spots on his transition team. Pretty much what all those urban hipsters whose window you tried to brick tried to warn you about really.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 23, 2016, 04:28:57 am
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.?  ;D

How is he "disavowing" them when he keeps giving them cushy government jobs?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 23, 2016, 04:35:37 am
Welp, apparently conservatives are having shitfits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846) because Trump won't lock up Hillary Clinton (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846). He's also "disavowed" the alt right-after they helped him get into office, they're having shitfits too (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan) and getting into slapfights with each other over it (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/22/white-pride-goeth-before-a-fall-alt-rightists-turn-on-each-other-over-hail-trump-vid/).

Who would have thunk that The Drumpf would have been less than straightforward with his greatest fans.?  ;D

How is he "disavowing" them when he keeps giving them cushy government jobs?
Welp, apparently Bannon is still groovy in Trump's book (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-white-nationalist-disavow) because...I dunno, the peasants aren't ready for "Hail Victory's" in public just yet and Bannon acts just like all the rest of them except for the dressing and Seig Heiling like a National Front reject from Britain in the 1980s part.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 23, 2016, 04:43:23 am
I miss the good old days when Neo-Nazis looked like this and didn't have any political support...
(http://www.tylkkari.fi/sites/tylkkari.fi/files/kylatv2.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 23, 2016, 04:49:58 am
How do tasteless Chinese cosplayers manage to look better than the real thing?
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 23, 2016, 04:51:09 am
I bet you are glad that you didn't elect the candidate that couldn't keep national secrets properly stored.

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/21/kris-kobach-accidentally-leaked-homeland-security-plans-during-a-photo-op/

...Oops.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 23, 2016, 05:20:54 am
I bet you are glad that you didn't elect the candidate that couldn't keep national secrets properly stored.

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/21/kris-kobach-accidentally-leaked-homeland-security-plans-during-a-photo-op/

...Oops.
SPESHUL PROSECUTA...oh, it's our guy...

The stuff about voting on his binder is concerning, a federal attempt to suppress votes could be bloody scary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 23, 2016, 07:48:23 am
I miss the good old days when Neo-Nazis looked like this and didn't have any political support...
(click to show/hide)
Pekka Siitoin and his KDP (National Democratic Party) of drunken village idiots... good times.

This needs the legendary video about the party's seminar on a Baltic Sea cruise ship shot by a Swedish TV crew. Siitoin has a "discussion" in English with a Dutch guy and his Swedish girlfriend at 2:20. The rest of the video is mostly slightly more coherent drunken rambling in Finnish.
http://youtu.be/wGSL6MkZpvQ?t=2m20s (http://youtu.be/wGSL6MkZpvQ?t=2m20s)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGSL6MkZpvQ
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 23, 2016, 03:36:12 pm
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2016, 04:42:32 pm
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.

They'll all kiss the ring, as will a good chunk of the Democrats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 23, 2016, 05:23:51 pm
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.

They'll all kiss the ring, as will a good chunk of the Democrats.

Assuming that happens, what can be done to counter it? Let's think proactively.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Stormwarden on November 23, 2016, 05:49:51 pm
Well, we could try to invoke Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. in particular, the emoulement clause:


"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html



Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2016, 06:05:41 pm
So, how much damage do you think Trump will be able to do? Considering he's at loggerheads with much of the GOP, I'm cautiously optimistic.

They'll all kiss the ring, as will a good chunk of the Democrats.

Assuming that happens, what can be done to counter it? Let's think proactively.

I was being a bit hyperbolic. For one, it's very likely that the filibuster will remain in place, which will mean that on many issues, if the Democrats can present a united front (or even just near-united), they can block most legislative action, along with things like Supreme Court and Cabinet appointments. Sen. Graham has already said he'd vote against killing the filibuster, and there's a good chance that some others, like Sen. Collins, would join him.

For another, there are some Republicans who may well buck the party--people like Sen. Collins, from Democratic-leaning states, or people who will do so on principle, like Sen. Graham with the filibuster or Sen. Paul with certain Cabinet appoinments (he's said he'd block any attempt to appoint Bolton or Giuliani as Secretary of State, because they're massive hawks and he's a non-interventionist).

Probably the single most important--and achievable--thing they can do in the short term is pour resources into the Louisiana Senate runoff. If they can win that--and it would be an uphill battle--then they'd only need 2 Republican Senators to block any legislation, which is significantly more attainable than three, especially when you know that on many issues you'll already be able to find at least one who's said he or she will oppose it. It won't always work--executive orders, lower federal courts, reconciliation--and they won't be able to get anything of their own through (since they're nowhere close to having the House), but that's how I'd try to stem the tide.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2016, 08:06:29 pm
Well, we could try to invoke Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution. in particular, the emoulement clause:


"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

I wouldn't put any hope in anything like that. At this point Trump's boast about killing someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue is seeming far less like a boast and far more like a simple statement of reality.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 24, 2016, 07:32:39 am
So I found this rather interesting video on the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td5xFxiEuQQ
Interesting idea, and if nothing else, it's good that people are recognising that this ultra-polarised, "us vs them" approach to politics is not the way to do things. At risk of repeating myself a tad, Trump's victory could ultimately be a good thing if it teaches us all that having an actual dialogue with his supporters is a better idea than simply calling them racist and stupid. Yeah, it's probably wishful thinking that any of these oh so promising and hopeful words will ever translate into actual action, but a guy can dream, no?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 24, 2016, 02:48:36 pm
I'm disappointed that the Democrats learned nothing from Brexit. Shaming people into voting your way doesn't work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 24, 2016, 04:32:57 pm
How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.

If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?

Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 24, 2016, 04:44:09 pm
How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.

If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?

Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that appealing to shame didn't work in Britain, and it didn't work here. Telling people they're racist idiots unless they vote your way is ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst.

And I'm not saying we treat them with kid gloves, just that we not generalize them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 24, 2016, 06:18:55 pm
Remember that Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment was aimed at half of Trump's supporters. The other half, she correctly noted, were people who were pissed off about the economy. (A good chunk of that was people being pissed off at policies her husband had put in place, like NAFTA or the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but she was still right that they were angry because of the economy, not because the blacks and hispanics and Muslims and Asians are raping, killing, and stealing from good white folk and the women are getting uppity and not staying in the kitchen and the gays are shoving their agendas down our throats.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 24, 2016, 06:36:03 pm
How is putting a moratorium on calling Trump Supporters or Brexit supporters racist any different to insisting black people can't be racist or women can't be sexist? It's creating a protected class that we all have to treat with kid gloves lest we offend someone.

If a Trump supporter or a Brexit voter celebrates their victory by attacking minorities do we call them...something else?

Or is there an ironclad rule that we preface it with #notallXsupporters first?
Where did I say anything about treating them with kid gloves? It pisses me off that we're all expected to do that for religion. I'd never argue we should coddle right wingers in the same manner. In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that "a dialogue" with one's political opponents means a discussion or debate of some kind. You know, which involves at certain points telling them where they're wrong and why they're wrong in as much detail as possible. This of course includes any issues on which you feel they're wrong, racism included.

All I'm saying is doing nothing but hurling insults at them is quite possibly the worst way to go about it. Not because I'm personally offended on the poor little darling's behalf, but because that's probably the worst thing you can do in terms of winning hearts and minds, which is really what an election is all about. If you attack and alienate people instead of trying to talk to and persuade them, how the fuck do think they're going to vote come election day?

Or, you know, we could just stay or course, or perhaps even go full Niam. I'm sure that won't lead to another four years of President Trump or anything, and some other far right lunatic after that, no, not at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 24, 2016, 09:08:17 pm
That's true for political parties, for sure but if some Trump supporter jumps into a leftie thread and barfs "suck it byatches, your spook in chief is gone and your byatch is bleeding from her whateva" are said lefties under any obligation to hold back on those hurtful accusations of bigotry?

In any case Clinton went to great pains to talk about the Trump voters who weren't Deplorables but merely justifiably worried about their economic and social prospects. Fox News, Brietbart, Heat St et al filtered that into "SNOOTY McSNOOT CALLS Y'ALL DEPLORABLE!!!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 24, 2016, 09:39:37 pm
That's true for political parties, for sure but if some Trump supporter jumps into a leftie thread and barfs "suck it byatches, your spook in chief is gone and your byatch is bleeding from her whateva" are said lefties under any obligation to hold back on those hurtful accusations of bigotry?
I'm tad surprised that I have to explain this, but okay. Obviously, meaningful discussion is a two way street. It does require the other party to be willing to argue in good faith, and therefore it excludes individuals like internet trolls. Unless you're arguing that every Trump supporter or indeed right winger in general is on the same level as an internet troll, I'm not too sure how this is relevant.

Also, I thought I was quite clear in that I'm not against accusing bigots of bigotry. Like I said, telling your opponent that they're wrong and explaining why they're wrong as thoroughly as you possibly can is an important part of a political discussion. This goes for bigotry as much as any other issue.
In any case Clinton went to great pains to talk about the Trump voters who weren't Deplorables but merely justifiably worried about their economic and social prospects. Fox News, Brietbart, Heat St et al filtered that into "SNOOTY McSNOOT CALLS Y'ALL DEPLORABLE!!!"
Yeah, that's also an important (though somewhat separate) concern.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 24, 2016, 10:28:44 pm
Yeah, I dig it Art. I'm fudging some finer details here.

That said, noting that racism is a factor in politics or noting that a politician is using dog-whistle racist signalling to their constituents is not the same as saying said constituents are just a bunch of racists. Sometimes it's just a fair analysis of what"s going on.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 25, 2016, 12:28:42 am
That said, noting that racism is a factor in politics or noting that a politician is using dog-whistle racist signalling to their constituents is not the same as saying said constituents are just a bunch of racists. Sometimes it's just a fair analysis of what"s going on.
Exactly. In fact, my overall point is essentially that the former is far more useful and productive than the latter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 25, 2016, 02:35:15 am
Well, Trumps a heck of a lot better so far at keeping his promises to his just plain racist constituents than his struggling middle and working class voters.

The Alt-Right's own Bannon cosying up to the prez as chief strategist, Sessions-a guy who's federal judgeship was knocked back because of his less than friendly attitude towards civil rights (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-foreshadows-a-civil-rights-rollback/508172/) is his attorney general pick, his pick for national security adviser Flynn is a conspiracy theorist who thinks fear of Muslims is rational (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-has-said-some-incendiary-things-on-the-internet/).

Tax relief for the middle class? Nope (http://www.alternet.org/labor/already-big-gap-between-trumps-promises-middle-class-and-his-policies). Getting coal miners their jobs back? Nope (https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-says-hell-bring-back-jobs-for-coal-miners-but-he-s-just-blowing-smoke-9c9f6e7921ad#.g0gjc7k8b) and Nope (http://grist.org/briefly/mitch-mcconnell-has-already-admitted-gop-promises-to-out-of-work-coal-miners-wont-come-true/). Massive new infrastructure, probably not. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/trumps-tax-infrastructure-promises-face-pushback-from-gop-lawmakers.html)

I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Søren on November 25, 2016, 02:51:35 am


I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.

Yeah they just said that trump lied and is playing the joos.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 25, 2016, 07:56:28 am
Trumps only allegiance is to himself. He cares more about how the presidency well effect his business than his plans for the country. So far he's made no efforts to cut his ties to his business or set up blind trusts. In the end I think he's going to end up upsetting everyone that voted for him. Seeing that he's now flipping on a lot of his campaign promises. Or that a lot of his grandiose promises are most likely not going to happen because of congress. He's about to find out how powerful Congress is.
Which means that either Trumps supporters start voting out current congressman for more alt-righters, or angry Bernie supporters start voting in more progressive congressman. Judging from history when a party gets all of the power they don't usually hold onto it for long.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 25, 2016, 01:08:07 pm
Well, Trumps a heck of a lot better so far at keeping his promises to his just plain racist constituents than his struggling middle and working class voters.

The Alt-Right's own Bannon cosying up to the prez as chief strategist, Sessions-a guy who's federal judgeship was knocked back because of his less than friendly attitude towards civil rights (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-foreshadows-a-civil-rights-rollback/508172/) is his attorney general pick, his pick for national security adviser Flynn is a conspiracy theorist who thinks fear of Muslims is rational (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-national-security-adviser-has-said-some-incendiary-things-on-the-internet/).

Tax relief for the middle class? Nope (http://www.alternet.org/labor/already-big-gap-between-trumps-promises-middle-class-and-his-policies). Getting coal miners their jobs back? Nope (https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-says-hell-bring-back-jobs-for-coal-miners-but-he-s-just-blowing-smoke-9c9f6e7921ad#.g0gjc7k8b) and Nope (http://grist.org/briefly/mitch-mcconnell-has-already-admitted-gop-promises-to-out-of-work-coal-miners-wont-come-true/). Massive new infrastructure, probably not. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/trumps-tax-infrastructure-promises-face-pushback-from-gop-lawmakers.html)

I mean it hasn't all been white roses for the 8chan crowd, when they ran around screaming "hail victory" in their stubble-cuts in front of eager camera-snapping journos even Trump had to say he disavowed them. Still, he's been better at keeping his promises to the racist chan freaks than the struggling rust-belters thus far.

If this is the case, then it looks like he'll be a one-term president, if that. He can't win with the bigot vote alone.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 25, 2016, 04:11:20 pm
THE VOTING IS RIGGED AND FINALLY WE HAVE THE PROOOF!

http://www.palmerreport.com/news/three-wisconsin-precincts-revise-vote-totals-caught-padding-donald-trumps-numbers/228/

...Oh wait, which team did that? Because it only counts when the other side is doing it. (Sadly both parties act that way in USA and that's one of the reasons why things stay so bad.)

Still, I wonder what the result of the possible recount would be? I didn't think that Hillary could catch up to Donald even if there had been some vote but if just a cursory look can uncover something like this maybe there's more?

EDIT: and another source for the same story: http://wbay.com/2016/11/22/discrepancies-in-unofficial-outagamie-county-election-results-explained/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 25, 2016, 05:09:03 pm
Jill Stien is working on the money to get a recount started.  If this happens, the results of the election might change.

Ironbite-and we won't be in Darkest Timeline.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 25, 2016, 06:22:48 pm
Jill Stien is working on the money to get a recount started.  If this happens, the results of the election might change.

Ironbite-and we won't be in Darkest Timeline.

That's a slim hope at best. I think she's focused solely on Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (she should also look at Florida and maybe also North Carolina), and all three of those states would have to flip to make Clinton the winner. They're all close, but I can't see all of them flipping as the result of recounts. (Which is why I'd look at more states.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 25, 2016, 06:33:27 pm
Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.

Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 25, 2016, 06:39:49 pm
Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.

Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.

I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 25, 2016, 07:06:26 pm
Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.

Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.

I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.
Okay. The story I read about it said she is collecting the money and has been in contact with Podesta about the issue. Then it went on to discuss the deadlines for Clinton to file a complaint in each of the states instead of discussing a possibility of Stein filing it herself. That's just one story, though, so I put the qualification of uncertainty in my post.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 25, 2016, 08:12:58 pm
Well, she says that the intention is not to flip the election but make sure people can trust that the voting system is reliable.

Edit: If I've understood correctly the recount must be initiated by the Clinton campaign. Stein is just trying to collect the funds for the process - lawyers' fees and the recount costs.

I wouldn't think it would have to be. Stein was a candidate herself, and she claims to have evidence that the voting systems were manipulated. That should be enough--but then I'm not an expert on US election law, especially since every state does its own thing with different rules.
Okay. The story I read about it said she is collecting the money and has been in contact with Podesta about the issue. Then it went on to discuss the deadlines for Clinton to file a complaint in each of the states instead of discussing a possibility of Stein filing it herself. That's just one story, though, so I put the qualification of uncertainty in my post.

Maybe the rules are different for Clinton because her share of the vote was higher than Stein's. (They do that with stuff like getting on the ballot--candidates/parties that got a sufficiently high share of the vote in the last election often face reduced requirements, if they aren't automatically requalified.)

Again, not an expert.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 27, 2016, 11:27:03 pm
I think there are some valuable lessons to take away from this election.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 27, 2016, 11:28:59 pm
Rule #1: More people should listen to Jonathan Pie.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 28, 2016, 12:39:05 am
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-fraud-popular-vote/index.html

So now Trump is saying that he won the popular vote because, and get this, the nearly 2 million votes that Hillary won over Trump are fraudulent and illegal. Without any proof or sources to help his claim. We're just supposed to believe it because he said it. Because in no way could that orange piece of shit be the least popular candidate, right? This is the man who's going to be running our country folks. Someone who can't lose at something without being a fucking baby about it. A man who would go to conspiracy fake news sites to get his information.
The worst part about it is that the Trumpets will buy any lie he says. And he's told a lot of lies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 28, 2016, 03:44:25 pm
But they aren't the majority of the country.  He just won some strategically placed states.  Which....might not be his actually.  Recount is going to go underway and if Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania flip, he loses.  I'm not expecting anything to change but that's why he's bitching.

Ironbite-especially after it was found out that 5000 votes in Wisconsin didn't actually exist for him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 28, 2016, 03:50:31 pm
Wouldn't that be fucking hilarious if that happened, though?  Like, all the Trumpers are sitting around celebrating, then the recount shows that "lolnope, Hil-dog actually won, so guess what happens NOW, fucksticks?"  Unlikely, but hey, a man can dream.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 28, 2016, 03:52:06 pm
Oh I know.  I'm not even clinging to the slightest bit of hope this will do anything.  I just want to thank Jill Stein of all people of being politically savvy enough to ruffle his feathers on this.  Also he's blasting Clinton for participating in this saying "SHE GAVE UP!  I WON!  WHY IS SHE DOING THIS!" and stomping around Trump Tower all red faced and angry because he's not getting his way.

Ironbite-which will be the state of affairs for the next 4 years.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 28, 2016, 05:39:47 pm
And while Trump keeps feeding the media's hunger for simplified outrage with his public temper tantrums his cabinet and the Republicans will keep fucking the world up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 29, 2016, 12:30:24 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/steve-bannon-white-house.html?_r=0

Quote
Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, [Steve] Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.

“I said, ‘That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,’” Ms. Jones recalled. “He said, ‘Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.’ I said, ‘But what about Wendy?’” referring to Mr. Bannon’s executive assistant. “He said, ‘She’s different. She’s family.’”

Yeah.

Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's "chief strategist," said that it might not be a bad thing to exclude black people from voting.

I would not be at all surprised to see Congress outright repeal the Voting Rights Act.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 29, 2016, 02:47:39 am
One thing is certain though. If Trump doesn't become the next elected president there will be blood on the streets as his cultists grab their guns.

Because to them it would be the final proof that Hillary is "stealing" the elections.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on November 29, 2016, 04:09:52 am
In which case, so much for all the smug "Respect the results" comments of the last three weeks :P
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 29, 2016, 04:25:54 am
One thing is certain though. If Trump doesn't become the next elected president there will be blood on the streets as his cultists grab their guns.

Because to them it would be the final proof that Hillary is "stealing" the elections.
What's actually certain is that the next president after Trump will have to deal with a system crafted by and for Republicans even if Trump crashes and burns in ignominy and shame.

The Repugs had their eye on the supreme court, having effectively locked it down during Obama's final year they'll now put in hardline conservatives, hardline conservatives who'll crack down on union organizing, abortion, civil rights and net neutrality for at least a generation. This puts the Democrats in a hard position as even if they wanted to appeal to the white working class, clamping down on union organizing will probably cut off their most direct route to do just that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 29, 2016, 03:46:51 pm
Quote
[Trump]'s draining the swamp and filling it with gold coins so he can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 29, 2016, 04:18:47 pm
Do you think he'll put a Trump Tower in Washington?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 29, 2016, 04:22:54 pm
Do you think he'll put a Trump Tower in Washington?

Maybe he'll refuse to move into the White house and instead will rule from the Trump tower?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 29, 2016, 04:25:10 pm
Do you think he'll put a Trump Tower in Washington?

Maybe he'll refuse to move into the White house and instead will rule from the Trump tower?

He's already saying he'll spend weekends at the New York Trump Tower.

He's also got a hotel in DC, and foreign dignitaries have said that they'd stay there to curry favour with Trump. Except that this violates a certain clause...

Quote
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 29, 2016, 04:53:50 pm
It gets better.  He legally can't lease the building if President.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 29, 2016, 05:09:01 pm
It gets better.  He legally can't lease the building if President.

Unless Congress consents, and I'm not sure if a motion to consent can be filibustered in the Senate.

EDIT:

Meanwhile, Trump on Twitter:

Quote
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

Sure, y'know, let's just ignore Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 29, 2016, 07:23:19 pm
Like I said earlier, Trump's no more in favor of free speech than the PC crowd. And considering this comment, I think he's against it even more than them. Outright calling for the government to punish expression? That's setting off alarm bells for me.

But on the other hand, at least it's easier to deal with government censorship. So I'm kind of torn about who's worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 29, 2016, 10:59:51 pm
Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank did a study on wealth inequality in the US over the last 100 years. The results were... disturbing.

(Image is hidden because it's large.)

(click to show/hide)

The top 0.1% of households in the US (top 0.1%, not top 5% or top 1%, top 0.1%) currently have almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The last time that happened was in the run-up to the Great Depression.

When did the gap grow in favour of the bottom 90%? When the New Deal was in effect, the "Golden Age of Economic Expansion". Strict banking regulations, strong unions, high top marginal tax rates, high corporate tax rates...

When did it begin to decline? When Reaganomics fully kicked in, followed by the policies of Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama.

The US is heading for a crash that will make 2008 look like a love tap.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 30, 2016, 01:21:35 am
So basically a full on depression is incoming, with how pro business Trump is. History always seems to repeat itself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 30, 2016, 01:25:55 am
So basically a full on depression is incoming, with how pro business Trump is. History always seems to repeat itself.

The question is whether the Democratic Party can find an(other) FDR-esque candidate to sweep Trump out of office in 2020.

EDIT:

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/28/texas-republican-elector-resigns-over-trump/

Art Sisneros, a Texas elector, has resigned rather than vote for Trump or be a faithless elector.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 30, 2016, 04:39:16 am
...But the person chosen to replace Sisneros has to vote for Trump anyway am I right? So this doesn't really change anything, it's just one more person protesting against Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 30, 2016, 04:58:47 am
...But the person chosen to replace Sisneros has to vote for Trump anyway am I right? So this doesn't really change anything, it's just one more person protesting against Trump.

Nope, nothing in Texas law obligates electors to vote for any particular person.

Sisneros resigned because he felt he could not in good conscience vote for Trump or vote for someone else after having pledged to the Texas Republican Party to vote for Trump (or maybe the eventual nominee, I'm not sure exactly when Texas parties choose their electors). The only choice he felt was left to him was to resign.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 30, 2016, 08:36:10 am
I think there's only two or three states that punish faithless votes with a null vote, the rest usually just go with fines, but ultimately don't change the vote after its been cast.

While this has yet to sway a Presidential election, there is historical precedent for entire states turning against their assigned vote; Virginia did so in 1836 (I believe) against their pledged party's VP candidate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 01, 2016, 04:42:48 pm
In other news this stuff is deliciously amazing

https://trumpgrets.tumblr.com/

You reap what you sow.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 02, 2016, 02:52:42 pm
Today I learned Trump won a Razzie... for playing himself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 03, 2016, 01:50:49 am
http://qz.com/852180/trump-and-china-donald-trump-calls-taiwans-president-a-massive-diplomatic-reversal-that-will-enrage-china/?utm_source=qzfb

"Oops."

TL;DR Ever since Nixon no one in USA has been allowed to act as if Taiwan exists because China says so and US relations with China have been deemed more important than the independence of one random nation. Trump instead called the Taiwanese pro-independence president to congratulate her (and possibly to promote his businesses in Taiwan) thus ruining decades of diplomatic work with between two world powers.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 03, 2016, 02:24:12 am
How strange. For all my loathing for him, I must say I admire the sheer gall of that move.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 03, 2016, 02:29:49 am
How strange. For all my loathing for him, I must say I admire the sheer gall of that move.

I think it had nothing to do with gall and everything to do with stupidity, like when he also recently called Pakistanis "tremendous" in a phone conversation with the President of Pakistan. This, of course, prompted a reply from India, which is probably a rather more important ally than Pakistan.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on December 03, 2016, 02:31:06 am
I highly doubt he did it out of gall. More likely he did it out of a combination of stupidity, greed, ignorance and a lack of caring. Until it is proven otherwise, I will continue to say that Trump neither knows nor cares about how to do the job of the President.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 03, 2016, 03:04:44 am
Trumps business wants to build a new resort in Taiwan. Totally unrelated I'm sure!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 03, 2016, 03:40:47 am
Considering his previous comments about China it should not have been a surprise that he continued making them angry. New cold war to justify more military spending?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Murdin on December 03, 2016, 05:32:55 am
Eurasia is our ally. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Edit: while the abrupt change in foreign policy towards appeasement with Russia and saber-rattling against China matches surprisingly well with Oceania's, the American society still has a long way to go to become outright Orwellian. It's just a funny coincidence, really. I'm aware I'm ruining the joke by explaining it, but since several of my comments have already been interpreted in a more extreme/literal way than I intended them to be, better safe than sorry.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 03, 2016, 08:09:04 am
Considering his previous comments about China it should not have been a surprise that he continued making them angry. New cold war to justify more military spending?
That resembles something done with forethought. Trump may have rat bastard cunning but this looks more like a screw up borne of the man's spectacular ignorance. First of many I'll wager.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 03, 2016, 06:54:12 pm
At least China is not angry enough to say it out loud. They are saying that Trump was just tricked by Taiwan. ...Which is another way to say that they don't think he means anything bad, he's just an idiot is the way they took it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 03, 2016, 08:19:08 pm
That's even worse for him.  He's basically being told to shut up, sit down, and play with his coloring books while the grown ups deal with making dinner.

Ironbite-I LOVE IT!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 04, 2016, 12:07:12 am
So basically Jill Stein dropped the recount in PA due to costs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 04, 2016, 02:48:04 am
Doesn't she have more of Putin's cash to spend?

Come on lady, go for Medvedev's money if you're that cash strapped!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 04, 2016, 02:55:24 am
Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on December 04, 2016, 03:12:53 am
Doesn't she have more of Putin's cash to spend?

Come on lady, go for Medvedev's money if you're that cash strapped!

...What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 04, 2016, 03:54:30 am
* Jill Stein went on TYT for an online forum. She proceeded to praise Assange and Vladimir Putin, and said if she became President she would pardon Assange or something.
* Stein has also gone on record saying she considers Trump's foreign policy less scary...because he wants to work with Russia.
* has also said that Hillary is less dangerous than Donald Trump extrapolating from the above.
* Assange for his part saw a fellow in her and said attacks on her would go "through the roof".
* She showed up on Russia's propaganda outlet RT - also seen in the same clip is Michael Flynn, who really needs no new intro - and what's more sat at the head table with Putin himself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 05, 2016, 12:56:26 pm
Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)

Your proposed law violates basic precepts of federalism, and is unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 05, 2016, 01:10:54 pm
Honestly, I'd make it a federal law that if the difference between the top 2 for any federal office (including electors for President) is less than 1% of the total votes cast, there's an automatic recount, overseen by judges, costs paid by the federal government, which cannot be interrupted, challenged, or stopped for any reason barring natural disasters, and mandate paper trails for all voting machines (or, better, that voting machines used for federal elections read voter-marked paper ballots, not just print off a paper receipt). (Up here the federal threshold is 0.1%, and, yes, I'd make that 1%, too.)

Your proposed law violates basic precepts of federalism, and is unconstitutional.

That's fair. I think it would make elections fairer, but I can see how it is ultra vires the federal government. Still, there could be the "bribe them to do it" approach (or the "withhold highway funding" approach--as I recall that's how the federal government got the drinking age raised to 21 in every state).

However, I would note that it doesn't necessarily violate basic precepts of federalism, only US-style federalism (up here the federal governments regulates its own elections, for instance, and Canada is most definitely federal*), and constitutions can be amended.

*If you want to object that Canada leaves residual powers to the federal government, not the provinces, then I would note, for one, that provinces also regulate their own elections, and for another, that in Australia, which is also federal, residual powers are left to the states, not the federal government**, and the federal government, rather than the states, regulates federal elections.

**This is why the gun ban in Australia is achieved through coordinating state and territorial legislation, rather than federal legislation. The Australian government has no authority to regulate firearms.

My proposal may well violate the precepts of the federal system to which you're accustomed, but it most definitely does not violate the "basic precepts of federalism," because the particulars of an implementation of the concept of federalism that are not shared across all systems implementing it (as this one is not) cannot, by definition, be "basic precepts."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 07, 2016, 06:18:34 am
Took a gander at Wikipedia's page on Trump's 2000 presidential bid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000). Makes for interesting reading.

For instance, Trump campaigned for universal health care, named Oprah Winfrey as his ideal running mate and called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler Lover".

I wonder if he really believes in anything, aside from making a quick exit with pockets full of suckers money that is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 07, 2016, 08:02:18 am
He's basically a con man.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 07, 2016, 09:29:06 am
Said it before, sayin it again: the only thing in which Donald Trump believes is Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on December 07, 2016, 04:43:18 pm
So apparently Time named Trump as Person of the Year.

I should point out that Person of the Year is not necessarily an endorsement nor a condemnation. It is given to the person that Time thinks had the most historic impact of the year. And, yeah, I'd say that would be Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 07, 2016, 04:45:10 pm
Yeah, that's why Hitler was also the person of the year. You can't deny that he had a huge impact on the world.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 07, 2016, 04:57:43 pm
Yeah, that's why Hitler was also the person of the year. You can't deny that he had a huge impact on the world.

And Stalin was given the title twice. It's about significance, not goodness.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 07, 2016, 05:10:37 pm
No doubt Trump will see it the other way around.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 07, 2016, 06:46:14 pm
Took a gander at Wikipedia's page on Trump's 2000 presidential bid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000). Makes for interesting reading.

For instance, Trump campaigned for universal health care, named Oprah Winfrey as his ideal running mate and called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler Lover".

I wonder if he really believes in anything, aside from making a quick exit with pockets full of suckers money that is.

I've recommended the book "The Authoritarians" before, but it explains the phenomenon. In essence, Trump is a social dominator who enjoys the power that comes from controlling others. These people really don't care much for policy or consistency, because it gets in the way of power, which they want. They are very likely to flip-flop because, again, power is more important to them than policy... That is until they get elected, then they just do whatever the fuck they want, because again, power!

If what I just said scares you, it should. You should be terrified. I mean shitting your pants scared. This book was written almost a decade ago, and it describes Trump, his followers, the increase in violence, and so many things we're seeing right now to a T.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 07, 2016, 08:08:08 pm
Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 07, 2016, 08:26:04 pm
Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.

The House is gerrymandered all to hell, and it'll be even worse since the Voting Rights Act has been disemboweled (not that I'd expect any Justice Department headed by Jeff Sessions to enforce the VRA however strong its provisions might be). And the Senate map for 2018 has a huge number of Democratic incumbents, making it very difficult for them to make gains and very likely that they will lose seats.

For instance, do you really think the Dems could pick off any of Arizona, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, or Wyoming? That leaves only Nevada as being vulnerable on the Republican side, while on the Democratic side Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia are all vulnerable. Given the 2016 election, I could even see them threatened in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

The anti-Trump backlash would have to be amazingly strong to give the Democrats a majority in the Senate (since they'd need 2 seats even if they win the Louisiana runoff, thanks to Pence's tiebreaking vote), and I really only see one vulnerable Republican Senator. Meanwhile I see potentially twelve vulnerable Democratic Senators.

I am not sanguine about the Dems' prospects in 2018.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 07, 2016, 09:07:17 pm
Well fortunately the constitution doesn't allow Trump to become a dictator of the country. Political parties don't hang onto absolute power for long and I forsee a large gain of democrats in the house in senate in 2018. Mainly because history repeats itself.

As a lawyer, that is pretty silly. Governments are only as strong as their institutions, which are only as strong as the norms that surround them. As George Bush is falsely accused to have said, "the Constitution is a piece of paper." The only thing really keeping Trump from trampling the Constitution is the Supreme Court, and Trump may appoint as many as three Justices, assuming he doesn't go full court-packing. That isn't even considering the federal appointments that he will make to the District Courts and Courts of Appeals, which will decide most cases (as SCoTUS has discretionary review). Then there is also the Jackson problem of "the Court made their decision, let them enforce it." In essence, I think it is the greatest example of American exceptionalism to think that we cannot fall prey to totalitarian regimes. None of this is to say that Trump absolutely will bring about totalitarianism, but to say that if you play with fire enough, eventually you will get burned. And this is the closest we have come to a totalitarian leader in our nation's history.

Also, the Weimar Republic had one of the most liberal and pro-civil rights constitutions of its time... and look what happened to it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on December 08, 2016, 04:19:35 am
The problem with assuming the constitution will prevent Trump and the Republican controlled (despite a 9-13% approval rating, just to show how fucked the system is) congress from going full on fascist is that that requires the checks and balances the system was designed to have to be working as intended. As it stands, within four years, there is a VERY good chance, I'd say more likely than not, that the entire federal government and the majority of state level governments will be under Republican control. The checks and balances are gone. We're in for a very rough probably four and likely eight years.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 08, 2016, 04:54:24 am
The problem with assuming the constitution will prevent Trump and the Republican controlled (despite a 9-13% approval rating, just to show how fucked the system is) congress from going full on fascist is that that requires the checks and balances the system was designed to have to be working as intended. As it stands, within four years, there is a VERY good chance, I'd say more likely than not, that the entire federal government and the majority of state level governments will be under Republican control. The checks and balances are gone. We're in for a very rough probably four and likely eight years.

Very good chance?

The Republicans control the Presidency. They control the House of Representatives. They control the Senate. They control the Governorship and both houses of the state legislature (the lone house for Nebraska) in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. They will control at least one of those bodies in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

They're already there.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 08, 2016, 01:57:52 pm
So, basically, if Trump wants to declare himself Eternal Super Fuhrer, all he needs to do is pass an amendment saying the following;

Donald J. Trump will never be removed from office, is Eternal Super Fuhrer, and there are no longer any elections.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 08, 2016, 10:26:04 pm
And get two thirds of both parts of Congress to ratify it, which is borderline impossible.  Plus, the people can petition their state governments to pass another Amendment to undo it which, again, would require a two thirds majority in the resultant convention.

Trump won't take over and become our new emperor.  That's fearmongering bullshit and not how the god damned government works.  He'll be another Bush, Jr. and that's going to be pretty much it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 09, 2016, 04:48:27 am
He doesn't have to be God Emperor to do a shitton of damage. Bush Jr stuck America and it's allies in a a military mire that lasted longer than both world wars and led to the rise of ISIS.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 09, 2016, 05:42:47 am
They also legalized torture in USA and kidnapped people without a trial. I find it sad that USA still hasn't done anything about that bit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 09, 2016, 01:03:14 pm
They also legalized torture in USA and kidnapped people without a trial. I find it sad that USA still hasn't done anything about that bit.

We really can't do anything about it. The people who care have no power and the people with power seem to have no problem with it. We could maybe elect representatives who will promise to, idk, close down Gitmo. But really it'd be up to them to keep their promise.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 09, 2016, 02:28:18 pm
Unfortunately, its not quite that simple.  Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause.  Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 09, 2016, 03:01:38 pm
Unfortunately, its not quite that simple.  Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause.  Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.

...And once again USA is going to ignore the horrible stuff they did because they don't want to admit that they do horrible stuff.

And saying "but the politicians don't care about it" only matters if you live in a country where the voters don't get to pick the politicians.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 09, 2016, 03:10:40 pm
Unfortunately, its not quite that simple.  Gitmo has several people that went in with no trial and with little cause.  Releasing them would require to admitting to ruining the lives of several people; any administration that did it would bear the brunt of the backlash and significantly harm their chances of reelection.

...And once again USA is going to ignore the horrible stuff they did because they don't want to admit that they do horrible stuff.

And saying "but the politicians don't care about it" only matters if you live in a country where the voters don't get to pick the politicians.

>Implying the voters still pick the politicians in America

In all seriousness, I'm not sure how much real power the voters still have. Look at all the influence big corporations, the media, and special interest groups have over the government.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 09, 2016, 03:43:24 pm
I don't, I know it's an outsiders view but the US isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). It's why the Dems ignored working class voters and the Repugs used them with cheerful cynicism.

Right now one oligarchy faction has chosen a dangerous clown as their public face, it doesn't mean they'll let him be their God emperor. He's merely useful to them right now. If he ceases to be useful, like Nixon they'll toss him under the bus.

None of this means that the symptoms of fascism or dictatorship can't take place. Attacks on civil rights, attacks on the press, attacks on voting rights. Police brutality and the use of military tactics to quash dissent. All of this is already happening. It's worth remembering that under the legal framework that Americans still have Japanese internment happened, death squads (the original KKK) happened, Joseph McCarthy's Un American Activities committee happened and yes, government sanction of torture and invasion of sovereign states on the flimsiest of pretexts happened.

What I find interesting about the history of Fascism is that people remember the strongmen themselves but not the oligarchs standing behind them. It's worth remembering that Mussolini's march on Rome was an attempt to quash socialist opposition and a general strike. Strongmen are the cudgel of the ruling classes, they're pulled out when public anger towards them gets particularly acute. That's the time to divide and rule that anger, rally some of it behind them and squish the remainder for "disloyalty", "being unpatriotic" or whatever.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 09, 2016, 04:33:38 pm
I don't, I know it's an outsiders view but the US isn't a democracy. It's an oligarchy (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). It's why the Dems ignored working class voters and the Repugs used them with cheerful cynicism.

Right now one oligarchy faction has chosen a dangerous clown as their public face, it doesn't mean they'll let him be their God emperor. He's merely useful to them right now. If he ceases to be useful, like Nixon they'll toss him under the bus.

None of this means that the symptoms of fascism or dictatorship can't take place. Attacks on civil rights, attacks on the press, attacks on voting rights. Police brutality and the use of military tactics to quash dissent. All of this is already happening. It's worth remembering that under the legal framework that Americans still have Japanese internment happened, death squads (the original KKK) happened, Joseph McCarthy's Un American Activities committee happened and yes, government sanction of torture and invasion of sovereign states on the flimsiest of pretexts happened.

What I find interesting about the history of Fascism is that people remember the strongmen themselves but not the oligarchs standing behind them. It's worth remembering that Mussolini's march on Rome was an attempt to quash socialist opposition and a general strike. Strongmen are the cudgel of the ruling classes, they're pulled out when public anger towards them gets particularly acute. That's the time to divide and rule that anger, rally some of it behind them and squish the remainder for "disloyalty", "being unpatriotic" or whatever.

You're assuming Trump is a friend of "the oligarchy". Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's a bit early to judge. He's not even in office yet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 09, 2016, 05:17:39 pm
Given his proposed cabinet appointments, I'd say he's kowtowing to the oligarchy at a minimum.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 09, 2016, 05:28:46 pm

You're assuming Trump is a friend of "the oligarchy". Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that it's a bit early to judge. He's not even in office yet.

Trump is as literal an avatar of an oligarch as you can get, he's a lot closer to that than a Fascist. Trump believes in Trump, Trump thinks he's entitled to women's pussies, the United States of America and the adoration of all because he's rich. He named his company Scion FFS. A Scion is a lineal descendant of someone who inherits wealth and power.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 09, 2016, 07:03:03 pm
Yeah but he's a friend of himself first, not anyone else.  Everything he does is done for the advantage of himself first and everyone else can get fucked.  That might be what ultimately saves us.

Ironbite-Trump's attempts to win back that 3 million he lost in this election which grates on his soul.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 10, 2016, 12:21:30 am
Keep in mind Hitler himself made it clear his Nazi Party was a friend of big business and would not fundamentally change Germany.

Take a look at how that went.

The powerful political people of Germany thought they could control and use Hitler as a public face to enrich themselves. Instead, Hitler proceeded to concentrate power entirely within the position he held, gave the SS a monopoly on force within the state, and made it so businesses could only stay as long as they served him, otherwise their leadership went away and was replaced by Nazi Yes-Men.

We have to be careful about this.

Trump has powerful tools at his disposal, such as the "PATRIOT" Act, and a number of defense bills we only tentatively trusted Obama with. The Nazis could not win the popular vote - they got a tiny percentage and got as far as they did on a concession. Trump's people got him into office without the concession.

I don't say this to say Trump literally is Hitler. I'm saying he embodies many of the same disturbed forces Hitler embodied, and has advantages and power even the German Fuhrer did not have. Call him a clown, but remember that clowns can be very frightening indeed if given the proper utencils.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 10, 2016, 05:41:03 pm
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38258967

Goddamnit, Hillary.

In the wake of the "Pizzagate" bullshit, Hillary Clinton has made a speech calling for the government to crack down on "fake news."

Because that's totally OK and not in violation of the First Amendment and totally not what totalitarian regimes like China do and absolutely a power you want Donald Trump to have, right?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 11, 2016, 12:04:49 am
I'm not too worried about that and am more worried about Trump choosing exxon mobil CEO as secretary of state. A man who has no government or foreign policy experience. By drain the swamp I guess Trump meant get rid of anyone that might have an inkling of what they're doing and putting all of his rich friends or people who said nice things about him in power.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 11, 2016, 12:16:15 am
I'm not too worried about that and am more worried about Trump choosing exxon mobil CEO as secretary of state. A man who has no government or foreign policy experience. By drain the swamp I guess Trump meant get rid of anyone that might have an inkling of what they're doing and putting all of his rich friends or people who said nice things about him in power.

Oh, I agree. That's way more concerning.

But seriously, her first speech since the election and it's about (further) restraining civil liberties? Not about how every single one of Trump's announced cabinet appointments is horrible? Not about how his policy proposals are going to devastate the middle and working classes for the benefit of the rich? Not a mea culpa about misreading the electorate and taking fucktons of donor money, or choosing Kaine instead of someone like Warren as a running mate, or campaigning on identity politics and naughty language instead of the issues? (To quote a certain former president, "It's the economy, stupid.")

A certain Ludacris song describes exactly what the Democratic establishment has to do now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 11, 2016, 02:25:56 am
Cracking down on fake news is not totalitarian. Censoring people before they have said anything is but if they have repeatedly said something that is illegal or in this case propaganda to fool people then shutting them up is ok. At least that is how Finland treats the freedom of speech and even if the laws in USA are different it still doesn't mean that any deviation from the US way automatically makes you into a Commie-Nazi.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 11, 2016, 02:31:02 am
Cracking down on fake news is not totalitarian. Censoring people before they have said anything is but if they have repeatedly said something that is illegal or in this case propaganda to fool people then shutting them up is ok. At least that is how Finland treats the freedom of speech and even if the laws in USA are different it still doesn't mean that any deviation from the US way automatically makes you into a Commie-Nazi.

The problem is, who decides what's fake? If you want to sue for libel after the fact, OK, but the impression I got was that she was arguing that somebody should step in before stories like the "Pizzagate" nonsense ever see the light of day.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 11, 2016, 03:08:13 am
In my opinion, nonsense like that should in all honesty be called the utter tripe it is and forced out of focus by the media.

However it appears Clinton said something you deemed unfavorable, thus in a topic about a potentially very dangerous fascist you felt compelled to bring up Clinton (again) as if what she did was somehow equal to something Trump is out to do.

...Why?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 11, 2016, 03:23:24 am
In my opinion, nonsense like that should in all honesty be called the utter tripe it is and forced out of focus by the media.

However it appears Clinton said something you deemed unfavorable, thus in a topic about a potentially very dangerous fascist you felt compelled to bring up Clinton (again) as if what she did was somehow equal to something Trump is out to do.

...Why?

Because she should be calling that dangerous fascist what he is and calling him out for his terrible policy proposals and appointees, not calling for unconstitutional laws. It speaks very ill of her that she should lose to a joke like Trump, go away for a month, then come back, pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy, and say something like this that proves she doesn't rather than giving a speech on important matters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: LeTipex on December 11, 2016, 04:23:23 am
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy

You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?

Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 11, 2016, 04:57:53 am
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy

You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?

Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...

She won the popular vote, yes, but lost states that Democratic candidates hadn't lost in almost thirty years. (Bush Sr. was the last Republican to take Michigan or Pennsylvania, and Reagan was the last one to take Wisconsin.) Her wing of the Democratic Party fell out of touch with what voters in those states think, and they remember all too well that it was Bill Clinton who did NAFTA and Hillary Clinton who called the TPP "the gold standard." As far as many of them are concerned, NAFTA shipped half their jobs out of the country and TPP would do for the other half, and they were not going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA and flip-flopped on the TPP.

She lost the Rust Belt, probably also costing the Democrats the Senate since Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had Republican incumbents, and if the Democratic Party has any designs on getting back into power, they need to ditch the corporatist wing of the party that can't credibly speak to those voters. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is to many voters the personification of that part of the Democratic Party, and as such for the party to have any hope she has to go away. Her clinging onto relevance only hurts the party at this point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 11, 2016, 03:11:45 pm
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on December 12, 2016, 12:38:07 am
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/

I usually go with a good rule of thumb: if the website refers to the liberal, currently minority part of the USA as the "Democrat Party", they're probably not a reliable source.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 12, 2016, 09:29:35 am
So Donald Trump's excuse for not getting daily security briefings is because he's like totally smart you guys.

"I'm, like, a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/donald-trump-talks-policy-conflicts-calls-idea-russians-helped-him-n694581
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 12, 2016, 03:13:57 pm
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/

When it comes to accusations like this, I'd advise skepticism. Be willing to look at the evidence, if the source provides it, but don't just assume they're guilty unless there's some kind of smoking gun.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 15, 2016, 11:26:41 pm
And get two thirds of both parts of Congress to ratify it, which is borderline impossible.  Plus, the people can petition their state governments to pass another Amendment to undo it which, again, would require a two thirds majority in the resultant convention.

Trump won't take over and become our new emperor.  That's fearmongering bullshit and not how the god damned government works.  He'll be another Bush, Jr. and that's going to be pretty much it.

I wanted to take a few days to think over what I was trying to say because I think you raise a very valid point. To clarify, I am speaking out of two sides of my mouth to an extent. On the one hand, I repeat my prior statement that I think it is the worst form of American exceptionalism to believe that we are somehow immune to falling prey to an authoritarian leader. We have a Constitution, but so have several European nations that fell to fascism in the 40's, and so have many modern African nations that fell prey to dictators more recently. At the end of the day, the Constitution is a piece of paper that outlines division of powers and political institutions and not some magical panacea for the preservation of democracy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SRtVWXm1p0).

On the other, Trump represents something fundamentally different than our previous presidents: he has a complete disdain for the facts, glorifies himself above all else, openly discussed curtailing civil liberties during the election season, has no policy experience, has no respect for division of powers of the institutions within government, is probably the most authoritarian president in our history, and largely got elected due to bigotry, xenophobia, and fear.

To clarify, I cannot quantify in terms of percentages the risk that Trump poses, because this is novel territory that we are treading on. That said, I think Trump represents a sort of stress test to our government, the institutions within it, and our separation of powers. He talked about religious tests for entering the United States and for citizenship, he talked about databases and registries for those same religious groups, he has repeatedly called for curtailing the freedom of the press and appears to be taken steps in that direction before elected (threatening the press off the record, threatening to remove access to press that won't say what he wants, going so long without a press conference), he has called to remove jus soli and to be allowed to strip citizens of citizenship, he has showed complete disregard for the 4-6th Amendments and the rights of the criminally accused, and he doesn't understand the divide between state and federal powers as he has several times called for things that violate the 10th Amendment, among other Constitutional provisions. All that said, while he may not be able to achieve every unconstitutional thing he wants, he will achieve some of them because our Constitution's best safeguard is the separation of powers, which is purely hypothetical today as the Republicans in Congress have no interest in standing up against him.

I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/

I usually go with a good rule of thumb: if the website refers to the liberal, currently minority part of the USA as the "Democrat Party", they're probably not a reliable source.

A very good rule of thumb.

pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy

You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?

Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...

She won the popular vote, yes, but lost states that Democratic candidates hadn't lost in almost thirty years. (Bush Sr. was the last Republican to take Michigan or Pennsylvania, and Reagan was the last one to take Wisconsin.) Her wing of the Democratic Party fell out of touch with what voters in those states think, and they remember all too well that it was Bill Clinton who did NAFTA and Hillary Clinton who called the TPP "the gold standard." As far as many of them are concerned, NAFTA shipped half their jobs out of the country and TPP would do for the other half, and they were not going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA and flip-flopped on the TPP.

She lost the Rust Belt, probably also costing the Democrats the Senate since Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had Republican incumbents, and if the Democratic Party has any designs on getting back into power, they need to ditch the corporatist wing of the party that can't credibly speak to those voters. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is to many voters the personification of that part of the Democratic Party, and as such for the party to have any hope she has to go away. Her clinging onto relevance only hurts the party at this point.


She lost those states because they have a high level of uneducated, white voters. If you take a chance to read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, you will see that those people are most susceptible to voting for an authoritarian wanker like Trump (hence why I remain skeptical that they'd vote Bernie over Trump). Also, just because they believe that free trade killed their jobs does not make it so: the CBO did a study in 2003 that found its effect on jobs was negligible while growing the economy by about 3%. What is more, if you look at when most of those jobs were lost, it was following NAFTA, but after the dot-com bubble burst, indicating that free trade is not the jobs killer that so many idiots like to make it out to be.

Further, if Bernie were the nom, while he probably would've won Wisconsin and Michigan, maybe Pennsylvania to a lesser degree of certainty, he would've handily lost Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona. He also probably would have lost Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio, meaning that Trump would still likely hit 270. The trade off was that Bernie did better with whites, but he did not do as well with Hillary's more racially diverse electorate that make up a sizeable population in each of the six states listed. And, if the Superdelegates took the election from Hillary, whom most of them voted for, I can only imagine them feeling pissed that the Supers stole the nomination from their candidate in favor of the White-Man's candidate (as women, racial minorities, and maybe even LGBTQ voters went Hillary, the last one being that the only poll I looked up on LGBTQ voters showed a close race in March, with them favoring Hillary). This circular firing squad that certain Democrats are trying to create, calling to end things like "political correctness" and "identity politics" (as you have done and as Bernie has done) in favor of catering to uneducated whites who don't know the fucking cause of their problems is asinine as it won't win any elections, but it will throw away the larger voting blocs that the Democrats have relied on for almost half a century. Not to mention that "political correctness" caused Pat McCrory to lose North Carolina after trying his whole transgender bathroom bullshit. Tangentially, it is also worth noting that in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Bernie or Bust got Jill Stein more votes than the difference between Hillary and Trump.

Truth be told, I'm really over you going after Hillary like a dog chasing a car. She lost, it sucks, but give her a break dude. Cracking down on fake news is not a threat to the first amendment as the two are easily distinguishable. And her weakness was not due to being "establishment" or "corporate" (facts indicate she's not nearly as corporate as people like to believe, but I've posted those articles almost a dozen times now) and the selective call for purity with regards to Clinton (but not say, Obama 4 or 8 years ago) for her corporate ties is sexism, plain and simple.* Her weakness was due to a lack of trust, which was borne of 30 years Conservative media smears, two dozen Congressional investigations totaling almost $250 million by the GOP, and good ole fashion sexism, all of which Bernie was more than happy to fan the flames of during the primaries. The Comey letter played on this weakness in the waning days of the election, and as FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver has said, if not for the Comey Letter, Clinton would be president-elect today. Seriously dude, give it a break.

*Now, that is not to say that every individual who has a problem with Clinton's corporate ties is a sexist. However, if those people did not have a problem with Obama's corporate ties (not today, four and eight years ago when he ran), or didn't care enough about the issue to research it and educate themselves, then I have no problem saying that they are sexist. That is also not to say that you could not favor Bernie for having fewer corporate ties, but to hark on it as some sort of disqualifier or big knock against her (yet not Obama) is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on December 16, 2016, 02:25:05 am
I partly agree with dpareja. People just don't like Hillary Clinton. I'm not her biggest fan for a few reasons and those reasons are part of why I was squarely in the Sanders camp and I do feel like the Democrats could have found a more likable candidate, but I also believe that the vast majority of the reasons people dislike her are utter horseshit. Remember that we just had an election cycle where the media spent the better part of two years constantly reporting on a manufactured and politically motivated e-mail scandal.

My reasons for disliking Clinton are things like despising the idea of legacy presidency and disliking her corporate ties (disclaimer: I had this same problem with Obama, but fully believe that, at worst, a Hillary Clinton presidency would be basically four more years of Obama, which isn't a bad thing). She isn't even near HALF as bad as people think she is, let alone the meme perpetuated by the idiots that still think Clinton would be just as bad as Trump. However, regardless of how things are in actuality, the appearance is that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger, quick to change her views when politically convenient, corrupted by corporate interests, out of touch with the people and thinks she is entitled to become president (this, I almost agree with, but I can't say for certain if I think it's the reality).

However, I stand by my opinion that there isn't a simple reason Clinton lost, but rather numerous reasons. The media has been an absolute embarrassment for the last two years, treating Trump with kid gloves, while constantly harping on Clinton's fucking e-mails, there is a demonstrable trend among Trump supporters to be racists or sexists emboldened by Trump's complete disinterest in calling them out on their bullshit, the Bernie or Busters that voted Johnson (oh, the irony) or Stein because of worthless principle, the rigged primary conspiracy the same still try to cling to (and this is coming from someone who thinks the DNC did have a bias against Sanders, even if the conspiracy is pure tinfoil hat territory).

But let's also address Sanders. Do I think he would have won had he won the primary? Honestly, as Sanders himself has put it, it doesn't matter. It's pointless to cry about what could have been. Sanders was behind in the popular vote from day one and he couldn't get the black or latino vote, who were squarely in the Clinton camp from the beginning. While it may make for an interesting thought experiment someday, right now, the focus needs to be on what can be done to minimize the damage Trump and the entirely Republican controlled federal government, not just can, but WILL do.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 17, 2016, 01:47:19 am
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 17, 2016, 06:04:54 pm
Best summary yet I've heard of Trumps method of hiding consequential news inside a torrent of bullshit. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-trump-plays-media-to-hide-big-news-stories/)

Quote
And if you dig into Trump's tweets, as I've had the misfortune of doing, you'll notice that this is a trend. He says one or two things that are stupid, irrelevant, or even offensive (to people who already don't like him), and once that becomes the story of the day, something more important but boring quietly gets announced. It's a strategy dudes use in sitcoms to distract their girlfriends from bad news. ("How was your day, honey?" "Oh, you know, I had a great lunch, fixed Steve's mistakes at work, and, uh, crashedyourcar. You know, same old.") And it's being used by a man who's about to be the goddamn president.

Expect when World War Three is announced it will in between ten tweets boasting about his steaks, yelling at the New York Times, scolding the cast of Hamilton and musing about his new golf course!

EDIT: And buried somewhere in the torrent of BS spewing forth from the Trump campaign was the announcement that they'll move the US embassy to "Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem," (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador-pick-anger-arabs-palestinians-jerusalem-a7480041.html). Oh. Fuck.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 18, 2016, 12:17:17 am
Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: TheContrarian on December 18, 2016, 10:05:14 am
Best summary yet I've heard of Trumps method of hiding consequential news inside a torrent of bullshit. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-trump-plays-media-to-hide-big-news-stories/)

Quote
And if you dig into Trump's tweets, as I've had the misfortune of doing, you'll notice that this is a trend. He says one or two things that are stupid, irrelevant, or even offensive (to people who already don't like him), and once that becomes the story of the day, something more important but boring quietly gets announced. It's a strategy dudes use in sitcoms to distract their girlfriends from bad news. ("How was your day, honey?" "Oh, you know, I had a great lunch, fixed Steve's mistakes at work, and, uh, crashedyourcar. You know, same old.") And it's being used by a man who's about to be the goddamn president.

Expect when World War Three is announced it will in between ten tweets boasting about his steaks, yelling at the New York Times, scolding the cast of Hamilton and musing about his new golf course!

EDIT: And buried somewhere in the torrent of BS spewing forth from the Trump campaign was the announcement that they'll move the US embassy to "Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem," (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador-pick-anger-arabs-palestinians-jerusalem-a7480041.html). Oh. Fuck.

It's not exactly Trump's fault that progressives on social media are a bunch of hysterical, screechy and easily manipulated dickholes.

Knowing how and when to whip them up into a windowlicking frenzy is just good messaging.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 18, 2016, 02:29:56 pm
So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?

Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.

Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: TheContrarian on December 18, 2016, 04:15:25 pm
So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?

Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.

Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?

Er, your initial complaint was about the lack of attention paid to things he was saying later in the day. 

Do try to keep up.

The point is, if you garner a reputation for flying off the handle and go into full-on progressive SCREEEEEEEEE mode the moment the man says anything, any competent politician is going to structure their messaging so the more unsavoury bits get drowned out by the histrionics you've already had going on since earlier in the day.

If your view is obstructed because of the amount of saliva you've deposited on the bus window, there's a very simple solution...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 18, 2016, 05:00:42 pm
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis.  Preferably a transparent one, too.

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 18, 2016, 07:40:40 pm
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis.  Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.

Such as...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 18, 2016, 08:00:09 pm
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis.  Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

On the other hand, both her speeches and her website were prepared in advance (and not necessarily by her), whereas interviews and debates have more off-the-cuff dialogue. And since Americans tend to be cynical about politicians (especially those they view as "career" politicians), many of them will place more weight on what is said in a more naturalistic setting.

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.

Such as...

Such as the fact that nobody has the right to not be offended.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 18, 2016, 08:26:13 pm
Because I'm still not done beating the dead horse of the democrats' circular firing squad regarding "political correctness" and "identity politics," (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/) it turns out Hillary did not focus her campaign on either, but focused mainly on jobs and the economy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech). You know, that nice little thing that those white people in the midwest cared about. In fact, she talked about jobs six times as often as she did Muslims, which was her most talked about political identity.The article also analyzes words used to describe both Trump and Clinton in the media, and found out that most of Trump's coverage focused on policy whereas Clinton's focused on dishonesty and corruption.

In terms of what Clinton talked about, I don't think that's enough to draw conclusions from. Speeches aren't the only part of a political campaign. I'm not dismissing the claim outright, just saying we need a more comprehensive analysis.  Preferably a transparent one, too.

Speeches are good metric because those are given often and an analysis of the words can show, roughly, how much time she spent talking about each. While it may have some limitations, it's strength is that, unlike during Q&A sessions, this is her time that she gives to her issues. Another metric is to look at her website: out of 41 issues she gives detailed policies for, seven focus on identity politics (disability, racial justice, voting rights etc.) and 15 focus on economic factors (for the record, some could go either way, like paid family leave, so I just threw it into the identity politics section and excluded from the economic section, to err on the side of caution).

Now, if you think there is a better metric, by all means I welcome you presenting us with it. But, as it stands now, I do think there is enough evidence to show that she did focus more on the economy than identity politics.

On the other hand, both her speeches and her website were prepared in advance, whereas interviews and debates have more off-the-cuff dialogue. And since Americans tend to be cynical about politicians (especially those they view as "career" politicians), many of them will place more weight on what is said in a more naturalistic setting.

But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Sad that Bernie Sanders learned the worst possible lesson he could from Trump winning. "War on political correctness" is mainly an excuse to be rude and/or to lie about minorities.

I won't deny that some people use it to excuse their bigotry and bad manners. But saying it's "mainly" that is generalization. There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike political correctness.

Such as...

Such as the fact that nobody has the right to not be offended.

You know, I knew as soon as I asked the question that I would get some wishiwashy answer like this. Fact of the matter is, nobody is gonna sit here and argue that SJWs totes have great ideas. However, that is not the way that people are talking about political correctness at the moment. At the moment, political correctness is Times' using "person of the year" instead of "man of the year." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xCTQ3brk6w) It is  a transgender woman using the women's bathroom. (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html) It is calls to focus less on racial and gender equality in favor of white populism (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.qifm7nf5w). And the people arguing against political correctness are playing a game of three-card monte with the rest of us, where they justify anti-PC beliefs by pointing to extremes before go after the mundane, a mundane which amounts to inclusion and treating non-white men with basic human decency. The irony in all of this is that when you look at the people griping about identity politics, the group that cares most about it happens to be white men.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 18, 2016, 08:40:59 pm
So it's the "lefts" fault that the Donald is being manipulative, including his attempts to manipulate conflict in the already burning Middle East?

Naughty left for paying attention to the President elect of the United States I suppose.

Are his followers also foolish for being manipulated into voting for him-what with the non-existent wall he got them all so excited about?

Er, your initial complaint was about the lack of attention paid to things he was saying later in the day. 

Do try to keep up.

The point is, if you garner a reputation for flying off the handle and go into full-on progressive SCREEEEEEEEE  mode the moment the man says anything, any competent politician is going to structure their messaging so the more unsavoury bits get drowned out by the histrionics you've already had going on since earlier in the day.

If your view is obstructed because of the amount of saliva you've deposited on the bus window, there's a very simple solution...
Donald is typical of "competent politicians"? In what universe? One where Chiang Kai-shek won China?

Also we are discussing a man who frequently loses his shit at SNL skits, time magazine not using his favored gendered pronoun and critical Broadway productions, so much for going into automatic "scree" mode, and competency for that matter!

The point is, like much of what Donald does, babbling a metric ton of bullshit with a single salient point in it isn't a master plan of his, just a byproduct of his childlike inability to focus on anything for more than a minute flat. It just happens to work to his advantage in one area only.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 19, 2016, 12:43:46 pm
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

You know, I knew as soon as I asked the question that I would get some wishiwashy answer like this. Fact of the matter is, nobody is gonna sit here and argue that SJWs totes have great ideas. However, that is not the way that people are talking about political correctness at the moment. At the moment, political correctness is Times' using "person of the year" instead of "man of the year." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xCTQ3brk6w) It is  a transgender woman using the women's bathroom. (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html) It is calls to focus less on racial and gender equality in favor of white populism (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.qifm7nf5w). And the people arguing against political correctness are playing a game of three-card monte with the rest of us, where they justify anti-PC beliefs by pointing to extremes before go after the mundane, a mundane which amounts to inclusion and treating non-white men with basic human decency. The irony in all of this is that when you look at the people griping about identity politics, the group that cares most about it happens to be white men.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 19, 2016, 01:47:20 pm
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.

But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 19, 2016, 06:14:53 pm
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.

But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.

There are two problems with what you're saying. The first is in regards to WikiLeaks. What it revealed goes a lot deeper than Donna's email (http://observer.com/2016/11/new-dnc-emails-expose-more-dnc-media-clinton-campaign-collusion/). And the second is that the poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195596/email-dominates-americans-heard-clinton.aspx) only covers what Americans remembered "reading, seeing, or hearing" (their words, not mine), not what the media said. That's an important difference.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.

You're right, it's not the same. But I never said it was. I'm not talking about people being idiots on social media. If that were all PC culture was, I could live with it. Unfortunately, it's a lot worse than just that. Take a gander at what's happening on college campuses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/07/the-craziest-demands-of-college-kids-in-2016.html).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Even Then on December 19, 2016, 07:51:00 pm
So, inferring from your use of this article as a demonstration of "PC culture", your definition of "PC culture" includes

- people "demanding" change instead of just "asking for" change
- practitioners of a faith taking issue with a non-practitioner replicating sacred elements of said faith for the sake of putting on a show
- students not wanting to have an arbitrary wait period before they can study poets who aren't white guys
- Asian people wanting the Asian food in cafeterias to be more representative of actual Asian food
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces
- people with depression, anxiety disorder and/or mental trauma being impeded academically because of these neurological issues and desiring assistance from faculty that would help them work around these impediments
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 19, 2016, 08:27:55 pm
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces

If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah.  Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally.  Inciting people to riot or commit crimes?  Again, nothing wrong with punishing that.  But, just being a douchebag?  And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?"  That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain.  I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice.  Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

Also, poetry is the lowest form of creative writing, so not studying non-white poets is like not being able to study non-white mimes.  That last bit may or may not be sarcasm.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on December 19, 2016, 09:09:46 pm
- practitioners of a faith taking issue with a non-practitioner replicating sacred elements of said faith for the sake of putting on a show
Take note, people. Culture, and especially religion, are not inherently sacred. If you believe a thing is sacred because your imaginary friend said so, fine, you do you. However, and I cannot stress this enough, you do not have the right to have your beliefs validated by non-believers. Honestly, I'm absolutely fed up with religious entitlement.

Also, I should point out that culture itself, much like pretty much everything humanity has come up with, is highly iterative. Progress as a whole is far more the result of adopting and iterating upon foreign ideas than it is about originality. My overall point is that if appropriation never happened, be it cultural or otherwise, humanity would be a far more primitive species than it is now.
- students not wanting to have an arbitrary wait period before they can study poets who aren't white guys
If you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.
- Asian people wanting the Asian food in cafeterias to be more representative of actual Asian food
See my above rant. You've no right to take away people's access to certain food because it's not made exactly the way you think it should be made. That, again, is one of the most entitled things I've ever heard.

Also, once more, food is just as iterative as anything else humanity does. Look into the history of any given dish, and it almost certainly started life as a bastardised version of something foreign. Of course westernised Chinese food is going to be different from actual Chinese food. Food changes to suit the local tastes and available ingredients, and (much like cultural appropriation) that is a good thing.
- students wanting there to actually be monitoring of shitty language on campus and enforcement of manners in public spaces
See Rav's post. Not being offended is not a basic human right, despite what some may think.
- people with depression, anxiety disorder and/or mental trauma being impeded academically because of these neurological issues and desiring assistance from faculty that would help them work around these impediments
And here's the one halfway valid point. Out of six. So yeah, that's a thing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Even Then on December 19, 2016, 09:36:36 pm
Quote from: Rav
If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah.  Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally.  Inciting people to riot or commit crimes?  Again, nothing wrong with punishing that.  But, just being a douchebag?  And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?"  That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain.  I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice.  Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

I think I've worded myself poorly and communicated things I didn't intend to. I agree that legislating politeness on a broader level is a worrisome concept, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a school to hypothetically go "if you're going to insist on being an egregious douchebag to the students or faculty within our walls, you'll get reprimanded or even penalized in some way". Also, I don't really see anything wrong with a committee that would hypothetically inform people of ways certain language can be hurtful (although giving student committees actual punitive power would, again, be worrisome).

Quote
If you want to change the content of university courses, you're going to need something a little more academically grounded than "fuck white dudes". Honestly, they're not even trying to pretend that it's about the actual poetry itself rather than merely the author's skin colour, I really don't see why you're implying that they should be taken seriously.

Because cultural background, geographic area and identity affect the context and roots, and therefore substance, of the poetry any given poet produces, and so framing a desire for more immediate access to diverse poetry to study as "merely the author's skin colour" is pretty reductive.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on December 19, 2016, 10:18:27 pm
Because cultural background, geographic area and identity affect the context and roots, and therefore substance, of the poetry any given poet produces, and so framing a desire for more immediate access to diverse poetry to study as "merely the author's skin colour" is pretty reductive.
Okay, that argument has some merit. Too bad it's really not why this is a thing.
Quote
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”
Again, the reason why the students want less white authors is simply because they're white. It's less to do with the idea that, say, the students would receive a better and more rounded understanding of poetry by studying authors with more diverse perspectives, and more that idiots are offended because white men.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 20, 2016, 12:27:53 am
Quote from: Rav
If ever there were an actual, agreeable definition of "PC" in the negative sense, that'd be it, yeah.  Hate speech, I can see you getting the shit kicked out of you, legally.  Inciting people to riot or commit crimes?  Again, nothing wrong with punishing that.  But, just being a douchebag?  And "enforcement of manners in public spaces?"  That's basically the exact thing people that bitch about "PC culture" mean when they complain.  I shouldn't be required to be polite to people, or to even be nice.  Play Ultima V and see what happens when you start legislating morality.

I think I've worded myself poorly and communicated things I didn't intend to. I agree that legislating politeness on a broader level is a worrisome concept, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a school to hypothetically go "if you're going to insist on being an egregious douchebag to the students or faculty within our walls, you'll get reprimanded or even penalized in some way". Also, I don't really see anything wrong with a committee that would hypothetically inform people of ways certain language can be hurtful (although giving student committees actual punitive power would, again, be worrisome).

That's better, aye.  I don't mind there being penalties for being a prick; just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean you have the right to use a given space for airing such things.  If that's not okay with you, find somewhere else to mouth off or stop being a cunt.

Quote
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” wrote student activists in a petition. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color.”

That is not what "hostile" means!  What you meant, you insipid bellend, is "non-inclusive."  Fuck, I'll grant you that; if you're going to waste your time getting a Walmart greeter English degree, you might as well study authors that aren't explicitly white.  Of course, its English literature, which could mean anything from "English-language literature" to "literature specifically from England."  If its the former, then it is rather queer that your courses never cover non-white authors, but if its the latter...well, yeah.  England, up until relatively recently, has been pretty fucking white.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: TheContrarian on December 20, 2016, 02:25:49 am
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 20, 2016, 03:01:22 am
Maybe Sec. Clinton could take solace in the words of another New York Democratic politician who ran for President 140 years before she did...

Quote from: Gov. Samuel Tilden
I can retire to private life with the consciousness that I shall receive from posterity the credit of having been elected to the highest position in the gift of the people, without any of the cares and responsibilities of the office.

EDIT: In fact, of the five times a candidate has won a popular plurality but not the Electoral College (Tilden is the only one of the five to win a popular majority), three--Tilden, Pres. Cleveland, and Sec. Clinton--were from New York.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on December 20, 2016, 03:18:22 am
At the moment the electors gave in a blood red comet was seen in the sky, the ravens at the tower of London took flight never to be seen again, the sun was covered in darkness and the moon turned red, rains of frogs fell around the world and churchbells around the world started ringing by themselves with an endless "Doom, Doom, Doom".

Altogether better then I thought it would be
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: TheContrarian on December 20, 2016, 03:46:41 am
At the moment the electors gave in a blood red comet was seen in the sky, the ravens at the tower of London took flight never to be seen again, the sun was covered in darkness and the moon turned red, rains of frogs fell around the world and churchbells around the world started ringing by themselves with an endless "Doom, Doom, Doom".

Altogether better then I thought it would be

Well, that's probably the view of the New York Times (or the "unnamed sources" who fed them the story, whatevs), but in reality everything is fine :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caXeAMseve0

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Stormwarden on December 20, 2016, 04:06:22 am
To you, Contrarian, I say this:

Silflay hraka, u emreer rah.

You get to figure that one out yourself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 20, 2016, 09:05:19 am
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 20, 2016, 10:53:25 am
Not to mention that even Donald Trump himself called his supporters violent.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/donald-trump-supporters-vicious-violent/

I love how he's shit on his supporters after getting elected by calling them what they are and going back on a lot of his campaign promises.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 20, 2016, 01:37:42 pm
"He's not a politician," they cry.  "He'll do what the others don't and keep to his word," they insist.

...I am completely unsurprised that he's going back on his shit.  Nobody succeeds in the political arena without becoming corrupted, its just a fuckin fact of life, at this point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 20, 2016, 04:53:07 pm
He never had any thought about keeping a single campaign promise ever.  It was just empty words.  There will be no jobs coming back from overseas, there will be no sudden good times for the rural parts of America and they will get fucked over in ways they never thought they could get fucked over.

Ironbite-but good on them for sticking it to the establishment.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 20, 2016, 07:07:01 pm
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.

It's not why he's here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)

Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 21, 2016, 12:18:18 am
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.

It's not why he's here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)

Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.

Oddly, my first thought on reading that wasn't Contrarian, but Dynamic Paragon. I kind of miss that guy, but he was a fucking idiot.

Speaking of, I'm still a Dynamic Dragon sock puppet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 21, 2016, 12:40:24 am
Queen, by chance have you been by the FSTDT main page and seen TimetoTurn's Turn to Insanity?

He honestly said everyone should heil him because he is "a man of unparalleled worth" or something.

A worthy replacement for Dynamic Paragon perhaps?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 21, 2016, 01:06:08 am
Queen, by chance have you been by the FSTDT main page and seen TimetoTurn's Turn to Insanity?

He honestly said everyone should heil him because he is "a man of unparalleled worth" or something.

A worthy replacement for Dynamic Paragon perhaps?

Can't say I have. Not familiar with his work. Either way, I know cats and dogs smarter than Paragon, so this TTT has a low bar to limbo.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 21, 2016, 01:21:37 am
Check him out.

He's;

1) a TERF / says TERFs have good ideas.
2) praised the work of the Khmer Rouge
3) wants a totalitarian society with himself in charge.
4) said he believes he is going to form the course of the world.
5) called for eugenics programs and believes the mentally ill need to be culled for the sake of his world.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 21, 2016, 01:43:32 am
Check him out.

He's;

1) a TERF / says TERFs have good ideas.
2) praised the work of the Khmer Rouge
3) wants a totalitarian society with himself in charge.
4) said he believes he is going to form the course of the world.
5) called for eugenics programs and believes the mentally ill need to be culled for the sake of his world.
The quality of our trolls is going down, all we have are two half hearted shitposters. We need zealous, serious crazy for proper entertainment. At least Ultimate Dynamic Draconic Concerned Citizen Paragon had that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Zygarde on December 21, 2016, 01:45:17 am
We have two shit posters? Who's the other?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 21, 2016, 01:52:04 am
We have two shit posters? Who's the other?
One Kommando Peste fan.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 21, 2016, 02:16:50 am
We have two shit posters? Who's the other?
One Kommando Peste fan.
But I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on December 21, 2016, 02:24:57 am
Can I be a shitposter? I do like to post opinions without supporting them and then disappear for a week or more!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 21, 2016, 02:33:09 am
Oh come on guys, he wants to be Fuhrer! Doesn't that count for something?

...well admittedly, the "wants to be Fuhrer" pool is pretty crowded, and The Donald is crowding out all the other interesting Fuhri.

^ Can you do a decent impression of Kaboom the Moon? You know, that wacko from Godlike Productions? That might work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on December 21, 2016, 02:48:26 am
Well, "fuhrer" means "leader" in German, so yes, he does and yes he is (or will be next year).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 21, 2016, 03:43:53 am
We have two shit posters? Who's the other?
One Kommando Peste fan.
But I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?
You aren't nearly edgy enough. Say something misanthropic or nihilistic from 8chan willya
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 21, 2016, 03:49:14 am
We have two shit posters? Who's the other?
One Kommando Peste fan.
But I'm not a fan of Kommando Peste. Or does that mean that I'm the other one?
You aren't nearly edgy enough. Say something misanthropic or nihilistic from 8chan willya

I'm not quite a misanthrope, though I am a nihilist. Can I haz edginess 4 das poster of shit?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on December 21, 2016, 04:24:55 pm
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.

It's not why he's here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)

Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.

Oddly, my first thought on reading that wasn't Contrarian, but Dynamic Paragon. I kind of miss that guy, but he was a fucking idiot.

Speaking of, I'm still a Dynamic Dragon sock puppet.

I'm not sure if I am his sockpuppet or if I just really enjoy the feel of his hand in my arse.

Whenever someone says 'nihilist' I immediately think: "Say what you want about the  tenets of National Socialism but at least it's an ethos'
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 22, 2016, 12:39:50 pm
But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."

Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.

Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.

But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.

There are two problems with what you're saying. The first is in regards to WikiLeaks. What it revealed goes a lot deeper than Donna's email (http://observer.com/2016/11/new-dnc-emails-expose-more-dnc-media-clinton-campaign-collusion/). And the second is that the poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195596/email-dominates-americans-heard-clinton.aspx) only covers what Americans remembered "reading, seeing, or hearing" (their words, not mine), not what the media said. That's an important difference.

It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/310964-obama-on-political-correctness-dont-go-around-just-looking-for).

Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.

I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.

You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.

You're right, it's not the same. But I never said it was. I'm not talking about people being idiots on social media. If that were all PC culture was, I could live with it. Unfortunately, it's a lot worse than just that. Take a gander at what's happening on college campuses (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/07/the-craziest-demands-of-college-kids-in-2016.html).

So, I decided just to stop the argument and throw up proof because it seems your questions are less heuristic and more to dismiss. So, I googled democratic primary debate transcript, and the first one that came up was from the April 14, debate. From that, I decided to do a small sample search, including the 2 before it (debates 7-9). I did this primarily for convenience on my part so that I wouldn't have to do all 12 debates (9 primary and 3 general). I then went through and removed all questions and statements by Sanders to focus purely on Clinton's statements. Overall, even including a number of policy issues (such as Gun and climate change) in Identity Politics, Clinton still mentioned economic issues about 2-1. Attached is the full breakdown of word appearances, and transcripts of my work.

So, I did your homework for you. As such, unless you can present evidence that including more debates would skew this breakdown, it still appears that Clinton focused far more on economic issues than identity politics.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 22, 2016, 04:08:36 pm
...The fuck is this?!

http://qz.com/870650/trumps-transition-team-is-rounding-up-names-of-us-state-department-staffers-working-on-gender-equality-issues/

I mean, it was already horrible that Trump is gathering up a hit list list of government employees who have done work promoting awareness of climate change ...but what the hell is this shit?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 22, 2016, 04:45:31 pm
Why he's making America great again of course, we can't go back to be the top polluter and anti gay country without getting rid of the people who dissent against it. 2020 can't come fast enough.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 22, 2016, 04:59:51 pm
...The fuck is this?!

http://qz.com/870650/trumps-transition-team-is-rounding-up-names-of-us-state-department-staffers-working-on-gender-equality-issues/

I mean, it was already horrible that Trump is gathering up a hit list list of government employees who have done work promoting awareness of climate change ...but what the hell is this shit?

He also doesn't want ladies in his administration unless they're hawt. (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/trump-wont-give-you-an-administration-job-if-youre-not-pretty-enough-its-more-about-the-look/) It's only a matter of time before there's a colossal fuckup of galactic proportions. "Why did you listen to that adviser? She wawz the best advisa, she was hawwwwt".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 22, 2016, 05:33:07 pm
And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.

Ironbite-he's going to destroy media relations in this country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 22, 2016, 05:37:53 pm
And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.

Ironbite-he's going to destroy media relations in this country.

Soon Alex Jones will be the only one in the White House press corps.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 22, 2016, 05:39:00 pm
Anyone in his administration that fucks up he'll either try to "fire" or put the blame completely on them or someone else because it will never be Donald Trumps fault. If a woman fucks up it was because she was a vile nasty woman, with blood coming out of her wherever.

Quote
Trump has made it clear that he wants a “telegenic woman” to be his press secretary because “he thinks it would attract viewers and would help inoculate him from the charges of sexism that trailed his presidential campaign.”

Which on it's own is sexist because you're only considering woman credible by their attractiveness.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on December 22, 2016, 08:16:11 pm
I thought this was some good analysis about the similarities between the end of Romen democracy and the current state of the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html

EDIT

And just in case you didn't think Donald Trump was the piece of putrid vomit, when his nephew challenged the Terms of Fred Trump's will claiming that Donald had “procured (the will) by fraud and undue influence” on his Alzheimer’s suffering father leaving less for his nephew.  Donald responded by cutting off his chronically ill infant son's health care.

The baby survived, and the courts forced Donald to resume health care coverage, but yeah that's the fucking president.  God help us all.  http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-sort-of-man-is-donald-trump
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on December 22, 2016, 11:53:43 pm
And the thing is, there will come a point where even Faux Noise will be going "The President royally fucked up today, here's a panel of experts on how he fucked up," and he'll cut off their access to him.

Ironbite-he's going to destroy media relations in this country.

Psh, he doesn't even need Fox News now.

“Trump TV” announces new 24-hour network will get access to White House press briefings (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/07/trump-tv-announces-new-24-hour-network-will-get-access-to-white-house-press-briefings/)

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: TheContrarian on December 24, 2016, 06:01:39 am
So, we've had our little recounts and we've tried to get the electoral college to do the undemocratic thing.

Now that's all over, can we echo the sage words of one Hillary R. Clinton and call on the losing side to accept the result of the election without (further) violence and shenanigans?

^_^

Odd, most of the violence and "shenanigans" have come from Trump's side (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/). In fact, there have been almost 1000 reported hate crimes since the election, constituting a considerable uptick. Funny that when you elect a demagogue that ran on fear, bigotry, and scapegoating vulnerable minorities, people who already had those prejudices feel emboldened and lash out at those vulnerable minorities.
We both know he's trolling and doesn't care about that fact, or any other facts really.

It's not why he's here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxarDpLUoAAnrCB.jpg)

Expect enraged squeals of "I'm not an anti semite", regardless - his style of "debate" fits the profile like a glove.

You know, if I were on your side of the aisle (http://www.itv.com/news/2016-12-23/some-uk-universities-no-go-zones-for-jewish-students-because-of-anti-semitism-academic-claims/), I might be a little more circumspect about throwing around accusations of antisemitism.

Given how snuggly the left has gotten with militant islamist groups in the last few years it may expose more about you than you initially hoped.

And that's not even getting into the nasty undercurrent of antisemitism that occasionally leaks out of the Labour party in this country.  It seems to have crept in with the resurgence of the marxists under Corbyn.  Funny that XD
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 24, 2016, 06:33:38 am
You know, Contrarian, if I were throwing around accusations and links I would first like to verify if they are true: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/23/jewish-students-union-denies-claims-rife-antisemitism-uk-universities

Are there incidents of anti-semitism in UK universities? Yes. Are some of them "no-go zones" for Jews? No, that's is a horrible exaggeration.

Besides, what "islamist groups" are "Tolpuddle Martyr's aisle" supporting or are you conflating all Muslims with terrorists?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 24, 2016, 04:50:42 pm
Way to underscore my point Conty, fling an obviously trite accusation and watch the sparks fly. Saying that the "left" is "in bed" with militant Islamists simply because most lefties aren't openly sectarian towards Muslims is completely daft.

Tell us Contrarian, was it lefties like me or right wing trolls that came up with the "le happy merchant"  (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/617/jew_basic.jpg)meme? There are plenty of antisemitic trolls on "your side of the aisle" too. 

Or better yet, don't. THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT CONTRARIAN AND HIS BLOVIATING POINTS!!!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 24, 2016, 08:58:40 pm
Way to underscore my point Conty, fling an obviously trite accusation and watch the sparks fly. Saying that the "left" is "in bed" with militant Islamists simply because most lefties aren't openly sectarian towards Muslims is completely daft.

Tell us Contrarian, was it lefties like me or right wing trolls that came up with the "le happy merchant"  (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/617/jew_basic.jpg)meme? There are plenty of antisemitic trolls on "your side of the aisle" too. 

Or better yet, don't. THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT CONTRARIAN AND HIS BLOVIATING POINTS!!!

Seems to me like that's exactly what he wants.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 30, 2016, 09:17:05 am
The Economist and YouGov released a poll they did from December 17 to 20, and some of the results are pretty embarrassing.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ljv2ohxmzj/econTabReport.pdf

For example (p. 53), 17% of Trump voters think the climate is not changing... despite overwhelming scientific evidence in the opposite direction. (If there's any real debate in the scientific community over climate change, it's over whether or not we can still fix it before the planet becomes uninhabitable for us.)

Page 54: 31% of people polled--with 22% of Clinton voters and 31% of Trump voters--think that vaccines definitely or probably have been shown to cause autism.

Page 55: 25% of people polled think the US government definitely or probably  helped plan the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Page 56: 53% (!) of people polled think that Saddam Hussein definitely or probably had WMDs that the US never found, including 33% of Clinton voters and 68% (!!) of Trump voters.

Page 57: 52% of people polled think the 2008 financial crash was definitely or probably orchestrated by Wall Street bankers.

Page 58: 36% of people polled think that President Obama was definitely or probably born in Kenya, including 52% (!!!) of Trump voters.

Page 59: 52% of people polled think it is definitely or probably true that Russia hacked the DNC's and Podesta's e-mails to help Trump win, including 87% of Clinton voters.

Page 60: 38% of people polled think that Pizzagate was definitely or probably true, including 46% (!!) of Trump voters.

Page 61: 46% of people polled think that millions of illegal votes were definitely or probably cast in the election, including 62% (!) of Trump voters.

Page 62: And if it looks like I'm ragging on Trump voters, well... 37% of people polled think it is definitely or probably true that Russia tampered with vote tallies to help elect Trump, including 50% (!!!) of Clinton voters.

Also, for some other stuff:

Page 90: 53% of respondents have a favourable opinion of President Obama. (5% expressed no opinion.)

Page 91: 45% of respondents have a favourable opinion of President-Elect Trump. (6% expressed no opinion.)

Page 92: 40% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Secretary Clinton. 65% expressed no opinion.)

Page 93: 48% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Vice President Biden. (18% expressed no opinion.)

Page 94: 39% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Vice President-Elect Pence. (24% expressed no opinion.)

Page 95: 32% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Speaker Ryan. (26% expressed no opinion.)

Page 96: 17% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Senator McConnell. (38% expressed no opinion.)

Page 97: 26% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Representative Pelosi. (28% expressed no opinion.)

Page 98: 22% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Senator Reid. (37% expressed no opinion.)

Page 99: 22% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Senator Schumer. (48% expressed no opinion.)

(They did not report questions about opinions of other figures, like Senator Sanders or Senator Warren; I do not know if they asked.)

Pages 100-101: 43% of respondents have a favourable opinion of the Democratic Party (12% expressed no opinion); 37% have a favourable opinion of the Republican Party (13% expressed no opinion).

Page 104: 48% of respondents strongly or somewhat approve of President Obama's handling of the presidency. (9% expressed no opinion.)

Page 108: 61% of respondents like President Obama, whether "a lot" or "somewhat." (11% expressed no opinion.)

Page 121: 45% of respondents like President-Elect Trump, whether "a lot" or "somewhat." (10% expressed no opinion.)

Page 125: Only 11% (!!) of respondents strongly or somewhat approve of the way Congress is handling its job. (15% expressed no opinion.)

Page 127: 36% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Congressional Democrats. (16% expressed no opinion.)

Page 128: 27% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Congressional Republicans. (16% expressed no opinion.)

Page 129: 30% of respondents somewhat or strongly approve of the way Speaker Ryan is handling his job. (31% expressed no opinion.)

Page 130: 21% of respondents somewhat or strongly approve of the way Senator McConnell is handling his job (as Senate Majority Leader). (38% expressed no opinion.)

Page 131: 25% of respondents somewhat or strongly approve of the way Senator Reid is handling his job (as Senate Minority Leader). (39% expressed no opinion.)

Page 132: 25% of respondents somewhat or strongly approve of the way Representative Pelosi is handling her job (as House Minority Leader). (34% expressed no opinion.)

Page 133: 44% of respondents think this Congress has accomplished less than Congress typically does at this point in its life. (27% expressed no opinion.)

Page 134: Of that 44%: 13% think Democrats are more to blame for this Congress accomplishing less than usual, 40% think Republicans are more to blame, and 43% blame both parties equally. (1% blame neither; 2% expressed no opinion.)

Page 143: 28% of respondents think the ACA should be expanded, 11% think it should be kept the same, and 41% think it should be repealed; 20% expressed no opinion. (Note: I do not know if the question asked about the "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare.")
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on December 30, 2016, 10:28:12 am
To be fair on the Pizzagate thing, while it's most likely not true, it does sound pretty probable. It sounds to me like the kind of thing a politician in America would do.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 30, 2016, 06:23:43 pm
Pizzagate does not deserve fairness (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pizzagate-shows-how-fake-news-hurts-real-people/2016/11/25/d9ee0590-b0f9-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html?utm_term=.78aa8335857e). It's a fake news story from 4chan idiots hoping to stir shit up (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38156985). Due to gullibility, and people thinking that folks they don't like "totally would have done that" they succeeded.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 30, 2016, 06:56:11 pm
Tol, your latter link isn't working. Or a link at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 30, 2016, 07:08:39 pm
Tol, your latter link isn't working. Or a link at all.
Fixed, sorry.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on December 30, 2016, 07:21:34 pm
It sounds plausible in the wake of the UK's Pedogeddon scandal.  If that had never broken, it'd be on the level of the eighties Satanic Panic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 30, 2016, 07:27:20 pm
Yeah admittedly - if Jimmy Savile (seriously, his last name has VILE in it) had not been revealed to be basically a comic book supervillain on the order of Norman Osborn, this would be on the level of the eighties Satanic Panic.

However, it cannot be ignored that this conspiracy theory posits that a random pizza place was used as the site for child sex slavery, including a place that did not exist.

The Savile thing had evidence, and he was creepy in person.

The pizza place was hurt by fake news which sadly sounded real enough to people who don't think research is necessary, just THE FEELING they are right.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 30, 2016, 07:40:27 pm
Yeah, ultimately I think a conspiracy theory should be judged on what we know to be true as opposed to what we think certain people are capable of. Certainly that can be a mitigating factor but by itself it proves exactly Jack.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 31, 2016, 05:59:54 pm
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 31, 2016, 06:26:41 pm
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.
Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK. 
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 31, 2016, 08:01:01 pm
I believe it.

Ironbite-Hillary was just that bad a candidate though to her credit, she did win the popular vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 31, 2016, 11:38:00 pm
Unless Lana is going to trot out something trying to prove Der Failure's conspiracy theory about how Hillary didn't really win the popular vote...

Populist Demagogues can sucker anyone regardless of skin color into voting for them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 02, 2017, 12:04:03 am
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.
Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.

And look at 2000 and 2004. It really is more a factor of Obama doing really well among racial minorities than Trump doing well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 02, 2017, 12:03:04 pm
By the way, you know that old song-and-dance about how racial resentment got Trump elected? Yeah, turns out he won a greater share of the PoC vote (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.fad1da8d07c2) than Romney did in 2012.
Which is kinda like saying a tortoise will beat a goldfish in a hundred meter dash on land, but OK.

And look at 2000 and 2004. It really is more a factor of Obama doing really well among racial minorities than Trump doing well.

My point was that Trump won too many minority votes for his success to be boiled down to "white rage". As the article points out:

Quote
Comparing yesterday’s results with 2012, as this Washington Post feature does, shows that Trump actually performed slightly worse among white voters than Mitt Romney did. He did, however, perform better than Romney among blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, making it more difficult to claim that racial resentment was the dominant factor explaining Trump’s support nationally.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 02, 2017, 09:10:48 pm
It shows that more minorities voted for Trump than for Romney, not that many of the whites who voted for him weren't, at least in part, motivated by racial anxieties. You need to show a.causative relationship here, not merely a correlation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 02, 2017, 10:11:42 pm
Keep in mind there ARE conservative and reactionary minority people, as David Clark demonstrates.

He even spoke at the RNC.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 03, 2017, 12:07:15 am
Keep in mind there ARE conservative and reactionary minority people, as David Clark demonstrates.

He even spoke at the RNC.

"Let me tell you why blacks sell drugs and involve themselves in criminal behavior instead of a more socially acceptable lifestyle—because they're uneducated, they're lazy, and they're morally bankrupt. That's why." Fact Check: this is a bullshit stereotype as whites smoke more marijuana than African-Americans. (http://www.businessinsider.com/blacks-smoke-marijuana-less-get-arrested-less-2010-10)

"This guy [Obama] has continually, continually for eight years rubbed the stain of slavery, rubbed white peoples' nose in the stain of slavery,"

David Clarke sounds like a great guy that I would want advising me on homeland security matters. Actually, no he doesn't. He says some pretty racist things.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 03, 2017, 01:06:31 am
"This guy [Obama] has continually, continually for eight years rubbed the stain of slavery, rubbed white peoples' nose in the stain of slavery,"
...What the fuck does that even mean?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 03, 2017, 01:40:42 am
^It means Barack Obama is black and that's terrible.

I don't know what made Trump do better with minorities then Romney, but I don't think it invalidates the central role racism played in his campaign.  I'm sure there are plenty of Cubans who hate Mexicans or black Christians who hate Muslims.

I think there was a Vox article that put it pretty well: there were three groups of Trump voters 1) Those who supported him in the primary.  They were almost exclusively motivated by racism.  2) The normal republicans who opposed Trump in the primary but voted for him in the general.  They just voted for him because he had an R next to his name and they hate Hillary Clinton.  3) the rustbelt voters fliped over to his side at the last minute.  It's not clear if that was out of racism or because they liked his empty bullshit of keeping American jobs and opposing free trade.

So not everyone who voted for Trump did so out of racism, but the ones that did are the reason he got the republican nomination and remain his biggest fans.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 03, 2017, 01:58:20 am
I think it's entirely possible that Trump can appeal to a greater percentage of minority voters than Romney while also appealing to those Republicans who harbor racial resentment who have been shown to be more attracted to Trump than they were to Romney as well (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.0c7b3d21db71). Because people vote for a candidate for all sorts of reasons, also-Romney has the charisma of a potato.

Trump campaigned on fear, those not fearful of black or brown people might still be attracted to fear of Muslims, or China, or America's changing industrial landscape-or change period. Fear sells!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 03, 2017, 03:00:35 am
Someone give me a picture of a potato in a fancy suit with Romney's hair. It would be hilarious.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 03, 2017, 09:38:40 am
Swamp draining is progressing just as planned: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/

Quote
The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over complaints instead to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency. The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff.
And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress.

It is important to cripple the ethics panel ASAP so that it can not interfere with the Congress when the members violate US laws.

EDIT: Trump actually criticized this move. I am genuinely surprised. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38499284?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Canadian Mojo on January 03, 2017, 01:45:25 pm
EDIT: Trump actually criticized this move. I am genuinely surprised. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38499284?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

He's smart enough to realize that a lot of 'his' party plan on using him as a useful idiot. A shot like this is meant to remind them to fall in line and follow his agenda and perpetuate the illusion that he is there for his followers.

They probably would have been allowed to get away with it if it hadn't gotten any attention that detracts from the Trump narrative.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 03, 2017, 02:38:16 pm
Hell, for all we know, this may have been a part of the GOP's plan. Do something so outrageous that even Trump will criticize them for it to make Trump sound reasonable.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 03, 2017, 03:15:14 pm
Yeah I have a feeling the next 4 years is gonna be fun.

Ironbite-*drinks*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 04, 2017, 11:50:28 pm
The Senate just voted to repeal ACA with no alternative to replace it. Two reactions:

1: So it begins.

2: FUCK THE REPUBLICANS.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 05, 2017, 12:10:08 am
WOOT!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 05, 2017, 01:42:02 am
Honestly I just completely hate the rural whites and those that delivered power to these utter greedy pigs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 05, 2017, 05:50:23 am
Don't forget that to repeal the ACA they had to amend legislation to exempt legislation that would repeal other legislation from statutory limits on deficit increases... in effect, they're admitting that the ACA saves the federal government money. (Or at least that it brings in a significant chunk of tax revenue between the penalty for not having insurance and the tax on high-income earners--I believe the threshold is $3,700,000--that helps fund the subsidies.)

The GOP: Party of Fiscal Responsibility.

(Related fact: The last Republican president to have a balanced budget at any time during his term was Nixon. The last one to end his time in office with a balanced budget was Eisenhower.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 05, 2017, 03:23:52 pm
Anyone that actually pays attention to politics could have told you that "fiscal responsibility" is nothing more than a smokescreen. The problem is that enough of this country believes the lie to allow the Republicans to literally kill people through negligence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 05, 2017, 07:00:31 pm
Anyone that actually pays attention to politics could have told you that "fiscal responsibility" is nothing more than a smokescreen. The problem is that enough of this country believes the lie to allow the Republicans to literally kill people through negligence.

Just disregard that Republicans over the last forty years exploded the deficit, and Democrats have run surpluses and reduced it by 2/3. That's just liberal propaganda.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 05, 2017, 08:09:12 pm
My current favourite "fiscally responsible" Republican policy is how New York City is having to spend, and is going to have to spend, shitloads of money to secure Trump Tower since Trump isn't going to move into the White House full-time, never mind the economic harm those measures are probably causing because of traffic rerouting and such.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 05, 2017, 09:03:42 pm
The cynic in me suspects it might be a conscious "insurance" against Democrat legislators proposing anything that might resemble left wing social institutions in the future. They break the bank into itty bitty pieces so that there's no funds left by the time the Dems take the reins again. Therefore no godless "safety net" or heathen "scientific research" to bother them with horrid facts.

Hell, they're spiteful and venal enough.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 06, 2017, 11:32:11 am
Remember that wall that Mexico was somehow going to pay for.
Yeah it turns out the tax payers are going to pay for it and Mexico will somehow reimburse us later on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 06, 2017, 05:24:42 pm
NOt sure how they'll do that but it'll be yuge.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 06, 2017, 06:42:39 pm
Trump wants a GOP controlled congress to approve funds for the single biggest public works project in American history, and he wants to cut taxes to the bone. Money, how the fuck does that work?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 06, 2017, 06:44:05 pm
I honestly believe that we're seeing two things with the direction the government is going; the start of a new Great Depression and the opening moves of another World War.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 06, 2017, 07:08:17 pm
This is the Republican congress were talking about as well. The we don't want to spend money on anything congress especially infrastructure. How he's going to get them to approve of a 8 to 12 billion dollar project is beyond me. And his jerk off fantasy of getting Mexico to pay for it? No, you know what? Build the wall using our taxes, do it so you can see how Mexico isn't going to pay for something they never wanted in the first place.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 06, 2017, 09:58:15 pm
Borrow money from China, who Trump is hell bent on pissing off?
Raise taxes on the wearied remains of Americas middle class? His TEA party nuts will love that!
Do nothing but blame Hillary, Obama, Jews, Hollywood, ISIS, Feminists, Mexico, Hipsters, Saturday Night Live and/or climate scientists?

What are his options?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 07, 2017, 01:34:44 am
And the Senate just defunded Planned Parenthood. I wish I was surprised.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 07, 2017, 02:11:47 am
And the Senate just defunded Planned Parenthood. I wish I was surprised.

Holy shit. Which of Murkowski and Collins signed onto that? (If both didn't, it'd've failed on Biden's tiebreaking vote.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 07, 2017, 02:22:35 am
I'm digging for more, but I may have spoken too soon. Stand by.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 07, 2017, 02:25:59 am
I'm digging for more, but I may have spoken too soon. Stand by.

My small amount of digging turned up that they'd passed the motion that will let them use reconciliation on the ACA repeal, which Ryan has said will also include a defunding of Planned Parenthood. The vote was apparently 51-48, with Paul voting with the Democrats (because of his concerns over how the Republicans are going about repealing the ACA).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 07, 2017, 02:35:42 am
Regardless, the fact that the Republicans are more concerned with taking health care away from the poor than doing something actually productive is both depressing and infuriating.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 07, 2017, 02:42:19 am
Regardless, the fact that the Republicans are more concerned with taking health care away from the poor than doing something actually productive is both depressing and infuriating.

Playing to their base by getting to talk about how they're voting to defund "abortion giant" Planned Parenthood is productive for them. Shoring up your base is essential to winning elections.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 07, 2017, 06:09:39 am
Regardless, the fact that the Republicans are more concerned with taking health care away from the poor than doing something actually productive is both depressing and infuriating.

Playing to their base by getting to talk about how they're voting to defund "abortion giant" Planned Parenthood is productive for them. Shoring up your base is essential to winning elections.
Well in the case of Republicans it's more essential in winning primaries isn't it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 07, 2017, 12:04:47 pm
This is the Republican congress were talking about as well. The we don't want to spend money on anything congress especially infrastructure. How he's going to get them to approve of a 8 to 12 billion dollar project is beyond me. And his jerk off fantasy of getting Mexico to pay for it? No, you know what? Build the wall using our taxes, do it so you can see how Mexico isn't going to pay for something they never wanted in the first place.

it was never about not spending money, it was about Obama. Many of the same people were in Congress during the Bush years, which took us from our greatest national surplus to our largest nation deficit (people like to conveniently ignore that the 2009 budget was Bush's, as the 2017 budget is Obama's). Obama cut that deficit by almost 2/3, but disregard that.

And the wall is so fucking stupid, it'll cost probably 20 Billion to built, it will need constant upkeep and repair (running the cost even higher), it's a giant fucking boondoggle with Mexico (who ranks third in the world in terms of buying American goods, behind Canada and the ENTIRE European FUCKING Union, thanks NAFTA!), and it's overall effect on immigration is still up for debate. In short, it's a stupid decision that could only have been made by a stupid idiot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 07, 2017, 12:43:29 pm
And there's a huge problem with the border wall I don't think Trump's addressed yet: Texas. Treaties forbid both America and Mexico to build anything in the Rio Grande's floodplains, which means he'd have to build much of the wall on what is currently private property. Most of said private property is owned by ranchers, whose livelihoods are tied to the land they own, so it's unlikely they'd sell. He could use eminent domain to get the land, but that would be a very risky move.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 07, 2017, 03:04:06 pm
And there's a huge problem with the border wall I don't think Trump's addressed yet: Texas. Treaties forbid both America and Mexico to build anything in the Rio Grande's floodplains, which means he'd have to build much of the wall on what is currently private property. Most of said private property is owned by ranchers, whose livelihoods are tied to the land they own, so it's unlikely they'd sell. He could use eminent domain to get the land, but that would be a very risky move.

Or he just gets Texas to use eminent domain themselves, because that state's eminent domain laws are ridiculously lax. They've had no qualms doing that with the Trans-Pecos Pipeline, which provides exactly zero public good.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 07, 2017, 03:25:02 pm
Thing is doing such a thing would open his own supporters eyes as to just how bad the GOP really is.

Ironbite-this is not something that'll ever come to fruition in his lifetime.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 07, 2017, 04:09:30 pm
Thing is doing such a thing would open his own supporters eyes as to just how bad the GOP really is.

Ironbite-this is not something that'll ever come to fruition in his lifetime.

Won't matter, they'll never vote for a Demoncrat, they'll just abstain.

And anyway, the Republicans are trying to gut the federal government so badly that it won't matter how long the Dems control it after this, they can never put it back together.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 07, 2017, 08:56:39 pm
Thing is doing such a thing would open his own supporters eyes as to just how bad the GOP really is.

Ha, that's funny.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2017, 03:40:54 am
Meanwhile, let's all hope the US nuclear codes are longer than 140 characters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 08, 2017, 06:17:08 am
For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2017, 06:21:25 am
For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.

People, yes. Trump? Not so sure.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2017, 06:57:20 am
For much of the Cold war the code to launch US nuclear missiles was just a row of zeroes because that's what the default was. The fact that no one tried to launch the nukes while joking around or because they wanted to start WW3 is proof enough that people are capable of being good.
Eh, it proves that omnicidal/suicidal types are relatively rare.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 08, 2017, 07:06:55 am
Knowing the launch codes would mean all of jack shit for pretty much everyone because contrary to popular belief, you cannot launch nuclear missiles remotely. It can only be done from the silo.

As for the operators themselves, I believe there's something like ten of them that have to hit the launch button simultaneously for anything to happen, and they're all armed and under orders to kill any fellow operators who try anything funny (as are the rest of the staff, most likely), so that option is also extremely unlikely.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2017, 07:55:13 am
Couple of interesting takeaways from a Marcotte article up on Slate (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/21/drain-the-swamp-of-all-those-p-c-liberals-turns-out-trumpers-dont-care-about-lobbyists-or-plutocrats/), the article looked into a new poll conducted by the Glover Park Group and Morning Consult.

(click to show/hide)
Trump supporters are actually kind of divided about how much to regulate Wall St, except for a bunch of them that don't know or don't care.
(click to show/hide)
Similar number are divided on whether foreign trade is a good or bad thing, with a similar number not knowing or caring.
(click to show/hide)
While they aren't united on economic issues it seems whole lot of them don't like continued immigration under H1 Visas, Melenia seems to be a blind spot.
And Obamacare...
(click to show/hide)
WHAAARGRBLLL...

Her takeaway.
Quote
...new polling data suggesting that Trump voters are an incoherent mess when you ask them about regulating the financial industries or corruption in politics, but have a strongly cohesive ideology when it comes to race or gender issues.

But, but I thought it was all about draining swamps and the white working class, also something about "liberal elites".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 08, 2017, 06:09:27 pm
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 08, 2017, 06:31:49 pm
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.

This. Trying to shame people into turning against Trump only helped him and the GOP. Doubling down will just make things worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2017, 07:45:21 pm
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
Well if the data shows that Republicans who were in fact racist were more in favor of Trump than less racist candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.05027d77b6e6) why not call it by it's name? Oh, I forgot. Pesky facts hurt Repub feels, my bad.

Yeah, economics played a part in this election. But when surveyed Trump voters are united in issues towards race, religion, migration and gender-the "culture war" issues. Not so much economics, to stay mum about this because you might upset some on the fence voters is to encourage willful ignorance.

Brexit was also more about "values" like support of capital punishment and opposing ethnic diversity (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/personal-values-brexit-vote/) than it was about the economy.

Quote
This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.

How about that?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2017, 07:52:46 pm
Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.

And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2017, 08:03:59 pm
Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.

And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but
whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.

I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.

There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 08, 2017, 08:36:28 pm
Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.

And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.

I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.

There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)

Your first link doesn't seem to be working. And your second link doesn't say that Republicans and Democrats consume different media, just that partisan outlets influence people's votes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 08, 2017, 08:37:06 pm
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.
Well if the data shows that Republicans who were in fact racist were more in favor of Trump than less racist candidates (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/01/trump-is-the-first-republican-in-modern-times-to-win-the-partys-nomination-on-anti-minority-sentiments/?utm_term=.05027d77b6e6) why not call it by it's name? Oh, I forgot. Pesky facts hurt Repub feels, my bad.

Yeah, economics played a part in this election. But when surveyed Trump voters are united in issues towards race, religion, migration and gender-the "culture war" issues. Not so much economics, to stay mum about this because you might upset some on the fence voters is to encourage willful ignorance.

Brexit was also more about "values" like support of capital punishment and opposing ethnic diversity (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/personal-values-brexit-vote/) than it was about the economy.

Quote
This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.

How about that?

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about 'don't upset the poor Republicans', but hey, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I'm sure as a liberal Democrat, it's totally fair to basically call me a Republican sympathizer. My point was, that strategy didn't win. And as we've talked about earlier, talking about how "all those Trump voters are just a bunch of racists and sexists" didn't actually sway anyone away from Trump, which is kind of appalling considering how terrible a candidate he was. And yet, we're still hearing about it. I'm no Trump voter, I personally despise the man and think he's going to ruin our country, along with every one of his corporatist, slimy, and yes, bigoted cabinet picks. But let's be real here - the media message over the last year has been "Voting for Trump makes you a racist, a sexist, and a terrible person", and only after November 8th are people starting to realize that no, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this so I'll just leave this here, I've gotta go get dinner anyway.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2017, 09:04:00 pm
Considering how tight the election was (less than 80,000 votes over three states), the economic issues could well have pushed Trump over the top, but the base was the bigoted stuff.

And one thing I found interesting about the sexism was that the sort of sexists who supported Trump were the actively woman-hating kind of sexists. The traditional-gender-roles sexists did not go disproportionately to Trump, even though President isn't exactly a "traditional role" for women in US society.
I agree that economic issues could well have been an issue in the former "rust belt" areas, but whites across the socioeconomic spectrum overwhelmingly voted for Trump (http://This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.). The glue that held them together was whiteness, not class.

I agree that the Centrist parties the world over aren't doing enough to adress middle class and working class concerns because they work for the upper class, but people tut tutting others for merely identifying the nativist, xenophobic and quite frankly racist and sexist trends taking place across the world are fooling themselves.

There's also the assumption that those voting Trump would have even been aware of the scorn of the "East Coast elites" or felt sore because of their accusations of racism given that Trump voters don't even consume the same media as Democrat voters. (http://www.ibtimes.com/watching-fox-makes-viewers-lean-republican-researchers-say-1772450)
Your first link doesn't seem to be working. And your second link doesn't say that Republicans and Democrats consume different media, just that partisan outlets influence people's votes.
First borked link fixed. Secondly, here's some data (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/) showing that conservatives overwhelmingly cluster around a single news source. Guess who?
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2017, 09:16:53 pm

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about 'don't upset the poor Republicans', but hey, thanks for putting those words in my mouth. I'm sure as a liberal Democrat, it's totally fair to basically call me a Republican sympathizer. My point was, that strategy didn't win. And as we've talked about earlier, talking about how "all those Trump voters are just a bunch of racists and sexists" didn't actually sway anyone away from Trump, which is kind of appalling considering how terrible a candidate he was. And yet, we're still hearing about it. I'm no Trump voter, I personally despise the man and think he's going to ruin our country, along with every one of his corporatist, slimy, and yes, bigoted cabinet picks. But let's be real here - the media message over the last year has been "Voting for Trump makes you a racist, a sexist, and a terrible person", and only after November 8th are people starting to realize that no, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this so I'll just leave this here, I've gotta go get dinner anyway.

I don't know if the word "deplorables" counts as a strategy, it's true that Clinton campaigned negatively but that one instance aside more negativity was aimed at the candidate than the support base. In any case, merely mentioning that a whole lot of Trump voters are racist and sexist isn't an attempt to sway. It's what the Trump voters suggest themselves when polled. It's data, it's not a strategy to win an election that happened last year.

The media reporting that a lot of Trump voters seemed to be motivated by racial animus wasn't a campaign strategy either, it's what the media are supposed to do. Report on a political phenomenon that's happening. You could argue they were wrong, but the data seems to be pointing to the conclusion that they were right about Trumps base being motivated at least in part by plain old racism.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 09, 2017, 05:05:42 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHO31oi2OrE


...I can't decide if that's even better than the Zapp Brannigan / Trump video.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 09, 2017, 04:35:06 pm
Come to think of it, Lex Luthor was elected president at one point. Oh, what I wouldn't give to have Superman show up and stop Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 09, 2017, 04:54:40 pm
Come to think of it, Lex Luthor was elected president at one point. Oh, what I wouldn't give to have Superman show up and stop Trump.
Truth and justice? Clearly a libtard. Jumps tall buildings with a single bound? No respect for bewdiful walls!

An illegal alien to boot!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 09, 2017, 07:26:30 pm
Don't insult Lex Luthor like that.  He's actually fucking intelligent and is an actual self-made man instead of some rando that inherited a lot of money from daddy and then pissed it away on failed business ventures.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 09, 2017, 08:58:10 pm
..... You know, I think it's safe to say that the world is in a shitty place when you'd rather vote for the literal comic book supervillain over the actual President Elect. And I would.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 09, 2017, 09:03:33 pm
To quote Jonathan Pie: "I'd vote for Lucifer over Donald Trump."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 09, 2017, 09:40:16 pm
I'd vote for George W Bush or Stephen Harper over Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 09, 2017, 09:49:28 pm
I'd vote for Porky Minch over Trump. Countless millenia of experience thru time travel!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 09, 2017, 10:27:58 pm
The Doctor/Booster Gold 2020!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 10, 2017, 10:19:29 am
Note that this was done in parody: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/you-cant-arrest-me-im-white-protesters-dressed-as-klansmen-ejected-from-sessions-hearing/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 10, 2017, 02:44:58 pm
Because calling everyone who wanted to vote for Trump "racist and sexist" worked out so well in 2016. That's why Hillary Clinton's going to be President in less than two weeks. And that's why there's a Democratic majority in the Senate.

...Oh wait, there isn't, and she won't be.

This. Trying to shame people into turning against Trump only helped him and the GOP. Doubling down will just make things worse.

As per FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-saying-trumps-win-had-nothing-to-do-with-economics/):

Quote
Measures of racism and sexism (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf), and markers of social status such as a college degree, did a much better job predicting whom voters would support [than economic issues].

So, while it isn't fair to say ALL Trump voters are racist, there is actual statistically significant evidence that people with more racial animus and insensitivity voted for Casino Mussolini. Further, it is no secret that Trump is a shitbag racist (https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r2yxs/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/). Other studies show how closely linked race was to Trump's election: (1) almost 50% of Trump supporters said that black people were more violent and criminal (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg), with another 40% saying that black people were more lazy, than white people, and (2) white people became more likely to vote Trump when told that racial groups would outnumber white people in 2042 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430216677304).

What is more, while you previously said that Trump lost white voters, vis-a-vis Romney, it is important to unpack white voters as a group; Trump did better with uneducated whites than Romney by a considerable measure while doing worse with educated whites (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-doing-worse-than-romney-did-among-white-voters/) (and almost 40% of Michiganders and 47% of Wisconsinites are white without a college degree, IIRC). Finally, it has been known for decades that college education decreases racial animus and insensitivity (http://newyorksociologist.org/Radloff.pdf).

All in all, I have no problem saying that racism and sexism played a huge part in Trump's election. Certainly more so than the economy, and maybe just as much as the Republican "team" mentality.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 10, 2017, 05:00:44 pm
What's irritating is that if you mention the undeniable effect racism still has in modern politics people line up to tell you that accusing people of being racist "didn't help last time". Pointing out that something exists is not an accusation, certainly not an accusation leveled at Trump voters in order to induce guilt.The most conservative members of this forum, Hof and Conty respectively, can't vote in US elections because they aren't US citizens. Also, the 2016 election is in the past tense.

Pointing out how racial bias affects political behavior is not the same as accusing individuals of a moral failing for being racist much less asking those people to change their behavior, people's subconscious biases affect the way they vote and can have more baring on their voting behavior than their stated intentions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/23/whom-are-you-voting-for-this-guy-can-read-your-mind/?utm_term=.ecec673b4450). If we want to understand how Mr Trump got to Washington, welp the data suggests that racism is part of the reason.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 10, 2017, 05:10:20 pm
My apologies, then. I've gotten so used to people saying "everyone who voted Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic nutjob, feel terrible" that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction. It doesn't help that being painted by the media as a bunch of said deplorable people is actually one of the primary complaints of my Trump-voting friends (as much as I can't stand their votes, they are friends...). Nevertheless, I seem to have misunderstood you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 10, 2017, 05:17:09 pm
My apologies, then. I've gotten so used to people saying "everyone who voted Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic nutjob, feel terrible" that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction. It doesn't help that being painted by the media as a bunch of said deplorable people is actually one of the primary complaints of my Trump-voting friends (as much as I can't stand their votes, they are friends...). Nevertheless, I seem to have misunderstood you.
My apologies to you for insinuating that you were trying to protect the feels of Trumpkins, that was shitty of me.

Nuance goes to all to heck when the debate gets heated.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 11, 2017, 03:08:00 am
"It appears that some of the people who voted for Trump did so because they are racist."

"ARE YOU CALLING ME A RACIST?!"

...See, we in Finland have a saying "the dog that yelps is the one that got hit by the lump of wood" which, surprisingly is not about cruelty towards animals, and means that the original accusation wasn't aimed specifically at anyone so if someone does start protesting then it probably means that they fit the description and are trying to defend themselves.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 11, 2017, 05:22:22 am
Finns need to work on their version of "fetch", your hounds will get head injuries if you keep that up!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 11, 2017, 08:18:52 am
Why are dogs getting hit with lumps of wood to begin with?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 11, 2017, 08:31:50 am
It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.

I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 11, 2017, 11:34:08 am
I don't know, it sounds a lot like kafkatrapping (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/wendy-mcelroy-beware-of-kafkatrapping/) to me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 11, 2017, 11:48:25 am
It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.

I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?

Makes sense, I've always just assumed Lana was a Trump voter, but that gives more circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 11, 2017, 12:35:16 pm
It's a proverb, they don't always make sense. Unfortunately it also means that people don't sometimes get the point. For example, I was looking for a good translation to this particular proverb and found a forum where someone complained about it because "doesn't that mean that if I insult Africans then *magical sound* I become a nigger?" ...No. That's not what it means.

I mean the point basically is "the one that screams in pain is the one that is in pain" kinda dealie. Why was someone throwing around sticks or firewood? It's not clear. Maybe the dogs were barking in the night and the owner wanted to shut 'em up?

Makes sense, I've always just assumed Lana was a Trump voter, but that gives more circumstantial evidence.

Well, when you assume...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 11, 2017, 07:01:53 pm
I'm not about to accuse Lana of being a deep cover Trumpkin, it's entirely possible to be a socially conservative Democrat. I don't know what your motives are, I've no reason to suspect dishonesty and without further information I'm not about to hazard a guess.

That said Lana, pointing out the influence of racism in an election isn't the same as calling people racist. It's also not an either/or choice between racism and the economy. Racist attitudes don't exist in a vacuum, support for France's National Front exist in areas where unemployment is high (http://www.politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5628/Stephan_Thesis.pdf) and of course the Nazis and other Fascist groups arose in the context of the Great Depression. To say that racism is a major factor in Trump's success is not the same as saying all his supporters are a bunch of racists.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 11, 2017, 07:40:02 pm
I'm not about to accuse Lana of being a deep cover Trumpkin, it's entirely possible to be a socially conservative Democrat. I don't know what your motives are, I've no reason to suspect dishonesty and without further information I'm not about to hazard a guess.

That said Lana, pointing out the influence of racism in an election isn't the same as calling people racist. It's also not an either/or choice between racism and the economy. Racist attitudes don't exist in a vacuum, support for France's National Front exist in areas where unemployment is high (http://www.politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5628/Stephan_Thesis.pdf) and of course the Nazis and other Fascist groups arose in the context of the Great Depression. To say that racism is a major factor in Trump's success is not the same as saying all his supporters are a bunch of racists.

Not disagreeing with you there. But I think the role of racism in Trump's election has been exaggerated.

And what makes you think I'm "socially conservative?" Just curious.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 11, 2017, 09:14:39 pm
I guess your quoting the Daily Bell who are known for promoting belief in "cultural Marxism" (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/nelson-hultberg-cultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america/) seems a tad socially conservative, especially when there are less long winded explanations (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrapping) that don't involve pegging responsibility on the phenomenon on to one particular faction or persuasion.

Regardless your belief that the effect of racism in the election was exaggerated should be coupled with reasons why. The fact that more minorities voted for Trump than Romney is not sufficient. It doesn't actually show that this invalidates the theory that racism played a major role in Trump's election.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 12, 2017, 01:24:34 am
somewhat related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE8nQZPfYpY
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 12, 2017, 01:56:55 am
...This story has continued escalating: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5876de6be4b0f8a7254484d6?timestamp=1484189321777

Now the British spy who was the source behind "Trump paid to be peed on by Russian prostitutes" story has fled his home and is hiding from assassins?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 12, 2017, 02:14:30 am
presumably flamboyant and bizarre assassins, because life is apparently genre shifted to a really, really weird Bond story.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 12, 2017, 02:43:31 am
presumably flamboyant and bizarre assassins, because life is apparently genre shifted to a really, really weird Bond story.

...Russian intelligence service teaming up with an exxentric US billionaire who is about to become the president? Yeah, that's a Bond movie plot. Do you think the KGB is going to pull out the umbrella that shoots poison darts from storage just for this?

Also: http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/11/trumps-secretary-state-pick-just-lied-oath-backfired-beautifully/

WHY ARE YOU SO INCOMPETENT? I can perfectly understand the evil, selfish and corrupt people rise to power but is it too much to ask that they are at least smart so that we can go "Yeah, the prez turned out to be evil but can you really blame us? His campaign was so masterfully done that it could have fooled anyone."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 12, 2017, 03:14:05 am
The puns are getting out of control. From George Takei

Quote
Tinkle, tinkle, little czar. Putin put you where you are. (https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/819003453057990656)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on January 12, 2017, 06:18:43 am
Do you think the KGB is going to pull out the umbrella that shoots poison darts from storage just for this?

*adjusts glasses* Actually, I think you'll find that was the Bulgarian secret service, and furthermore...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 12, 2017, 06:50:34 am
KGB was involved in that plot though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 12, 2017, 11:22:24 am
During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan".  The papers were all blank.

Ironbite-WE'RE ALL GONNA FUCKING DIE!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 12, 2017, 11:55:04 am
I guess your quoting the Daily Bell who are known for promoting belief in "cultural Marxism" (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/nelson-hultberg-cultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america/) seems a tad socially conservative, especially when there are less long winded explanations (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrapping) that don't involve pegging responsibility on the phenomenon on to one particular faction or persuasion.

Cultural Marxism is a thing (https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf). And even if the site is socially conservative, that doesn't make me so for agreeing with them on some things. I agree with Dick Cheney on same-sex marriage, but that doesn't make me a neocon.

As for why I picked that article, I wanted a more elaborate analysis of the term. I also wanted to discuss it in a social justice context. But you're right, it's not just used by SJWs.

Regardless your belief that the effect of racism in the election was exaggerated should be coupled with reasons why. The fact that more minorities voted for Trump than Romney is not sufficient. It doesn't actually show that this invalidates the theory that racism played a major role in Trump's election.

I do believe that it played a significant role, I just disagree with the notion that it was the factor.

...This story has continued escalating: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5876de6be4b0f8a7254484d6?timestamp=1484189321777

Now the British spy who was the source behind "Trump paid to be peed on by Russian prostitutes" story has fled his home and is hiding from assassins?

Much as I'd like to believe the story's true, I'm going to err on the side of skepticism for now:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/10/hey-heres-that-obviously-fake-dossier-cl (http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/10/hey-heres-that-obviously-fake-dossier-cl)

During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan".  The papers were all blank.

Ironbite-WE'RE ALL GONNA FUCKING DIE!

It's worse than that. The papers were supposed to address ethics concerns (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-press-conference-folders-business-plan-empire-blank-fake-handover-donald-jr-eric-a7523426.html).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on January 12, 2017, 03:40:45 pm
During the press conference yesterday, Trump's stoolies brought out a bunch of folders filled with papers they wouldn't let reporters see because it contained his "business plan".  The papers were all blank.

Doesn't sound any different from the "diploma" at my college graduation ceremony. The real one was sent in the mail.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 12, 2017, 05:55:33 pm
Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.

(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c

FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 12, 2017, 05:57:48 pm
It was only 75 years ago that the Nazis were literally on a crusade against cultural bolshevism (http://www.vox.com/culture/2016/12/14/13576192/alt-right-sexism-recruitment). I could never have predicted a more transparent rebrand.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 12, 2017, 06:13:44 pm
Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.

(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c

FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.

Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 12, 2017, 06:23:10 pm
Anyone else have him randomly PM them? Apparently because im not a fan of BLM he thinks im "like the type of guy I can get along with.". LOL. Im not a right wing nut job like him. Might like BLM or third wave feminism, but im still a a million miles away from him.

What makes you think I'm a "right-wing nutjob?"

I can't speak for IanC, but your generally anti-feminist, anti-PC attitude, complete with references to "cultural Marxism" is a dead ringer for "right-wing nutjob". You predictably take up the cause of the right-wing outrage-of-the-week (remember Vox Day tampering with the Hugos?) and FQA always pummels you for it. You've got nothing else.

Nothing except 8-year-olds, dude.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. This is why even though Ironchew is an edgelord, I enjoy him. Because he gots smarts.

Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 12, 2017, 06:37:47 pm
If this is a third Ultimate Dragon sock I have to give points for tenacity if nothing else.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 12, 2017, 06:43:11 pm
Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.

(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c

FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.

Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).
(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89879/width926/image-20150728-7665-1iu4wk1.jpg)
Uncle:Yes Comrades, we will bring about a workers revolt in the west by dividing the left into competing tribes that are happy so long as they have enough people from marginalized grouplets in executive level jobs.
Igor:Oh fuck, he's been at the Stolichnaya again...
Uncle:: Igor for the gulag, MORE STOLICHNAYA FOR EVERYBODIES!!!
Igor *as trapdoor opens beneath his feet*:Aiiieeeeeeeee...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 12, 2017, 07:47:24 pm
Anyone else have him randomly PM them? Apparently because im not a fan of BLM he thinks im "like the type of guy I can get along with.". LOL. Im not a right wing nut job like him. Might like BLM or third wave feminism, but im still a a million miles away from him.

What makes you think I'm a "right-wing nutjob?"

I can't speak for IanC, but your generally anti-feminist, anti-PC attitude, complete with references to "cultural Marxism" is a dead ringer for "right-wing nutjob". You predictably take up the cause of the right-wing outrage-of-the-week (remember Vox Day tampering with the Hugos?) and FQA always pummels you for it. You've got nothing else.

Nothing except 8-year-olds, dude.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. This is why even though Ironchew is an edgelord, I enjoy him. Because he gots smarts.

Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?

Are you trying to deflect the conversation?

Cultural Marxism is a thing, a conspiracy theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory) invented by paranoid anti semites (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim) thing.

(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/2/23/Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png/575px-Dummies_Guide_to_Cultural_Marxist_caste_system.png)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c

FFS, if you believe that modern identity politics is secretly a shadowy fifth column of super secret Marxists then you give them a hell of a lot more organisational credit than what guys like this (http://i.imgur.com/OsiuQQX.jpg) are due.

Just because a term's frequently (mis)used by paranoid anti-Semites doesn't mean it's not real (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299).
(https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89879/width926/image-20150728-7665-1iu4wk1.jpg)
Uncle:Yes Comrades, we will bring about a workers revolt in the west by dividing the left into competing tribes that are happy so long as they have enough people from marginalized grouplets in executive level jobs.
Igor:Oh fuck, he's been at the Stolichnaya again...
Uncle:: Igor for the gulag, MORE STOLICHNAYA FOR EVERYBODIES!!!
Igor *as trapdoor opens beneath his feet*:Aiiieeeeeeeee...

OK, let me make one thing clear: I don't think Cultural Marxism is some kind of grand conspiracy. Just want to put that idea to rest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Artyom15 on January 12, 2017, 08:18:35 pm
Well at least Trump did pretty great in my opinion with his pick for Secretary of Defense. Literally the only good thing I expect him to do on purpose.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/james-mattis-defense-confirmation/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 12, 2017, 08:36:04 pm
Oh FFS Lana, Cultural Marxism is a theory where the Joos Frankfurt School conspired to destroy western civilization from within, because reasons. That is a conspiracy theory from it's foundation stone up.

As far as the United States is concerned historically the greatest proponents of identity politics were Democrats pre Nixon and Republicans post and none of the people promoting the identity politics I'm referring to were remotely Marxist.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 12, 2017, 09:08:22 pm
Oh FFS Lana, Cultural Marxism is a theory where the Joos Frankfurt School conspired to destroy western civilization from within, because reasons. That is a conspiracy theory from it's foundation stone up.

As far as the United States is concerned historically the greatest proponents of identity politics were Democrats pre Nixon and Republicans post and none of the people promoting the identity politics I'm referring to were remotely Marxist.

Yeah, that theory's bogus. But that doesn't mean Cultural Marxism doesn't exist. Why don't you take a breather and read my (http://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299) article (https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-2-45562) again?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 12, 2017, 10:14:39 pm
The article cites Trent Schroyer as coming up with the term, Schroyer's thesis is still that the Frankfurt School were cultural Marxists because they cited Marx in developing Critical Theory.

Great, fun and good except that Marx's theory that dialectical materialism was the driver of history, is based on certain things being objectively true, like conflict being caused by material needs-according to Marx anyway. Critical theory which gave birth to postmodernism flatly rejects objectivity in knowledge (http://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/#H2). The Frankfurt school could be reasonably said to be influenced by Marxism, or post Marxist but Marxist-it aint.

Western Marxism did indeed depart from Soviet Marxism b/c piles of corpses will turn off anybody but none of the people constructing the shibboleth of "Cultural Marxism" have shown that the people they called "Cultural Marxists" were in fact, you know, Marxist.

The real reason "Cultural Marxism" was embraced by paranoid nutzoids everywhere is that at the time "Marxist" was the trigger word that led conservatives to circle the wagons much like "Muslim" is now. At best both Marxists and some of the ideological descendants of the Frankfurt School are both involved in social justice movements for their own reasons.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 13, 2017, 12:42:19 am
Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.

a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.

b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 13, 2017, 01:10:08 am
Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.

a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.

b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.

You mean to tell me that Dynamic Paragon 3.0 did NOT read their links. Well, color me shocked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 13, 2017, 05:22:44 am
Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?

Yeah I'm thinking this too.  Lana's posting about the same topics, in the same style, with the same phrases and getting into the same fights as Dynamic Paragon.

Look, Lana if you aren't Paragon I apologize.  Dynamic Dragon was a full of himself asshole who got banned for making sockpuppets but came back with a sockpuppet called Ultimate Paragon, where got even worse become devote gamergater and even defending childporn on 8chan because free speech before getting banned again.  He had a very similar posting style on a lot of the same topic as you.  If I've misread you and you are a different person I am sorry for the mistake but I hope you understand the concern over not wanting a childporn defender back.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 13, 2017, 08:01:42 pm
So, after thinking over the Donald Trump pee story, I have decided that I have no ethical dilemmas in talking about it as though it is true. Now, disregard the fact that the golden shower portion was the least worrisome part of the dossier (there are 33 pages detailing ties between Trump and Putin). My main dilemma was that the entire report was unverified and could be nothing more than a 4chan hoax (though, Chris Steele going into hiding casts strong doubt on that). The reason, after considerable thought, that I have no problem saying Trump enjoys golden showers is because if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump would have no problem saying it about a political opponent: for example when Trump accused Hillary of murdering people (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/16/trump-accused-hillary-clinton-murder-disastrous-mike-pence-announcement.html), accused Obama of being born in Kenya (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/), or accused Ted Cruz' father of killing Lee Harvey Oswald (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-father-222730).

I mean, I don't know if this dossier is true, and that troubles me the most: I really don't think there is anything Trump could do that would make me say "no, he'd never do that," and that speaks volumes to his lack of character. However, even if completely bullshit, Trump has more than earned being the victim of a fake news smear.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 14, 2017, 10:23:04 pm
Alright Lana, having read your article I am going to have to call bullshit on the Cultural Marxism thing.

a) Your article claims that it can be used for more than the conspiracy theory and talks about several decades old thingy which has never been talked about again.

b) When someone talks about it now they are talking about the conspiracy theory, this includes the website that you were defending. That the phrase once had a different meaning is a red herring. Example: If someone calls me a "faggoty barbarian cuck" would fairness demand that I consider that he he may be using the original meaning of "barbarian" which referred to people living north of Rome who did not speak latin (as I sadly do not) and ignore that he also used the words "faggoty" and "cuck" and was clearly insulting me? Context matters.

a) It's been largely drowned out in all the misuse, but people still do talk about Cultural Marxism in the original sense. For example, this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=Pa3DCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+critical+turn+in+education&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi989a_k8PRAhWIlxoKHaa8AUkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=the%20critical%20turn%20in%20education&f=false) was published just last year.

b) That's not necessarily the case. There are people who use it to describe a particular flavor of left-wing authoritarianism, as my article says:

Quote
Sometimes, when people complain about “cultural Marxism”, their emphasis seems to be on something more specific. They are thinking, perhaps, of a left-wing variety of cultural authoritarianism: a tendency to criticize movies, video games, and other cultural products in a very harsh way that implies a need for government censorship. Short of that, it may at least imply the need for aggressive social policing and an environment of public shaming.

I wasn't really defending the article, it was a load of conspiratorial nonsense. I was just pointing out that there really is such a thing as Cultural Marxism, albeit something entirely different from what the article says. As for whether the article is necessarily reflective of the website's politics, that's not necessarily true. Pat Buchanan was a talking head on MSNBC for almost ten years, but they're pretty far from being paleocons.

Man all this cultural marxism gives me deja vu. Lana, are you Dynamic Paragon 3.0?

Yeah I'm thinking this too.  Lana's posting about the same topics, in the same style, with the same phrases and getting into the same fights as Dynamic Paragon.

Look, Lana if you aren't Paragon I apologize.  Dynamic Dragon was a full of himself asshole who got banned for making sockpuppets but came back with a sockpuppet called Ultimate Paragon, where got even worse become devote gamergater and even defending childporn on 8chan because free speech before getting banned again.  He had a very similar posting style on a lot of the same topic as you.  If I've misread you and you are a different person I am sorry for the mistake but I hope you understand the concern over not wanting a childporn defender back.

If he's as bad as you say he was, then I'm glad I'm not him. Just for your information, my typing isn't normally so clipped. I've just been busy, so I try to be efficient.

Or are you talking about something else?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 15, 2017, 01:49:16 am
a) It's been largely drowned out in all the misuse, but people still do talk about Cultural Marxism in the original sense. For example, this book (https://books.google.com/books?id=Pa3DCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+critical+turn+in+education&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi989a_k8PRAhWIlxoKHaa8AUkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=the%20critical%20turn%20in%20education&f=false) was published just last year.

The book refers to a movement that existed in the sixties and seventies.

b) That's not necessarily the case. There are people who use it to describe a particular flavor of left-wing authoritarianism, as my article says:

The article that says this

Quote
Current left-wing activism can, indeed, display hyperbolic, philistine, and authoritarian tendencies, but these have little to do with any influence from Marx, Soviet totalitarianism, or the work of the Frankfurt School. They have more, I suspect, to do with tendencies toward moral and political purity in almost any movement that seeks social change.

Meaning the author does not say that modern "authoritarian" tendencies in left wing activism like, I dunno-political correctness gone mad or power + prejudice "isms", have anything to do with Marx or Marxism.

So yeah, OK. I'll grant you. "Cultural Marxism" has been used, to describe the application of Marxism to the social sciences, as your book says-primarily in the sixties and seventies. The term is commonly used today to promulgate the batshit insane notion of various progressive ideas being a Trojan Horse to bring about the destruction of the west by a super secret cabal of Marxists/Jews/Cthulhu/Insert The Blank.

It's a bit like the term "libertarian", you could point to the fact that the original use of the term or it's use by left leaning libertarians bares little resemblance to the way it's used today, but because of the way it is used today, on the internet in particular, it's broadly understood to be a term describe someone who thinks Ayn Rand was the greatest thing ever.

Back to the start of this brouhaha, I suggested you might be culturally conservative because you were citing a publication that suggests the left is the sole source of kafkatrapping and which penned an editorial  (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/nelson-hultberg-cultural-marxism-the-corruption-of-america/)suggesting that Cultural Marxism is bad in the "it's all a Trojan horse to undermine civilisation sense", not the "obscure application of Marxism to the social sciences" sense.

Quote
This was the purpose of the ideology of Cultural Marxism — to root out the fundamentals of Judeo-Christian civilization and the splendid Camelot of Freedom it had created in America from 1776 to 1913. What is horrifying is that it has been triumphant. Marx has not buried us in an economic sense as Khrushchev boasted he would; but Marx has buried us in a cultural sense as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs planned over 80 years ago. James Jaeger's film demonstrates this in lucid fashion that is at once fascinating and abhorrent.

That's not an "application of Marx to the social sciences", that's this.

(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/019/304/old.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 15, 2017, 02:27:07 am
And you expect us to believe that the Alt-Right may be referring to the several decades old political thingy when they say that the Cultural Marxists are trying to destroy western countries and flood them with Muslims? Because if that's not what you are saying then I don't get how it is relevant to this discussion.

EDIT: HAHA!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/27/alt-right-donald-trump-white-supremacy-backlash

Quote

“In January Trump will start governing and will have to make compromises. Even small ones will trigger squabbles between the ‘alt-right’. ‘Trump betrayed us.’ ‘No, you’re betraying us for saying Trump betrayed us.’ And so on. The alt-right’s appearance of influence will diminish more and more as they start to fight amongst themselves.”

In an email interview Peter Brimelow, founder of the webzine Vdare.com, which alleges Mexican plots to remake the US, said Trump’s failure to deliver “important bones” could trigger a backlash. “I think the right of the right is absolutely prepared to revolt. It’s what they do.”

There is, however, a catch: Weber, Taylor and Brimelow – all classified as “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center – said Trump’s victory energised the far-right and that the movement can grow with or without White House help.

Basically, the Alt-right are a mishmash of racists, nazis and libertards and they are going to tear each other apart no matter what but the question is will they also do other damage and can some of them rise up to be politically relevant in the next elections.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 15, 2017, 12:07:51 pm
I think one side fuels the other side. George w bush made way for the rise of Obama. Fears of Obama created the tea party and then the alt right. 4 to 8 years of Trump, deregulation, mass privatization, corporate abuse and a rising interest in Bernie sanders might fuel a socialist movement. Trump voters like Obama voters will most likely increasingly feel disenfranchised as they feel their candidate didn't really help them much and most likely won't turn out to vote next time. It happens time and time again.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 16, 2017, 12:32:38 am
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/conn-republican-arrested-for-grabbing-womans-genitals-his-lawyer-says-it-was-a-playful-gesture/

a) Yet more evidence that people are starting to think that they can all act like Trump now with no repercussions.

b) It's not really "your word against mine" if you do it on camera and using the defense "he would never do such a thing" is likewise kinda futile against video evidence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 16, 2017, 01:16:16 am
And his lawyer says outright that the whole thing happened in front of witnesses, which is why it can't be sexual assault! Von Keyserling would never sexually assault someone in front of witnesses!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 16, 2017, 06:31:05 am
And his lawyer says outright that the whole thing happened in front of witnesses, which is why it can't be sexual assault! Von Keyserling would never sexually assault someone in front of witnesses!
Reminds me of something... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 16, 2017, 01:26:34 pm
And you expect us to believe that the Alt-Right may be referring to the several decades old political thingy when they say that the Cultural Marxists are trying to destroy western countries and flood them with Muslims? Because if that's not what you are saying then I don't get how it is relevant to this discussion.

Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

I think one side fuels the other side. George w bush made way for the rise of Obama. Fears of Obama created the tea party and then the alt right. 4 to 8 years of Trump, deregulation, mass privatization, corporate abuse and a rising interest in Bernie sanders might fuel a socialist movement. Trump voters like Obama voters will most likely increasingly feel disenfranchised as they feel their candidate didn't really help them much and most likely won't turn out to vote next time. It happens time and time again.

That's one reason I'm against political correctness, because I'm worried about the backlash. Political correctness helped get Trump into the Oval Office. Who knows what damage the PC crowd's doubling down might cause?

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/conn-republican-arrested-for-grabbing-womans-genitals-his-lawyer-says-it-was-a-playful-gesture/

a) Yet more evidence that people are starting to think that they can all act like Trump now with no repercussions.

b) It's not really "your word against mine" if you do it on camera and using the defense "he would never do such a thing" is likewise kinda futile against video evidence.

What a revolting excuse for a human being. And if he thinks anybody will buy this, he's delusional.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Even Then on January 16, 2017, 01:49:11 pm
How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 16, 2017, 01:49:58 pm
I'd really appreciate it if a certain someone could just say what they means instead of using abstract boogeymen like "political correctness"

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 16, 2017, 02:01:11 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/conn-republican-arrested-for-grabbing-womans-genitals-his-lawyer-says-it-was-a-playful-gesture/

a) Yet more evidence that people are starting to think that they can all act like Trump now with no repercussions.

b) It's not really "your word against mine" if you do it on camera and using the defense "he would never do such a thing" is likewise kinda futile against video evidence.

What a revolting excuse for a human being. And if he thinks anybody will buy this, he's delusional.

If anyone does, she should playfully grab his nuts and playfully twist them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 16, 2017, 05:06:21 pm
Merkal and Hollande aren't betting on Trump helping them or the EU. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/16/europes-fate-is-in-our-hands-angela-merkels-defiant-reply-to-trump)

Quote
We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”


Translation, we have Russian puppets on both sides of our borders now. If Germany and France go for ultra nationalist governments I've no doubt Putin will start moving his sphere of influence aggressively westwards.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 16, 2017, 05:28:08 pm
How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.

When I talk about doubling down, I talk about them engaging in the same rhetoric that turned so many people to Trump. Do you know how many articles and talking heads blame whites, or men, or white men for Trump's election? Way too many. Here are just a few examples:

http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest (http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/the-real-reason-donald-trump-got-elected-we-have-a-white-extremism-problem/article32817625/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/the-real-reason-donald-trump-got-elected-we-have-a-white-extremism-problem/article32817625/)

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/dear-white-people-an-open-letter-to-donald-trumps-supporters-on-race/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/dear-white-people-an-open-letter-to-donald-trumps-supporters-on-race/)

http://fusion.net/story/368198/white-people-elected-trump/ (http://fusion.net/story/368198/white-people-elected-trump/)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spare-me-the-euphemisms-white-people-made-trump-president/2016/11/11/264ce14e-a787-11e6-8042-f4d111c862d1_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spare-me-the-euphemisms-white-people-made-trump-president/2016/11/11/264ce14e-a787-11e6-8042-f4d111c862d1_story.html)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-white-women-we-messed-this-up-election-2016_us_582341c9e4b0aac62488970e (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-white-women-we-messed-this-up-election-2016_us_582341c9e4b0aac62488970e)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/09/white_women_sold_out_the_sisterhood_and_the_world_by_voting_for_trump.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/09/white_women_sold_out_the_sisterhood_and_the_world_by_voting_for_trump.html)

Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.

Merkal and Hollande aren't betting on Trump helping them or the EU. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/16/europes-fate-is-in-our-hands-angela-merkels-defiant-reply-to-trump)

Quote
We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”


Translation, we have Russian puppets on both sides of our borders now. If Germany and France go for ultra nationalist governments I've no doubt Putin will start moving his sphere of influence aggressively westwards.

Don't get me started on Putin. If he died tomorrow, you could probably guess what I'd be singing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 16, 2017, 05:53:23 pm
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious.  Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 16, 2017, 06:38:16 pm
How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.
Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

Again we are reducing the election to economic issues OR racism. It was economic issues AND racism. Racism may not have been the tipping point for Trump's support and you could reasonably argue that it wasn't.

The Democrats failure to reach out to previously loyal voters who voted for Obama but don't live in the big cities or didn't see the material benefits of his administration. His siding with the banks instead of the people who were screwed by them. Clinton's insistence that America was already great when for many Americans it wasn't. Sure as eggs are eggs all that was important.

But not calling a fair chunk of Trump's supporters racist is counterfactual (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg), and the notion of not calling people what they are because you might upset their feelings is like a caricature of "the PC crowd"

EDIT: "The Guardian" didn't admit that. It wasn't an editorial, it was an opinion piece. In others racism was pegged as a contributing factor, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysis)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 16, 2017, 06:47:51 pm
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts. What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want. Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 16, 2017, 10:30:07 pm
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious.  Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

There's nobody named Paragon here.

How do you define "the PC crowd" "doubling down" in this context? Do you, like others seem to, refer to people calling supporters of a racist racist for supporting a racist, or is it something else? For that matter, how do you define "political correctness" in the particular context of it aiding Trump's presidency?

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws. Even the Guardian admitted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise) that saying Trump supporters are all racist is dangerously reductionist.
Not all of them, but I and others have shown with evidence, in this very thread that a buttload of them are. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

Again we are reducing the election to economic issues OR racism. It was economic issues AND racism. Racism may not have been the tipping point for Trump's support and you could reasonably argue that it wasn't.

The Democrats failure to reach out to previously loyal voters who voted for Obama but don't live in the big cities or didn't see the material benefits of his administration. His siding with the banks instead of the people who were screwed by them. Clinton's insistence that America was already great when for many Americans it wasn't. Sure as eggs are eggs all that was important.

But not calling a fair chunk of Trump's supporters racist is counterfactual (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg), and the notion of not calling people what they are because you might upset their feelings is like a caricature of "the PC crowd"

EDIT: "The Guardian" didn't admit that. It wasn't an editorial, it was an opinion piece. In others racism was pegged as a contributing factor, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysis)

Yes, there are racists among Trump's support base. Plenty of them, in fact. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't make such broad accusations. There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, but would you call a rake or hoe a spade?

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote
Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 16, 2017, 10:53:22 pm
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious.  Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

There's nobody named Paragon here.

Dude I know it's you okay.  You're using the same talking points almost word for word.  You should have at least tried to throw people off your sent by saying things you wouldn't have as Paragon, like I dunno, pretend you're in love with Zoe Quinn or something.

But nice dodge, you avoided the question.  Again can you show me anyone outside the alt-right gasthekikesracewarnow crowd who uses the term Cultural Marxist unironically?



Quote
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17owbiibrj1i2jpg/original.jpg)

Nobody is saying that white men who didn't vote for Trump are to blame.  The fact remains that the majority did and that racism was a major factor.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 16, 2017, 11:05:59 pm
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

It's a false equivelance, one has statistics to back up the claim the other was pulled out of thin air. 58% of white voters across all demographics, 67% of whites without a college degree and 53% of males across all demographics voted for Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0) if gang membership is anything to go by black men aren't even the largest group in gangs. (https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics) Not that this is topical as your other claim is just a strawman.

Queens statement is a topical fact about the election, it's not a call to arms against whites, men or the uneducated. If it is and Queen is saying she hates men, whites and non college graduates for being who they are she's free to contradict me on this point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 16, 2017, 11:12:03 pm
White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Shut up Paragon and read your links. You focus on raw numbers, but your link states that poverty rates among the general population is 14.3%, whites (non-hispanic) have a poverty rate of 9.9%, and blacks have a poverty rate of 25.8%. And to put a point on this, while we cannot say for certain that a random white person has it better than a random black person, we can say that--in the aggregate--that white people do have it better (based on the fact that only 1/10, and not 1/4 of them, live in poverty). These statistics that you provided us prove that.

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote
Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

Thank you for explaining that nuance, but it doesn't undercut my previous point.... We are not talking about those who did not support Trump, but those who did support Trump. So, whether this made some white people less likely to vote for Trump is irrelevant because the crux of the study is to show that race and racial fears played a role for many Trump voters.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?

Nope, October 25-31, 2016 (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf). Otherwise known as 5 months after the last competitive Republican Primary.

If it is and Queen is saying she hates men, whites and non college graduates for being who they are she's free to contradict me on this point.

Nothing to really contradict, everyone but Paragon is picking up what I'm putting down.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 17, 2017, 12:32:27 am
Hell no! I was saying that people can (mis)use the term "Cultural Marxism" without being loony Jew-haters. Maybe they're academics talking about the history of sociology, or maybe they're geeks angry at the aggressive, heavy-handed "criticism" of their hobbies. Either way, that doesn't make them alt-right deplorables.

Okay Paragon I'm curious.  Name me one example of someone nowadays who calls people "cultural marxists" and isn't a loony Jew hater, or willing accomplice of loony Jew-haters.

There's nobody named Paragon here.

Dude I know it's you okay.  You're using the same talking points almost word for word.  You should have at least tried to throw people off your sent by saying things you wouldn't have as Paragon, like I dunno, pretend you're in love with Zoe Quinn or something.

But nice dodge, you avoided the question.  Again can you show me anyone outside the alt-right gasthekikesracewarnow crowd who uses the term Cultural Marxist unironically?

Why don't you turn back a few pages? My article established that.

And why are you so obsessed with this paragon guy? To the point of accusing me of being him based solely on some (supposedly) similar opinions. Do you two have unresolved issues?

Quote
Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17owbiibrj1i2jpg/original.jpg)

Nobody is saying that white men who didn't vote for Trump are to blame.  The fact remains that the majority did and that racism was a major factor.

Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

White men, and particularly uneducated white men, as a group, are responsible for Trump's election (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/). Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

Why should we assign collective guilt to white men? Let's change a few words:

Quote
Black men, and particularly uneducated black men, as a group, are responsible for gang violence. Sorry you don't like statistics, but your fee fees do not invalidate facts.

And suddenly, it looks like it was posted by an r/coontown refugee.

There are millions of white Americans who didn't vote for Trump. Do they deserve to be blamed for his election? No, because demographics aren't monoliths. White people are not a collective, any more than any other group.

No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.

Well, when I hear "as a group", it sounds like you're blaming the group, which is a hop, a skip, and a jump away from collective guilt. Sorry about jumping to conclusions.

And what evidence do you have that I'm paragon?

What is more, can have multiple conversations and values regarding white privilege and economic equality: it is a false dichotomy that we mush choose between one or the other (https://medium.com/@marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.uupyjqe62) that is insidiously pushed to silence civil rights (https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*sqjUycQpVrWo6k_kH0awsA.jpeg). You don't have to be an ally, and you can continue to talk about economics all you want.

There's nothing wrong with talking about systematic inequality in addition to economics issues. People can be concerned about multiple issues at the same time. My problem is with saying that white people automatically have it better. In 2013, most poor people in the United States were white (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf). How do you think a laid off factory worker with a dead wife, three kids to feed, and a bum leg is going to take being lectured about his "white male privilege"?

Shut up Paragon and read your links. You focus on raw numbers, but your link states that poverty rates among the general population is 14.3%, whites (non-hispanic) have a poverty rate of 9.9%, and blacks have a poverty rate of 25.8%. And to put a point on this, while we cannot say for certain that a random white person has it better than a random black person, we can say that--in the aggregate--that white people do have it better (based on the fact that only 1/10, and not 1/4 of them, live in poverty). These statistics that you provided us prove that.

That's true, but it's cold comfort for those individual white people who live in poverty. And there are millions who do. The fact that people who share their skin color are less likely to be poor doesn't negate their suffering.

Further, by focusing on identity politics and Govenor McPotty's trans-bathroom bill, Democrats won a meaningful race in North Carolina: (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats) it is not our way back, it is our way forward in changing times where racial minorities and LGBTQ people continue to make up a larger cross-section of society, particularly as prominent republicans continue to go full racist shitbag. But, as I posted earlier, reminding white people that they will make up less than 50% of this country in 2042 scares them and makes them more likely to vote for the Donald.

Not all white people, as the study's abstract admits:

Quote
Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects.

Your study proves that whites who place a premium on their whiteness are more likely to be afraid of being outnumbered. It doesn't prove that white Americans are an army of Archie Bunkers.

Thank you for explaining that nuance, but it doesn't undercut my previous point.... We are not talking about those who did not support Trump, but those who did support Trump. So, whether this made some white people less likely to vote for Trump is irrelevant because the crux of the study is to show that race and racial fears played a role for many Trump voters.

I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing out (admittedly somewhat rudely) that you said "white people" without any qualifiers, which I found somewhat misleading.

And I've already posted above how measurements of racial insensitivity correlated with, in a statistically significant way, one's willingness to vote for Trump, as well as an academic article explaining the cause and effect there.

Wasn't that poll taken before Trump won the primaries?

Nope, October 25-31, 2016 (http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf). Otherwise known as 5 months after the last competitive Republican Primary.

Ah, I was thinking of something else you posted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 17, 2017, 12:54:07 am
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4
Quote
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 17, 2017, 12:58:01 am
I've gotta get to work but just a quick MOD action:

LAAAAANAAA!

(http://i.imgur.com/9qOqIgu.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/Zoz599M.jpg)

Good way to prove that you aren't Dogmatic Paragon is to start acting like an adult and reading your own links before you post em and actually debating your points rather than moving the goalposts when you are losing.

And for the rest of you:

(http://i.imgur.com/rVQQyUV.jpg)

Enough with the joke, the jury is still out whether Lana is just UP dogding ban again but focus on the debate rather than the person.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Even Then on January 17, 2017, 04:56:33 am

Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.


And how do you define "bullying" and "stupid reasons"? And what kind of behaviour, in your eyes, constitutes "trying to play the role of the fiction police"? And how do you personally define an "SJW" (and, possibly to pre-empt you, "extremism" in the context of the social left)? These terms have been used as dogwhistles for any vehement and insufficiently submissive leftist sentiment or critical sociological analysis of fiction and its impact, so you'll understand if I'm raising an eyebrow at the terminology when it's unelaborated on. (And, actually, now that I'm on the subject, I still hold to the belief that neither Hindus disliking their religion's holy chants to be performed as entertainment by non-Hindus nor expanding already-extant codes of conduct on campus to include "don't be bigoted" count as "political correctness gone mad" in and of themselves.)

Furthermore, pretty much none of this has any relevance to Trump's presidency. Unless I'm incorrect, Trump's campaign devoted exactly zero time to any particular male positivity or explicit affirming message to whites specifically (and no, that doesn't mean he's not racist), and I'll bet my testicles it didn't touch on current trends in art critique. If someone's response to being told white privilege exists is to flock a guy whose mission statement contains "Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists", then it's fair to assume they already heard the siren call of racialist ideology.

And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office. That's not how voting works. When you put in the Trump you think will create jobs despite his several bankruptcies, you also put in the Trump who called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists live and wanted to register and round up Muslims. Voters don't magically take on the character flaws of the candidates they support, but if you give matches to the KKK so they can burn crosses, you don't magically become uncomplicit in racist terrorism just because you were doing to be a good neighbour or whatever.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 17, 2017, 06:19:59 pm
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4
Quote
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee

Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.

And Askold, could you please tell me how I moved the goalposts?


Now for your second question. I'm talking about people emphasizing "white privilege" and "male privilege" at a time when income inequality is at its worst in decades. I'm talking about student radicals trying to get "dead white men" removed from their classes. I'm talking about SJWs bullying people for the stupidest of reasons. I'm talking about pearl-clutching nitwits trying to play the role of the fiction police. To sum up, I'm talking about a disturbing undercurrent in the American Left in recent years, one that has resulted in the Democratic Party falling to its lowest point since Reconstruction. What I'm saying is that when you find yourself in a hole, it may be a good idea to stop digging.


And how do you define "bullying" and "stupid reasons"?

Doxing, threats, trying to get people fired, etc. As for "stupid reasons", I'd say "drawing Rose Quartz too thin (http://fusion.net/story/223425/zamii-steven-universe-fandom/)" is one of the dumbest.

And what kind of behaviour, in your eyes, constitutes "trying to play the role of the fiction police"?

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way. It's saying that fiction corrupts, or that it has a negative impact on society, based on questionable, spurious or even nonexistent evidence. It's trying to prevent the distribution of these products for no reason other than one personally does not like them. Fiction policing comes from everywhere on the political spectrum, whether it's Jack Thompson raving about "murder simulators" or a radfem making giant leaps in logic to say that porn promotes sex trafficking.

And how do you personally define an "SJW" (and, possibly to pre-empt you, "extremism" in the context of the social left)? These terms have been used as dogwhistles for any vehement and insufficiently submissive leftist sentiment or critical sociological analysis of fiction and its impact, so you'll understand if I'm raising an eyebrow at the terminology when it's unelaborated on. (And, actually, now that I'm on the subject, I still hold to the belief that neither Hindus disliking their religion's holy chants to be performed as entertainment by non-Hindus nor expanding already-extant codes of conduct on campus to include "don't be bigoted" count as "political correctness gone mad" in and of themselves.)

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article (http://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/) sums it up better than I ever could.

As a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules against bigotry. But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".

Furthermore, pretty much none of this has any relevance to Trump's presidency. Unless I'm incorrect, Trump's campaign devoted exactly zero time to any particular male positivity or explicit affirming message to whites specifically (and no, that doesn't mean he's not racist), and I'll bet my testicles it didn't touch on current trends in art critique. If someone's response to being told white privilege exists is to flock a guy whose mission statement contains "Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists", then it's fair to assume they already heard the siren call of racialist ideology.

Or maybe they don't like being told that they're inherently privileged because of their skin color while struggling to make ends meet, and decide to vote against the party that (directly or indirectly) promotes such nonsense.

And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office. That's not how voting works. When you put in the Trump you think will create jobs despite his several bankruptcies, you also put in the Trump who called Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists live and wanted to register and round up Muslims. Voters don't magically take on the character flaws of the candidates they support, but if you give matches to the KKK so they can burn crosses, you don't magically become uncomplicit in racist terrorism just because you were doing to be a good neighbour or whatever.

Funny you should talk about Mexican immigrants, because Trump did surprisingly well among Latino voters (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with-latino-voters-than-romney-did/).

But with that said, labeling all Trump voters as racist is not only unfair and simplistic, it's dangerous. If somebody is called racist based solely on how they voted, would they be more or less likely to vote the way the name-caller wants? These days, trying to shame people into doing something is more likely to have the opposite effect.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 17, 2017, 06:26:25 pm
But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".

(https://bibliomantics.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/the-killing-joke-hahahahaha-joker.jpg) (https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r2yxs/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/)

Spoiler: the picture is a link.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 17, 2017, 06:52:22 pm
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4
Quote
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee

Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.

I fear the point was missed here. No less a personage than Barack Obama has asked Muslims to take responsibility for their worst members (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/responsibility-responsible-violence/). Black people are frequently (http://ijr.com/2014/11/209189-4-take-personal-responsi-damnbility-one-mans-straight-talk-black-community-goes-viral/) tasked (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4gmeoo/cmv_black_people_need_to_begin_accepting_their/) with (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/its-time-for-black-america-to-blame-black-america/) taking  (http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-pastor-tells-blacks-to-stop-blaming-whites-for-all-of-their-problems)responsibility for the worst members of their community and I don't hear you complaining. I believe Sam was just saying, you know - what's good for the goose...

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.
Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.

Trouble is, much like "cultural Marxism" in common usage it's come to mean something different. Now it's just a lazy way of saying do-gooder who gives a crap about other people.

As a side note, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules against bigotry. But at a time when the bar for intolerance is constantly being lowered, I'd say people have every right to be nervous about being crushed under the wheels of "social justice".

Yeah.

(http://www.publiusforum.com/images/donald_trump.jpg)

That's what people are worried about being crushed under the wheels of.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 17, 2017, 09:46:38 pm
Maybe she didn't, but that's what it sounded like to me. I just really don't like statements implying collective responsibility. Can I tell you why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SaD-gSZO4
Quote
"If Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we!"

Samantha Bee

Nice rebuttal. Too bad I never said anything remotely like that about Muslims.

I fear the point was missed here. No less a personage than Barack Obama has asked Muslims to take responsibility for their worst members (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/responsibility-responsible-violence/). Black people are frequently (http://ijr.com/2014/11/209189-4-take-personal-responsi-damnbility-one-mans-straight-talk-black-community-goes-viral/) tasked (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4gmeoo/cmv_black_people_need_to_begin_accepting_their/) with (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/its-time-for-black-america-to-blame-black-america/) taking  (http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-pastor-tells-blacks-to-stop-blaming-whites-for-all-of-their-problems)responsibility for the worst members of their community and I don't hear you complaining. I believe Sam was just saying, you know - what's good for the goose...

Because it didn't come up. If it had, I would have. Like I said, I'm against collective responsibility in general.

To me, "fiction policing" is more than just criticism and analysis. It's criticizing fiction one finds problematic in a disproportionately harsh way.
Criticism should not be disproportionately harsh? I'm sorry Mr Uwe Boll, your film was kind of, somewhat not good and Mr M. Night" Shyamalan your plots could possibly be seen by some as not making sense, but only in certain areas mind you.

The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.

There are multiple kinds of SJWs, but I think a good general definition is somebody who claims to be "fighting the good fight" on behalf of women and/or minorities, but ends up doing more harm than good out of extremism and/or hypocrisy. I'd go on, but I think this article sums it up better than I ever could.

Trouble is, much like "cultural Marxism" in common usage it's come to mean something different. Now it's just a lazy way of saying do-gooder who gives a crap about other people.

Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 17, 2017, 10:08:02 pm
Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.
Yeah, I'm (https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/5ogdnt/theyre_going_to_bring_cameras_so_this_should_be/) sure (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vez1u/what_is_the_proper_use_of_the_term_sjw/).

Also, I know-not all white people yadda yadda. It's still a fact that mostly white people elected Trump (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13571676/trump-win-racism-power) and over 40% of those white people are racist as balls (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg). Those are factual statements, not a plot to make white people feel bad man.

The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.
Not everyone using the word "problematic" is calling for stuff to be banned. Yes Jack Thompson and BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) did want to ban stuff, but I don't think they ever used the word "problematic".

Thinking that people using the term "problematic" is a portent of the banning police coming and banning the stuff you love is also lazy and hysterical.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 17, 2017, 11:14:49 pm
Are you sure that's not the result of people trying to "reclaim" the term? That's not to say there aren't people abusing the term (I've seen it applied to some of DSP's critics), but when you have people like Laurie Penny saying that being a "social justice warrior" is something to be proud of, it's hard to say the dilution of the phrase rests entirely on their shoulders.
Yeah, I'm (https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/5ogdnt/theyre_going_to_bring_cameras_so_this_should_be/) sure (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vez1u/what_is_the_proper_use_of_the_term_sjw/).

Also, I know-not all white people yadda yadda. It's still a fact that mostly white people elected Trump (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13571676/trump-win-racism-power) and over 40% of those white people are racist as balls (http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg). Those are factual statements, not a plot to make white people feel bad man.

1. How do those Reddit links prove anything?

2. Yes, they are. See, if the rhetoric stopped there, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller.

The key word is "problematic". There's a big difference between IHE losing his temper at The Amazing Bulk for being a horrible excuse for a movie and religious fanatics claiming that DnD leads teenagers to the Devil. One is an understandable, human response to watching a lazy, incomprehensible mess that's only a movie by dictionary definition. The other is a load of hysterical nonsense.
Not everyone using the word "problematic" is calling for stuff to be banned. Yes Jack Thompson and BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) did want to ban stuff, but I don't think they ever used the word "problematic".

Thinking that people using the term "problematic" is a portent of the banning police coming and banning the stuff you love is also lazy and hysterical.
[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether they actually use the word. People can say "problematic" without being censorious moral busybodies, and people can be censorious moral busybodies without saying "problematic". When I said "problematic" was the key word, I intended to clarify that I was speaking of OTT moralistic criticisms. Let's not get bogged down in issues of other people's semantics. What I'm talking about is the attitude, not the vocabulary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 17, 2017, 11:36:44 pm
They show folks using SJW are bottom feeding reptiles who probably didn't start tossing it about because someone tried to "reclaim" the term unironically. Frankly it proves as much as your assertion that it might have been SJWs trying to reclaim SJWness by taking the acronym back.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. feel bad man.

Well that's a change of tune, see I distinctly recall you saying that calling them racist at all was unfair.

I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws.
They just give them their blessing.

America has voted already, well-at least the electoral college has voted in it's stead. Trump supporters are likely to get just as pissed at a nuanced statement saying that a percentage of them are racist as a flat out statement calling them all racist. After all, Hillary's "deplorables" comment made clear that she wasn't talking about every single Trump supporter or calling them all racist and look how that went over. We can discuss it or not, it's relevant to the topic but there's no point on holding back because you might piss off a Trump supporter.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 17, 2017, 11:39:12 pm
The fuck are y'all even talking about
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 17, 2017, 11:43:46 pm
Evil plan Obama should absolutely do: Resign as President on Thursday, so Biden can be sworn in, and ruin all the "45th President" paraphernalia prepared for Trump's inauguration.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 18, 2017, 12:20:44 am
They show folks using SJW are bottom feeding reptiles who probably didn't start tossing it about because someone tried to "reclaim" the term unironically. Frankly it proves as much as your assertion that it might have been SJWs trying to reclaim SJWness by taking the acronym back.

No, the first shows that there are right-wing idiots on Tumblr in addition to left-wing idiots, and the second makes a lot of claims with evidence for precisely none of them. Neither one proves that the term has been perverted by anti-SJWs. Nor do they prove that the term's been perverted to the extent you claim.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. But then people go overboard and start assigning collective guilt to white America, or saying that all Trump voters are racists, and then the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. feel bad man.

Well that's a change of tune, see I distinctly recall you saying that calling them racist at all was unfair.

I'd like to point out that saying Trump's supporters are racist is unfair. Voters don't magically take on their candidate's character flaws.
They just give them their blessing.

America has voted already, well-at least the electoral college has voted in it's stead. Trump supporters are likely to get just as pissed at a nuanced statement saying that a percentage of them are racist as a flat out statement calling them all racist. After all, Hillary's "deplorables" comment made clear that she wasn't talking about every single Trump supporter or calling them all racist and look how that went over. We can discuss it or not, it's relevant to the topic but there's no point on holding back because you might piss off a Trump supporter.

No, I said that blanket labeling of them as "racist" is unfair. I have no problem with people saying some Trump supporters are racist, or that a significant portion of Trump supporters are racist, because that's objective fact. But when you say "Trump supporters" without any qualifiers, it kind of sounds like you're talking about every last one of them, at least to me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 18, 2017, 12:46:03 am
Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?

Also-the ultimate responsibility for the perversion of the term SJW rests on the same people who "perverted" your venerable academic term "Cultural Marxism". Take it up with them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 18, 2017, 01:49:53 am
Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?

I don't think so. The point has been that after everything Trump has said and his team has done everyone who voted him has lost any excuse to claim that they didn't know that Trump's administration is going to be racist and because of that they were complicit in helping racists rise to power.

Someone in particular mentioned that they will now refer to Trump voters as supporting racism because that is what they did even if they just said that they liked his hair or business expertise or whatever.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 18, 2017, 02:10:06 am
Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?

I don't think so. The point has been that after everything Trump has said and his team has done everyone who voted him has lost any excuse to claim that they didn't know that Trump's administration is going to be racist and because of that they were complicit in helping racists rise to power.

Someone in particular mentioned that they will now refer to Trump voters as supporting racism because that is what they did even if they just said that they liked his hair or business expertise or whatever.
Grand, good. Glad we all agree.

So, this topic is in fact about Mr Trump going to Washington and not about the arcane origins of the acronym "SJW" or the term "Cultural Marxism", right?

Thought the thread might be getting derailed for a moment there!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 18, 2017, 03:30:37 am
After all those stories about famous musicians refusing to perform at Trump's inauguration I just wonder why the heck did they waste their time asking people like Elton John and Ice-T who are not the kind of people who would willingly help Trump when they could have asked musicians who LIKE Trump. There's gotta be some right?

How about that Nugent guy who brandishes guns during his performances and threatened to kill Clinton and Obama? Doesn't he seem like a perfect match?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 18, 2017, 03:36:36 am
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/nobody-wants-to-buy-them-frustrated-scalpers-losing-big-money-trying-to-sell-inauguration-tickets/

Okay, I have to admit, I'm feeling the schadenfreude here.

Scalpers bought tons of tickets for the presidential inauguration, with the usual aim of flipping them for a massive profit. Just one problem: nobody wants to go to Trump's inauguration.

Even if they can get the tickets for less than face value.

And not even people on white supremacist websites will take them, at least not for more than $100.

And it's looking like the protest the next day, the Women's March on Washington, will be better attended than Trump's inauguration.

Yep, definitely feeling the schadenfreude.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 18, 2017, 03:44:32 am
They asked Moby.

Quote
“Hahahahaha, I was just asked by a booking agent if I would consider djing at one of the inaugural balls for #trump ... Hahahahaha, wait, Hahahaha, really? I guess I’d DJ at an inaugural ball if as payment #trump released his tax returns. Also I would probably play public enemy and Stockhausen remixes to entertain the republicans. I’m still laughing. Hahahaha. So #trump what do you think, I DJ for you and you release your tax returns?”

This guy. (http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7572616/moby-open-letter-to-america-trump)

They can't get cover bands (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/17/bruce-springsteen-tribute-act-b-street-band-pull-out-of-trump-inauguration-gala) to perform.

But hey, Three Doors Down are playing-and their fans hate them for it! (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/ugh-3-doors-down-fans-respond-to-news-the-band-is-playing-trumps-inauguration/)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 18, 2017, 04:33:20 am
So was Ted Nugent too expensive for them? Because seriously, the guy is probably practically worshiping Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 18, 2017, 08:25:24 am
I don't think he's famous enough for them
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 18, 2017, 10:04:47 am
Has anyone here actually made the claim that every single Trump supporter is racist?

Yes.

And I maintain that calling Trump supporters racist isn't unreasonable. Sure, not every single person who voted for Trump did it out of racist feelings, but as you and others seem to have espoused, feelings don't particularly matter. Endeavouring to put an openly virulent bigot into office continues to be an inherently racist act regardless of one's internal feelings about it, because you can't just slice Donald Trump into pieces and put the ones you personally like into office.

Also-the ultimate responsibility for the perversion of the term SJW rests on the same people who "perverted" your venerable academic term "Cultural Marxism". Take it up with them.

No, it doesn't. While I will agree that the label's been overused, much like the case with "alt-right", the fundamental meaning generally remains the same for those who use it pejoratively. There may be disagreements about where the line between "activist" and "SJW" begins, but it's a difference of degree rather than kind. For the most part, it's people like Laurie Penny who tried to redefine the term, possibly as an attempt to implicitly brand anybody complaining about SJWs as a hate-filled, backwards right-wing radical. The fundamental difference is this: the extreme right tried to redefine "Cultural Marxism" to lend a veneer of credibility to their ideas, while the extreme left tried to redefine "SJW" with possible ulterior motives.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Even Then on January 18, 2017, 10:47:36 am
Social justice extremism: reclaiming an insult used towards people for being highly socially leftist as a positive term. Verily she wants to instate a leftist tyranny where cishets are put to the sword. And surely "shaming critics" is the only reason anyone could have for reclaiming an insultive term, which is why people who self-identify as "queer" are doing it just to oppress the heteros. /s

Seriously though, your premise of "people who want to reclaim SJW are the real reason SJW is so misused" is easily rejectable because 1) you base it on one (1) person allegedly reclaiming "social justice warrior" to "make the critics look bad" 2) you don't even give a proper source of this heinous act of cisheterophobic propaganda. I googled "Laurie Penny SJW" and only got sources like Ralph Retort and Roosh V's website, which 1) are biased to the extreme 2) I will not be dignifying with traffic.

But this isn't about that, my mistake. This is about how calling supporters of racists being president racist people, because they do actively racist things, apparently became an unreasonable thing to say at some point? Because something something Trump did marginally better with latinos than some other cockhole?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 18, 2017, 02:24:28 pm
Social justice extremism: reclaiming an insult used towards people for being highly socially leftist as a positive term. Verily she wants to instate a leftist tyranny where cishets are put to the sword. And surely "shaming critics" is the only reason anyone could have for reclaiming an insultive term, which is why people who self-identify as "queer" are doing it just to oppress the heteros. /s

I said it was a possibility, not that it was fact.

Seriously though, your premise of "people who want to reclaim SJW are the real reason SJW is so misused" is easily rejectable because 1) you base it on one (1) person allegedly reclaiming "social justice warrior" to "make the critics look bad" 2) you don't even give a proper source of this heinous act of cisheterophobic propaganda. I googled "Laurie Penny SJW" and only got sources like Ralph Retort and Roosh V's website, which 1) are biased to the extreme 2) I will not be dignifying with traffic.

I can link you to numerous people who unironically call themselves "social justice warriors". Not to mention websites actively trying to redefine the term.

While it's true that people do abuse the term "SJW", I have yet to be convinced that it's been abused nearly as badly as is frequently claimed. I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence. Most of the arguments being used to make those claims are opinion-based or reliant on anecdotal evidence. Besides, all this debate about whether it's still a valid term is distracting from the problems SJWs cause.

But this isn't about that, my mistake. This is about how calling supporters of racists being president racist people, because they do actively racist things, apparently became an unreasonable thing to say at some point? Because something something Trump did marginally better with latinos than some other cockhole?

Okay, I think we're getting too heated. Could we maybe chill? And while we're at it, let's try to stop talking past one another.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 18, 2017, 02:32:56 pm
I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence.

Remember that time I posted statistics and you were all "well, white people and fee fees." Yeah, I don't even need to call up Maury to tell that this quote is a lie.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 18, 2017, 03:34:26 pm
I'm a very empirical person, so I generally don't trust such claims unless I have hard evidence.

Remember that time I posted statistics and you were all "well, white people and fee fees." Yeah, I don't even need to call up Maury to tell that this quote is a lie.

There's a difference between backing up your arguments with statistics, and using said statistics to make blanket statements when they paint a more nuanced picture. Yes, I was wrong to assume you were assigning collective guilt, but I've grown to dislike blanket statements in general thanks to some... emotionally affecting experiences. If you'd said that a majority of white men voted for Trump, I wouldn't have cared less.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 18, 2017, 03:42:05 pm
So Trump has been down in Mar-A-Largo and is calling it "Winter White House".  Apparently he doesn't understand why the White House is where the President lives 24/7 and why he doesn't spend time in other places.  So Trump Tower is gonna be "White House Summer" and we have this bullshit.....how soon does he quit I wonder?

Ironbite-bookies are giving it 6 months before he's impeached.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 18, 2017, 03:59:30 pm
So long as Pence goes with him.  Trump will be bad, but Pence is demonstrably worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 18, 2017, 04:11:46 pm
Oh FFS of course some people unironically call themselves Social Justice Warrior, because it's unique among insults in that it combines three awesome things into an awesome-voltron. Combining the sheer over the top-ness with bitter fuck-you snark is what makes the insult work. Reclaiming it is simply boomeranging that snark in the other direction. That doesn't make Lurie Penny responsible for the terms popularity. It was a popular diss that she was reacting to, not the other way around.

Also, in my country we call Pauline Hanson's voters responsible for racism because even if you are the one token Asian that she apeared in the photo op with you'd have to be Blind Freddy not to know she's racist as fuck. Trump is like Hanson on crack and anybody alive on the planet not locked in a cell in supermax or in a coma since maybe the 1980s knows this!

But Lana I digress, because we all have in this very thread. Can we maybe start a new one to discuss this semantic argument about the origins of SJW-ness and cultural Marxism? Because here, now un this thread it's just an annoying derail.

Can we get back to Donald fucking Trump please?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 18, 2017, 04:21:21 pm
Oh FFS of course some people unironically call themselves Social Justice Warrior, because it's unique among insults in that it combines three awesome things into an awesome-voltron. Combining the sheer over the top-ness with bitter fuck-you snark is what makes the insult work. Reclaiming it is simply boomeranging that snark in the other direction. That doesn't make Lurie Penny responsible for the terms popularity. It was a popular diss that she was reacting to, not the other way around.

Also, in my country we call Pauline Hanson's voters responsible for racism because even if you are the one token Asian that she apeared in the photo op with you'd have to be Blind Freddy not to know she's racist as fuck. Trump is like Hanson on crack and anybody alive on the planet not locked in a cell in supermax or in a coma since maybe the 1980s knows this!

But Lana I digress, because we all have in this very thread. Can we maybe start a new one to discuss this semantic argument about the origins of SJW-ness and cultural Marxism? Because here, now un this thread it's just an annoying derail.

Can we get back to Donald fucking Trump please?

Yes, let's.

So long as Pence goes with him.  Trump will be bad, but Pence is demonstrably worse.

Maybe that's why Trump chose him, as "insurance". IIRC, he originally wanted Chris "shut that bridge down" Christie as his Veep.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 18, 2017, 05:01:53 pm
The difference between Trump and Pence is that while Pence is horrible, he at least would have some respect for the traditions and conventions of government. Trump doesn't.

I think it was Queen who mentioned that she doesn't trust that Trump would hand over power peacefully if he loses in 2020 or once he can't run again in 2024. Pence, I think, would.

(Of course, that raises the question of whether Trump would go peaceably if he were impeached.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 18, 2017, 05:07:33 pm
The difference between Trump and Pence is that while Pence is horrible, he at least would have some respect for the traditions and conventions of government. Trump doesn't.

I think it was Queen who mentioned that she doesn't trust that Trump would hand over power peacefully if he loses in 2020 or once he can't run again in 2024. Pence, I think, would.

(Of course, that raises the question of whether Trump would go peaceably if he were impeached.)
For Trump it's all about his ego, an impeachment-or for that matter an electoral loss is something he would perceive as an attack on his character and therefore his ego.

We all know already he wouldn't have accepted this elections outcome unless he had won, we also know he answers each and every attack on his character with petty rage. That's your answer.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 18, 2017, 05:35:02 pm
The difference between Trump and Pence is that while Pence is horrible, he at least would have some respect for the traditions and conventions of government. Trump doesn't.

I think it was Queen who mentioned that she doesn't trust that Trump would hand over power peacefully if he loses in 2020 or once he can't run again in 2024. Pence, I think, would.

(Of course, that raises the question of whether Trump would go peaceably if he were impeached.)
For Trump it's all about his ego, an impeachment-or for that matter an electoral loss is something he would perceive as an attack on his character and therefore his ego.

We all know already he wouldn't have accepted this elections outcome unless he had won, we also know he answers each and every attack on his character with petty rage. That's your answer.

Rubio said Trump had small hands, but I'd say his thin skin is the bigger problem. There is no way in hell he could handle the routine criticism that comes with being a head of state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 18, 2017, 06:37:43 pm
True as much as I hate Pence and his views scare me, he at least has a level head on his shoulder and could probably run the country and peacefully transition power when his term is up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 18, 2017, 09:13:32 pm
Australia's own nativist dills, One Nation, have been pestering the Australian embassy for tickets.  (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/one-nation-pestered-australian-embassy-officials-for-trump-inauguration-tickets-20170118-gtu3bb.html)They then crowed that they had been invited while the Prime Minister had not, the embassy clarified that it had told that the tickets were there if they wanted them-presumably because they couldn't scalp them. They then took to twitter claiming that Buzzfeeds verbatim quoting of One Nation's Senator Robert's bragging of exclusive invitations was "fake news".

Learning at the feet of the master.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 19, 2017, 02:00:31 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/17/the-director-of-the-cia-just-went-off-on-donald-trump-it-was-a-long-time-coming/?utm_term=.001b704bfdce

Oh dear, looks like some dirty commie spy is going to shoot Trump from the book depository. Sad. I am sure that the private security firm that he is going to use to replace the Secret service (not a joke, he really has made such claims) are going to be devastated.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 19, 2017, 07:58:30 am
Oh yes Donald's about to go to war with the CIA and it won't be pretty.

Ironbite-despite everyone calling them a joke they're far from powerless.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 19, 2017, 08:12:04 am
Well, part of their name is "intelligence," so I'm sure that makes Drumpf feel insecure.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 19, 2017, 06:36:09 pm
The Trump inauguration committee has finally found someone they don't want to perform, and it's Kanye West. Apparantly the performer is not 'Traditionally American' enough to perform. (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/donald-trump-kanye-west) What that's a euphemism for I have no idea.

I suspect this might have rustled a few GOP jimmies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q604eed4ad0

Note to Lana, this is not saying that every single member of the GOP is a racist 'kay*-nor every member of the inauguration committee nor every on the fence voter we've never met. Their feels are safe with me.

*Steve over there in the corner is alright, he's a Rand acolyte. He just wants to kill the poor regardless of race, creed or colour.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 19, 2017, 06:38:12 pm
Note to Lana, this is not saying that every single member of the GOP is a racist 'kay*-nor every member of the inauguration committee nor every on the fence voter we've never met. Their feels are safe with me.

*Steve over there in the corner is alright, he's a Rand acolyte. He just wants to kill the poor regardless of race, creed or colour.

I should put a similar disclaimer in my signature
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 19, 2017, 07:22:50 pm
Woooooooooooooooow.  Kayne West.

Ironbite-well makes sense.  He is in the middle of a mental breakdown.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 19, 2017, 07:38:02 pm
Woooooooooooooooow.  Kayne West.

Ironbite-well makes sense.  He is in the middle of a mental breakdown.
You can be fuckin' president elect and do that.

Clearly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 20, 2017, 12:31:56 am
Sigh, this next four years is going to be an embarrassing shit show.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 20, 2017, 01:12:23 am
If I was a musician I'd be desperately trying to get that gig.

And then once on stage I'd start singing a cover of Der Fuhrer's Face or Old Man Trump or whatever song I could think of that mocks Trump the most blatantly. 
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 20, 2017, 04:51:41 am
http://usuncut.com/news/republicans-kill-protesters/

Protest while you still can. After this law passes the authorities are allowed to shoot any groups of 10 or more people if they have the wrong skin colour are blocking the road or sidewalk.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 20, 2017, 05:58:38 am
When I was a young fella I watched a lot of movies about future dystopias, now it's happening.

Why leading up to the 2020s do we get the dystopia but not the orbital hotels or flying skateboards? That sucks!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 20, 2017, 08:25:28 am
http://usuncut.com/news/republicans-kill-protesters/

Protest while you still can. After this law passes the authorities are allowed to shoot any groups of 10 or more people if they have the wrong skin colour are blocking the road or sidewalk.

One, laughably unconstitutional.  Two, if it happens...well, you can't act surprised when they start shooting back, or devolving into a riot more readily.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 20, 2017, 10:25:18 am
http://usuncut.com/news/republicans-kill-protesters/

Protest while you still can. After this law passes the authorities are allowed to shoot any groups of 10 or more people if they have the wrong skin colour are blocking the road or sidewalk.

One, laughably unconstitutional.  Two, if it happens...well, you can't act surprised when they start shooting back, or devolving into a riot more readily.

This.  Its time to start using the weapons of the elite against them and doing so in such a manner that they abandon said weapons.

Ironbite-nothing gets fascists to get more scared then their own laws used against them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 20, 2017, 02:24:32 pm
So here's a comparison from Trump's inauguration turnout to Obama's in 2009.

(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7843605/crowd_split_social_y.jpg)

It's pretty funny yet sad how small his turn out is. How could a man this disliked become president. There clearly isn't national excitement about him being president just based on this image alone
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Zygarde on January 20, 2017, 02:32:49 pm
I like how Trumps looks so dreary even in image quality like it's telling you that this is shitty, where as Obama's looks vibrant and awesome.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 20, 2017, 03:36:07 pm
I've heard that Trump's team is blaming the weather for shit turnout. Because apparently 58 degrees and light rain is a much bigger obstacle than the below freezing temperatures Obama had.

I should also point out that the (early) estimates are between 10,000 and 250,000. For perspective, Obama's 2013 inauguration had over a million people, while his 2009 inauguration reached over 1.8 million people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 20, 2017, 03:40:09 pm
I've heard that Trump's team is blaming the weather for shit turnout. Because apparently 58 degrees and light rain is a much bigger obstacle than the below freezing temperatures Obama had.

I should also point out that the (early) estimates are between 10,000 and 250,000. For perspective, Obama's 2013 inauguration had over a million people, while his 2009 inauguration reached over 1.8 million people.

Looking it up, Obama's 2009 Inauguration had highs of 30 degrees Fahrenheit, with lows around 19. For 2013 had temps around 35.

Tl;Dr- LOL!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 20, 2017, 03:42:56 pm
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 20, 2017, 03:47:49 pm
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 20, 2017, 03:54:06 pm
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

But can the voters call an election and boot him out?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 20, 2017, 03:56:57 pm
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

That can get him impeached as the GOP is nothing if not hypocritical about sex.  Especially when he starts to become politically inconvenient.

Ironbite-like....now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2017, 04:02:09 pm
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

But can the voters call an election and boot him out?

No.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 20, 2017, 04:52:44 pm
If enough evidence comes out the dems could look into impeachment if and when they take back the senate and house. With the way things are going to go that might happen sooner than later.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 20, 2017, 04:54:21 pm
GOP will impeach him sooner just to score points with the electorate and not get squished in the mid-terms.

Ironbite-we're in for a rough 3 years though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 20, 2017, 05:10:53 pm
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

But can the voters call an election and boot him out?

No.


Yeah, that whole "democracy" thing?  Basically a facade.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2017, 05:24:25 pm
I'm not surprised, since you have to dig for his approval ratings (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315223-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-new-low-hours-before).

Say, is it possible to recall a POTUS?

It's called impeachment. I know he'll do something impeachable in these next four years, hell his refusal to divest raises the emoluments issue and it's literally day one. Not to mention his complete disdain for rules and norms. But the GOP will never impeach him, even if it does come out that he was working with Putin and peeing on Russian prostitutes.

But can the voters call an election and boot him out?

No.


Yeah, that whole "democracy" thing?  Basically a facade.

Recall is, AFAIK, the exception in representative democracies, not the rule.

Also, so many Democratic Senators are up for re-election in 2018 that they literally cannot get to the 67 seats necessary to remove Trump from office, or override a veto. (They can't even get to the 60 they'd need to break a filibuster.)

EDIT: Spelling.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 20, 2017, 05:42:32 pm
What are the odds of him ragequitting?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2017, 05:45:58 pm
What are the odds of him ragequitting?

Not good, mostly because I think he'd ragebomb something before ragequitting. The US military is the ultimate penis extension, after all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 20, 2017, 06:17:15 pm
GOP will impeach him sooner just to score points with the electorate and not get squished in the mid-terms.
Not before the damage is done.

A figure like Trump is politically useful for them at least in the short term, they can do all of the unpopular stuff-like gutting ACA without a replacement and blame him later when public opinion turns. The things that will negatively affect their base, the small business owners farmers and disenchanted rust belters are things the GOP desperately wants. Trump is the perfect fall guy.

Of course Trump is just as likely to blame them when it all turns to shit. What a happy, fun bunch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2017, 06:58:11 pm
Donald Trump's approval rating according to a recent Quinnipiac poll: 37%.

George W. Bush's approval rating after Hurricane Katrina: 43%.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 20, 2017, 08:13:32 pm
Donald Trump's approval rating according to a recent Quinnipiac poll: 37%.

George W. Bush's approval rating after Hurricane Katrina: 43%.
I thought we learned from the election itself that the polls are just flat out wrong.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2017, 08:29:19 pm
Donald Trump's approval rating according to a recent Quinnipiac poll: 37%.

George W. Bush's approval rating after Hurricane Katrina: 43%.
I thought we learned from the election itself that the polls are just flat out wrong.

The national results, and the swing state results, were within the margin of error, if at the upper end of that for Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 20, 2017, 10:13:13 pm
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/44e19230a57a4833801488ad5c3ab326?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

And the fact that this is the first fucking thing he did in office doesn't surprise me really says a lot about my expectations of Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2017, 10:27:08 pm
Well, the health care thing is rather general and not very specific. Bad, yes, but not specific.

The specific first thing he did was the mentioned mortgage bit. Obama had ordered a 0.25-percentage-point rate cut for FHA-backed mortgages. (In concrete terms, this would have saved borrowers about $29/month on a $200,000 mortgage.) It's now been suspended over concerns about the amount of money the FHA has on hand.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 21, 2017, 03:13:06 pm
Does anyone think that the Republicans actually have replacement plans for the aca? Cause it's going to be really shitty for everyone when premiums sky rocket because all of the young people leave the market because they won't want to buy insurance or can't afford it. I mean Republicans can't be this fucking stupid to not realize that it's going to hurt there re election chances if they really fuck this up. And hopefully dems aren't stupid enough to call them out on it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 21, 2017, 05:46:45 pm
Trump claims he had a million and a half people at his inauguration in a petty attempt to discredit a protest drawing at least two times the crowd he had. This is, quite obviously, a bold faced lie.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 21, 2017, 05:59:53 pm
Reality does not sit well with the Orange Piss Pot now does it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 21, 2017, 06:15:30 pm
Does it ever?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 21, 2017, 06:21:07 pm
Trump claims he had a million and a half people at his inauguration in a petty attempt to discredit a protest drawing at least two times the crowd he had. This is, quite obviously, a bold faced lie.
Uh huh. (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 21, 2017, 06:54:10 pm
Once again photo and video evidence prove him wrong.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 21, 2017, 07:01:55 pm
While the schadenfreude is amusing and I look forward to more of it in the next four years, it shouldn't be taken without pointing out that Trump making bold faced lies about and to the press and his Sean Spicer, his press secretary, making a blanket statement of "we're going to hold the press accountable" (direct quote, by the way) without any sort of context or explanation sets a dangerous and terrifying precedent for how the Trump administration is going to handle PR.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 21, 2017, 07:16:49 pm
Robert Riech claims that Republican insiders plan to use Trump to get what they want and then throw him under the bus.

Quote
Reich asked his friend what the GOP will do now that Trump is president.

“They’ll play along for a while,” the unidentified friend said. “They’ll get as much as they want – tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare – and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.”

Asked what happens then, the Reich’s friend laughed and said, ‘They like [Vice President] Pence.” “Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind,” he explained. “So the moment Trump does something really dumb – steps over the line – violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way … and you know he will …”

“They impeach him?” Reich asked. “You bet. They pull the trigger,” was the reply (http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/theyll-pull-the-trigger-robert-reich-explains-how-the-gop-is-playing-trump-till-they-can-dump-him/)

Note that this is someone claiming an anonymous source so it's unverified, but it makes sense. Also, there's no indication that the GOP will be any more tolerant of a free press or democracy than Trump himself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 21, 2017, 07:26:40 pm
The GOP never wanted Trump.  Oh sure the Fringe that has come to dominate the GOP did but the GOP leadership?  Nope.  Not a single one of them wanted him.  He's out of control and will never be brought to heel.  They'd rather have Pence in there but Pence doesn't win elections.  Trump does.  And when they do get what they want out of him and he's made himself such an ass, look to see an impeachment started and stick.  Probably around mid-terms.

Ironbite-so 2 years of this then the GOP throws Trump under the bus to get some form of moderates back.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 21, 2017, 07:37:25 pm
I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 21, 2017, 08:03:14 pm
I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.

Of course they know it's unpopular, but their corporate funders want it. (Or, at least, they want the tax cuts that they can get when they no longer have to fund that stuff.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 21, 2017, 08:18:30 pm
I don't get it. Why would they gut everything and then blame trump for it? Shouldn't they be proud of all the bullshit they're going to do? It's like they know what they want to do will be extremely unpopular with the American people. So they need to put it on a fall guy.
This is why. (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/koch-brothers-are-smiling-white-house-will-be-packed-some-their-most-loyal-servants)
(http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/kochs_3.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on January 21, 2017, 09:54:16 pm
I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 22, 2017, 12:34:49 am
I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump

That is not true. The polls erred, but the error was well within the margin. To be more precise, FiveThirtyEight predicted that Hillary would win the national popular vote by 3.8%. She wound up winning by 2.1%. Now, 1.7 is a big difference, but when the margin of error is 3.0%, it really isn't that big. And, when you stop and consider that the electoral college favored Trump in the first place (FiveThirtyEight reported that it would be a toss-up at around 2.5% national lead in the popular vote), that explains Trump's win. That doesn't mean polls are useless, or worse than useless, it just means that there are errors that are naturally built into them that arise from time to time; unfortunately, this time (to put it in  pokemon terms) Fissure hit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 22, 2017, 07:03:18 am
Quote
    more people went to dashcon than the amount of people who went to trump’s inauguration
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 22, 2017, 08:58:03 am
I'm betting on eight years of Trump. The polls are worse than useless, and it's become cool to hate the law. Getting impeached will just make him more popular, though it might not get to the point where the people overthrow the government if they impeach Trump

I don't know. Trump is less popular now than Bush was after Katrina, and this is only the beginning of his term. He'll have to make some significant changes to really try to approve his image. But i don't think he cares all that much. Knowing the Democrats though they'll probably put a boring moderate like Tim Kaine up against him in 2020 instead of someone to excite the base.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 22, 2017, 11:02:50 am
During the Trump inauguration he brought out one of the lizardmen who secretly control him and had the creature wear a mock up human-suit. Luckily most of the witnesses who saw his inhuman appearance with hands that seem to be prosthesis for this snake creature merely assumed that this being from another world is merely a secret service agent wearing fake arms because he is holding a gun under his suit...

http://warfarefootage.com/2017/01/donald-trumps-bodyguard-has-fake-arms-for-this-reason/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 22, 2017, 05:31:29 pm
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)

To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 22, 2017, 05:47:40 pm
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)

To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.

Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.

EDIT: We'll be winning with the Trump-Pacific Partnership. We'll be winning so much we'll get tired of winning with it, and we'll say, "Donald! We're tired of winning with the TPP! When you are going to pull us out of it?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 22, 2017, 06:03:42 pm
Buried in the heart of his bragging/whining speech to the CIA there was this (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/21/trump-goes-to-cia-to-attack-media-lie-about-crowd-size-and-suggest-stealing-iraqs-oil/).

Quote
" Trump regurgitated parts of his stump speech about how the United States “should have kept the oil” after invading Iraq. “Maybe we’ll have another chance,”

That should worry people at least as much as him instructing his press secretary to tell blatant lies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 22, 2017, 06:15:09 pm
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)

To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.

Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.

I doubt Trump will bring this back, while he flipped flopped on this issue, and every other that doesn't center around his giant hands/penis, his actions are taking us down the protectionist route... And China is laughing so hard at us right now. With America backing out, now they are the dominant economy to bring countries to the table and create free trade deals, deals which China--and not the United States--gets to write. Fact is, the TPP was drafted to circumvent China's currency manipulation and increase American influence in South Asian nations. That is why China is not a signatory.

And then with Canada and Mexico... I guess the only silver lining is that a trade war is better than an actual war. But then Tol posted, so fuck.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 22, 2017, 06:48:31 pm
The Trump administration just killed the TPP:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-and-Team-Officially-Withdraw-From-TPP-20170122-0002.html)

To be honest, I'm surprised the first citrus-American POTUS actually kept a campaign promise.

Just wait, before the midterms he'll rejoin it (after a few minor provisions have been tweaked and it's been renamed the "Trump-Pacific Partnership") and he'll say that it's the greatest trade deal, believe me, it's tremendous, it'll get all our jobs back, big league, and Mexico agreed to pay for the wall, a yuge wall, a beautiful wall, as part of it.

I doubt Trump will bring this back, while he flipped flopped on this issue, and every other that doesn't center around his giant hands/penis, his actions are taking us down the protectionist route... And China is laughing so hard at us right now. With America backing out, now they are the dominant economy to bring countries to the table and create free trade deals, deals which China--and not the United States--gets to write. Fact is, the TPP was drafted to circumvent China's currency manipulation and increase American influence in South Asian nations. That is why China is not a signatory.

And then with Canada and Mexico... I guess the only silver lining is that a trade war is better than an actual war. But then Tol posted, so fuck.

He's also a known serial liar. I'd put no more credence into his promises on trade than anything else.

And that may have been the original motivation for the TPP, but then they added stuff that allowed corporations to go before international tribunals of corporate lawyers to overturn, without appeal, local laws that cut into their profit margins.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 22, 2017, 07:15:28 pm
I wouldn't write off the threat of real war so early. It's a great way to get a bounce in popularity, people love a good war until it inevitably turns sour. It also lets you justify all sorts of repressive crap. If he wants to "eradicate ISIS" at some point he's gonna have to ask for ground troops.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on January 22, 2017, 07:36:48 pm
Yeah, I can see him sending the troops back in to Iraq at some point :(
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 22, 2017, 07:50:01 pm
Speaking of repression. (http://www.alternet.org/trumps-america-felony-riot-charges-against-inauguration-protesters-signal-dangerous-wave-repression)

Quote
More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and quarter-million-dollar fine. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 22, 2017, 08:07:36 pm
Speaking of repression. (http://www.alternet.org/trumps-america-felony-riot-charges-against-inauguration-protesters-signal-dangerous-wave-repression)

Quote
More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and quarter-million-dollar fine. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.

In fairness (not that I think it deserves much), some of the protesters did cause property damage. (I don't know if they were actual protesters or agents provocateurs, however.) Whether any of those were among the people arrested, I don't know.

But arresting journalists and legal observers is beyond the pale.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 22, 2017, 08:27:58 pm
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC?  Seriously, how do you tell?  The place is a shithole.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 22, 2017, 08:32:33 pm
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC?  Seriously, how do you tell?  The place is a shithole.

Still better than Miami.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 22, 2017, 08:33:17 pm
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC?  Seriously, how do you tell?  The place is a shithole.

Still better than Miami.

All of which are several orders of magnitude better than Mogadishu.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 22, 2017, 09:02:08 pm
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC?  Seriously, how do you tell?  The place is a shithole.

Still better than Miami.

All of which are several orders of magnitude better than Mogadishu.

And even that is better than the arid wasteland that is Topeka.

HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN HOW HOT IT IS THERE!?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 22, 2017, 11:16:13 pm
How could you tell if they did property damage in DC?  Seriously, how do you tell?  The place is a shithole.

Still better than Miami.

All of which are several orders of magnitude better than Mogadishu.

And even that is better than the arid wasteland that is Topeka.

HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN HOW HOT IT IS THERE!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TheMe8y3Oqs
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 23, 2017, 12:38:12 am
Oh wow...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

USA is leaving UN if this passes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 23, 2017, 12:45:03 am
Oh wow...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

USA is leaving UN if this passes.

That sort of thing has been a goal of American reactionaries for a long time. But I think it can be filibustered.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 23, 2017, 12:58:05 am
God damn fucking dumbshits.  Look, the UN is far from a perfect organization but it holds a a function in international politics that is completely essential to maintaining basic stability in the world.  These tea party lunatics don't understand such basic stuff, it makes me weep.

As for Trump starting a war, I think he will not out of a plan to boost his poll numbers but just because of his fragile ego.  He's so petty and easily baited that all ISIS needs to do is make a video on youtube saying he's bald to provoke him into invading ever country in the middle east, just like they want.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 23, 2017, 01:42:52 am
It's worth remembering from the FSTDT days that many of these people's core constituents believe the apocalypse is not just real but something that should be hurried along.

This proposed legislation makes sense in that light at least.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 23, 2017, 01:44:52 am
So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.

It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Murdin on January 23, 2017, 03:46:03 am
Oh wow...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

USA is leaving UN if this passes.

Apparently, this bill has been proposed at every Congress session for the past 20 years, but never even made it past the committee. I'm pretty sure leaving the UN was not part of the Republicans' platform, and neither did Trump campaign for it.

Not saying that it can't eventually happen if They the People drag their own asses into an impossible situation, but the timing of this proposal is basically irrelevant to how it might eventually come to happen.

So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.

It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...

Dear Leader is a narcissistic yet unbelievably insecure, elderly manchild who loves naming things after himself. Accordingly, his seat of power is on top of a massive tower that bears his name. He wants the entire world to love him, admire him, practically worship him, and will seek to punish anyone who doesn't. He seized power by exploiting people's complacency, ignorance and apathy, but to him it was all just a game. He embodies the decay of modern Western society, of capitalism, of our concept of freedom ; even beyond that, he represents the timeless human vices that all those troubles stem from, the reasons there was never a time or place where "society", capitalism or freedom were ever truly "done right".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 23, 2017, 07:46:34 am
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/america-you-look-like-an-arab-country-right-now-214678
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 23, 2017, 07:17:41 pm
Hilariously, down under our own conservative government is futilely begging Trump to keep the TPP (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transpacific-partnership-dead-before-trump-even-takes-office-20161113-gso9kn.html) while the opposition asks why they're even bothering. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/21/govt-must-look-tpp-alternatives-alp)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 23, 2017, 07:23:04 pm
Hilariously, down under our own conservative government is futilely begging Trump to keep the TPP (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transpacific-partnership-dead-before-trump-even-takes-office-20161113-gso9kn.html) while the opposition asks why they're even bothering. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/21/govt-must-look-tpp-alternatives-alp)

Australia, let's play a little game I like to call "have you met China?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qsPfwKZHUQ)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 23, 2017, 09:59:49 pm
Oh wow...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193

USA is leaving UN if this passes.

Apparently, this bill has been proposed at every Congress session for the past 20 years, but never even made it past the committee. I'm pretty sure leaving the UN was not part of the Republicans' platform, and neither did Trump campaign for it.

Not saying that it can't eventually happen if They the People drag their own asses into an impossible situation, but the timing of this proposal is basically irrelevant to how it might eventually come to happen.

So, basically, the Republican Party has metamorphosed into the Pigmask Army, and Trump is basically a seventy year old Porky Minch.

It fits; wanting to cause the apocalypse, no regard for anyone but themselves, corrupting people into giving them more power...

Dear Leader is a narcissistic yet unbelievably insecure, elderly manchild who loves naming things after himself. Accordingly, his seat of power is on top of a massive tower that bears his name. He wants the entire world to love him, admire him, practically worship him, and will seek to punish anyone who doesn't. He seized power by exploiting people's complacency, ignorance and apathy, but to him it was all just a game. He embodies the decay of modern Western society, of capitalism, of our concept of freedom ; even beyond that, he represents the timeless human vices that all those troubles stem from, the reasons there was never a time or place where "society", capitalism or freedom were ever truly "done right".

...they rode to true power by taking advantage of the beliefs and natures of small town people who wanted improvements and happiness, taking advantage of people who did not know better due to their own actions by promising them utopia and ascent. The Leader brought them into a cult, making them worship him and default to him on nearly everything, following him regardless what abuses the Leader's Army ended up doing. The Leader undertakes policies and decisions that would bring ruin to those who followed him and enabled him to achieve power, and yet even still they insist this is true Utopia, unable to fathom anything but that.

All while Trump / Porky could care less for anything except himself.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 25, 2017, 12:23:16 am
Trump is going to build the wall and tax payers in USA will pay for it: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315998-trump-to-sign-order-to-build-border-wall-with-mexico

Isn't that what he promised? If you think you heard something about Mexico paying for the wall then I assure you that I have wonderful alt-facts for you!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 25, 2017, 12:36:32 am
Trump's pick for FCC chair is anti-net neutrality.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/23/510844936/trumps-telecom-chief-is-ajit-pai-critic-of-net-neutrality-rules (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/23/510844936/trumps-telecom-chief-is-ajit-pai-critic-of-net-neutrality-rules)

This just gets better and better.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 25, 2017, 12:37:42 am
I hope Trump doesn't think that because he signed a paper it just doesn't make it so. I don't see congress even being republican going along with this. The republicans who don't like to spend money on infrastructure are not just going to net billions to build a worthless wall. I hope Trump throws a hissy fit. You can't cut taxes and then just build this wall. Not to mention all of the issues with people owning land on the border who didn't sell it last time this was tried.  And when the population picks up on that it's coming out of our taxes i think the popularity of this wall will drop.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 25, 2017, 01:00:56 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/repealing-the-affordable-care-act-will-kill-more-than-43000-people-annually/?utm_term=.c929b701cba1

http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1202099

For every 455 people who gain health coverage in the US, one life is saved per year.

So when you strip health insurance from twenty million people--which is what repealing the Affordable Care Act will do--you add, on average, almost 44,000 deaths per year.

So for the sake of giving the finger to Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement (which, as I have said so many times, is what the Republicans had been proposing for decades) and giving a massive tax cut to the 400 richest families in the US, the Republican Party is willing to kill well over forty thousand people per year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 25, 2017, 01:11:58 am
All Hail King Porky. They should be GLAD they die for his chubby glory!/s
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 25, 2017, 01:37:18 am
So for the sake of giving the finger to Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement (which, as I have said so many times, is what the Republicans had been proposing for decades) and giving a massive tax cut to the 400 richest families in the US, the Republican Party is willing to kill well over forty thousand people per year.
Hell, they've been more than prepared to kill foreign lives for politics. So have the blue dogs. Not just foreign lives, how many are unnecessarily killed because of "tough on crime" policing or the war on drugs?

Being prepared to shed others blood for a few political points isn't that unusual unfortunately.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 25, 2017, 01:47:48 am
...Aaand just in case it wasn't mentioned before, alt-news (formerly known as fake-news) are now preferable in the White house:

https://thinkprogress.org/sean-spicer-lifezette-fake-news-5d52a18ffa80#.lomnc9gb8

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 25, 2017, 03:01:56 am
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/23/14-senate-democrats-fall-in-line-behind-trump-cia-pick-who-left-door-open-to-torture/

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Pompeo, who's in favour of torture and wants to kill Edward Snowden, was approved as CIA Director.

With fourteen Democratic votes.

Breaking it down:

Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY).

Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 25, 2017, 03:14:35 am
Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY).

Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
"Opposition"? Surely you jest!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 25, 2017, 03:23:46 am
Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY).

Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
"Opposition"? Surely you jest!

They're taking the "Loyal" part of "Loyal Opposition" too literally.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 25, 2017, 07:47:28 am
Republicans voting against: Rand Paul (R-KY).

Democrats voting for: Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted in favour of confirming Rep. Pompeo. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who also caucuses with the Democrats, voted against confirming Rep. Pompeo. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) did not vote.
"Opposition"? Surely you jest!

They're taking the "Loyal" part of "Loyal Opposition" too literally.
The new test of loyalty will apparently be celebrating Trump's Inauguration Day (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/23/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion-for-what/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29) as a National Day of Patriotic Devotion (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion).

If there is a human being in the history of ever with a larger and more fragile ego, let me know.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Murdin on January 25, 2017, 10:46:13 am
Every time I see Kaine's name in a list like this one, I am reminded that the USA sealed their doom not on January 20th, nor on November 8th, but on July 7th.

I wasn't even a big fan of Sanders, but "better than Obama" is a surprisingly high bar for politicians to reach.

The new test of loyalty will apparently be celebrating Trump's Inauguration Day (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/01/23/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion-for-what/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29) as a National Day of Patriotic Devotion (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/24/2017-01798/national-day-of-patriotic-devotion).

If there is a human being in the history of ever with a larger and more fragile ego, let me know.

Obama practiced the same kind of self-aggrandizement with his "Day of Renewal and Reconciliation", so Trump had a precedent to back him up. The choice of name is still a tad worrying as an endorsement of exceptionalism, but coming from this team in particular, that's not exactly anything new or surprising.


EDIT: looks like Dear Leader is trying to rewrite his popular vote loss into a win. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/trump-promises-major-investigation-into-alleged-voter-fraud.html) Since this is far from his first shot at "alternative biographing" himself success out of abject failure and he now has the immense power of the state in his tiny, tiny hands, I fully accept the possibility that official reality will conform to his wishes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 25, 2017, 12:49:18 pm
Hey, it worked for Stalin.  Its amazing how a little book editing and early 20th century Photoshop magic can turn someone that Lenin thought to be the greatest threat to the Soviet Union into one of Lenin's best buddies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 25, 2017, 01:52:22 pm
Dammit Trump! http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316099-trump-still-uses-unsecured-android-phone

Why are you so incompetent?!

And what are the odds that the people who criticised Clinton for usin non government phone and email say a single word about this?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 25, 2017, 03:10:28 pm
They won't just like they won't complain about Trump using tons of executive orders.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 26, 2017, 02:49:30 am
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315963-gop-pans-democrats-1-trillion-infrastructure-package

You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.

Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.

And the GOP shot it down.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 26, 2017, 03:26:15 am
Well, you see, investing in infrastructure would actually help people and they're too busy blocking funding for abortions that is already blocked to actually help people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 26, 2017, 08:08:16 am
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 26, 2017, 04:42:47 pm
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315963-gop-pans-democrats-1-trillion-infrastructure-package

You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.

Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.

And the GOP shot it down.

I hope they don't do that infrastructure plan. Large infrastructure rebuilding projects should be used in a Keynesian sense. That is, when there is a recession and high unemployment, where the infrastructure project is a means of spending to modernize the economy while allowing the government to spend its way out of said recession. An infrastructure project now, when unemployment is 4.7% pushes us dangerously close to full employment, meaning that inflation is on the horizon. Further, at a time like this, where wages are starting to recover, where unemployment is low, and where the recession is over, it's just a giant money giveaway to large industries that work in machinery and government contractors. While this is true even in times of recession, the creation of jobs and government stimulus make up for this in the long term. However, I don't believe Trump's motive for an infrastructure plan is to help the economy or create jobs, but to stimulate a sector of the economy that he likely owns substantial stock in. I have no evidence for this belief, but come on, it's Donald Trump.
 
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 26, 2017, 05:00:09 pm
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315963-gop-pans-democrats-1-trillion-infrastructure-package

You know how Trump talked about spending as much as a trillion dollars on infrastructure? Probably one of the things he talked about most, alongside building the wall, getting out of TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA.

Well, the Democrats proposed doing just that.

And the GOP shot it down.

I hope they don't do that infrastructure plan. Large infrastructure rebuilding projects should be used in a Keynesian sense. That is, when there is a recession and high unemployment, where the infrastructure project is a means of spending to modernize the economy while allowing the government to spend its way out of said recession. An infrastructure project now, when unemployment is 4.7% pushes us dangerously close to full employment, meaning that inflation is on the horizon. Further, at a time like this, where wages are starting to recover, where unemployment is low, and where the recession is over, it's just a giant money giveaway to large industries that work in machinery and government contractors. While this is true even in times of recession, the creation of jobs and government stimulus make up for this in the long term. However, I don't believe Trump's motive for an infrastructure plan is to help the economy or create jobs, but to stimulate a sector of the economy that he likely owns substantial stock in. I have no evidence for this belief, but come on, it's Donald Trump.

Well, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, as of 2013 (and since not much has been done since, I believe, it's only gotten worse), civic infrastructure in the US got a grade of D+ (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/) and would require an investment of $3.6 trillion by 2020 to fix. It's not a matter of spending to boost employment, or spending your way out of a recession, or what have you--it's a matter of fixing infrastructure that has to be fixed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 26, 2017, 05:29:21 pm
Cept he won't.  It'll be to his pet project.  That's it.

Ironbite-he cares nothing for himself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 26, 2017, 07:03:01 pm
The "J" in "Donald J. Trump" stands for "Joffrey." #alternativefacts
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 26, 2017, 07:12:37 pm
Looks like that prospect of a trade war with Mexico just got a whole lot more real (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/26/trump-calls-for-20-tax-on-mexican-imports-to-pay-for-border-wall). From the Guardian:

Quote
Enrique Peña Nieto cancelled a meeting with Donald Trump and the White House retaliated by suggesting a new 20% tax on imports from its southern neighbour to finance the construction of a border wall.

Looks like he has the authority within the letter of the law to impose tariffs without congressional approval too.


Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 26, 2017, 10:58:16 pm
https://twitter.com/realRealDukat

https://twitter.com/POTUFOP

https://twitter.com/JoeSondow/status/819686680739266560
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 27, 2017, 01:30:53 am
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/26/1625349/-West-Wing-leaker-silenced-after-pulling-back-the-curtain-Trump-irrational-staff-demoralized

AAAAAAAAAH!

Someone was, for a short while, making tweets supposedly revealing what was happening inside the white house.

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356836/large/WHL10.jpg?1485420630)
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356837/large/WHL11.jpg?1485420795)
If these are true I don't think Trump will last 8 years...

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356840/large/WHL15.jpg?1485420796)

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356846/large/WHL18.jpg?1485421289)

The more I read about Trump the more it reminds me of Nero, Caligula and other insane emperors... And you've got lead poisoning going on in Flint as well so maybe this is just an attmpt at re-enacting the fall of the Roman empire?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 27, 2017, 03:01:00 am
I want to point out, so it's clear, that we have no way of knowing if those tweets are actually true. That said, I choose to believe that they are, in the lack of any evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 27, 2017, 03:17:42 am

If these are true I don't think Trump will last 8 years...

(http://images.dailykos.com/images/356840/large/WHL15.jpg?1485420796)

I doubt he's the only politician who's a member of a conservative party who really thinks that, most of them are all about the Benjamins but know to get elected you need to spout conservative talking points about abortion being bad.

Ditto capital punishment being a deterrent, ditto climate change.

This is worrying though.

(http://i.imgur.com/ZsMUccK.jpg)

Is Trump going to mount an invasion of those parts of America that didn't vote for him?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 27, 2017, 03:21:53 am
I want to point out, so it's clear, that we have no way of knowing if those tweets are actually true. That said, I choose to believe that they are, in the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

Well if the White house brings actual solid proof that these Tweets are simply lies and slander then wouldn't that just be alt-facts?

EDIT: also, have we reached the point where we can agree that USA is going through a revolution or coup as several major agencies are refusing orders from the president? You have park rangers and NASA going rogue to publish scientific data (which, I admit, is among the stranger ways to rebel but let's just go with it) and even though no shots have been fired yet Trump is clearly losing control of the country and he has only just been the president for a week...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 27, 2017, 04:23:16 am
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."
To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 27, 2017, 04:39:30 am
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."
To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.

Yeah. For my money that's the one good thing Trump has done so far.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 27, 2017, 09:14:32 am
@askold: It ain't just Flint.  Lead is a gigantic problem in the US...and not from water.  The greatest threat of contamination actually comes from old paint that we could have removed a long fucking time ago, if certain people upstairs gave a shit.  Its kind of worryingly hilarious that there's theories floating about that lead consumption could've been a leading cause of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 27, 2017, 10:46:38 am
Yeah i love how when the democrats want to spend money fixing things they're all like "No we have to cut spending! " but now that trump is in office they're like "eh well find the money somehow."
To be fair, the other side does it too. People seem to be far less critical of the TPP than they once were now that Trump has pulled America out of it.

Yeah. For my money that's the one good thing Trump has done so far.


Cept it wasn't him who did it.  He just signed the order.

Ironbite-once again taking credit for shit he has no hand in at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on January 27, 2017, 12:29:11 pm
So the US is officially out of the TPP? Be interesting to see if that actually helps bring the jobs back.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 27, 2017, 01:22:09 pm
Jobs have been leaving the country since the 1940s, way before NAFTA or TPP were even thought up. It's not going to change much, and TPP was pretty much dead in the water in congress anyways. Corporations have their own self interests in mind and probably don't really care much what Trump thinks. They may "create" some jobs to stay here to appease him, but most manufacturing is becoming automated or shipped over seas at a lesser coast anyways. The economy is becoming very much global and a lot of countries are trying to fight against it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 27, 2017, 05:43:49 pm
Getting rid of TPP was the one good thing Trump has done so far and I just hope it doesn't get replaced by something worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 27, 2017, 06:05:46 pm
It already has: the Angry Cheeto.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 28, 2017, 12:56:02 am
So question, why does Donald Trump lie so constantly, so obviously, about such trivial matters?

Is it because:

a) he's just that fragile and stupid?
Or as economist Tyler Cowen argues here http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/26/14386068/why-does-trump-lie

b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?

 
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 28, 2017, 01:37:55 am
Michelle Bachman said something again: http://www.thegailygrind.com/2017/01/27/trump-adviser-michelle-bachman-claims-gays-islamic-terrorists-working-together-destroy-america/

Yes, "the gays" are in alliance with "the Muslims/ISIS" who want to kill them all because they both hate Trump and 'Murica more than each other. Also the Black lives matter movement is a secret gay-Muslim plot to end the world by making Jesus rise again. Or something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 28, 2017, 03:52:33 am
So question, why does Donald Trump lie so constantly, so obviously, about such trivial matters?

Is it because:

a) he's just that fragile and stupid?
Or as economist Tyler Cowen argues here http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/26/14386068/why-does-trump-lie

b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?
There's always Henry Kissinger's madman theory.

But that was only about someone pretending be a madman.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 28, 2017, 08:17:52 am
So question, why does Donald Trump lie so constantly, so obviously, about such trivial matters?

Is it because:

a) he's just that fragile and stupid?
Or as economist Tyler Cowen argues here http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/26/14386068/why-does-trump-lie

b) out of a deliberate political strategy to test which republicans are loyal enough to him to humiliate themselves in public for him so he can secure his control of the party and depose guys like Paul Ryan?

It's a major trait of someone with narcisistic personality disorder. Lying to make himself seem greater than he actually is. Making big empty promises. Putting down people who challenge him. It's why he bullies the media. Because the media tells it like it is and it shatters his little ego. Narcisist attack those who don't treat them as the number one person in the room, world, universe.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: TheContrarian on January 28, 2017, 11:25:39 am
So only a week or so in and the next four years is shaping up to be popcorn-worthy.

Entertainment-wise my horror scenario was this dude turning into a boring sensible politician who'd just spent the campaign spouting fun-but-implausible things to energise the voter base only to drop them after inauguration day.

But early indicators are looking like he's actually going to DO some of them.  This is going to be HILARIOUS.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on January 28, 2017, 01:27:59 pm
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2017, 03:28:21 pm
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.

I'm "a white guy on the outside" and I'm fucking terrified at how he's telling the environment to go fuck itself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 28, 2017, 04:20:57 pm
I'm a white guy on the inside and we're probably gonna have an ISIS attack on US soil that he'll do nothing about and WHOOPS THERE GOES THE BILL OF FUCKING RIGHTS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 28, 2017, 05:19:58 pm
I'm a white guy on the inside and I don't feel fear like normal people.

I do however feel nothing but disgust and detest for the cabal of idiots and Russian Lickspittles he's surrounded himself with.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on January 28, 2017, 05:44:00 pm
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.

I'm "a white guy on the outside" and I'm fucking terrified at how he's telling the environment to go fuck itself.


That's absolutely fair.

[/size]
I'm a white guy on the inside and we're probably gonna have an ISIS attack on US soil that he'll do nothing about and WHOOPS THERE GOES THE BILL OF FUCKING RIGHTS!


Oh, no, I am absolutely right there with you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2017, 05:45:43 pm
Sure, for a white guy on the outside. For anyone else, its fucking terrifying.

I'm "a white guy on the outside" and I'm fucking terrified at how he's telling the environment to go fuck itself.


That's absolutely fair.

I'm also fucking terrified that he might start WWIII with another nuclear power.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on January 28, 2017, 05:50:08 pm
Aren't we all?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2017, 06:01:49 pm
Aren't we all?

Apparently not Conty.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on January 28, 2017, 06:07:27 pm

Apparently not Conty.


He's of the same brand as Trump, so that is only logical.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2017, 06:13:28 pm

Apparently not Conty.


He's of the same brand as Trump, so that is only logical.

Point.

But then, I can think of four nuclear powers with which he could well start a war: Russia, China (trade war initially, but I wouldn't put it past him to be incompetent enough to turn it into a hot war), North Korea, and Pakistan.

Plus he's said Saudi Arabia should have nukes, which would make relations with those madmen ("the ISIS that made it") extremely delicate for any future President who might feel like lambasting them over their human rights abuses.*

And if he starts a nuclear war with North Korea and those crazies actually manage to make a missile capable of reaching California... well, I live on the west coast of North America, too, and I'd be scared out of my skin at the likely lack of accuracy of any North Korean missile.

EDIT: *Never mind what Israel might do if Saudi Arabia looked like they might be getting nukes.

EDIT #2: And then there's Iran. *shudder*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2017, 07:28:42 pm
Meanwhile, thanks to Trump's executive order on immigration from certain countries, a recent doctoral graduate from Clemson was denied re-entry into the US after visiting family in Iran:

http://thetab.com/us/clemson/2017/01/28/nazanin-zinouri-1560
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 28, 2017, 07:58:23 pm
Entertainment-wise my horror scenario was this dude turning into a boring sensible politician who'd just spent the campaign spouting fun-but-implausible things to energise the voter base only to drop them after inauguration day.

But early indicators are looking like he's actually going to DO some of them.  This is going to be HILARIOUS.
Yes, the hilarity if you have an Arab name of never being able to go on holiday or visit relatives. I'm sure they see the joke.

The super funny situation if you are pregnant and need an abortion but can't afford access to rich people's health care. Lots of googling "DIY coat hanger cooch surgery", my sides ache.

People actually living out the plot of "breaking bad" because their health care has really evaporated. Hi-larious.

The prospect of a US president stumbling back in to invade the already smoldering, broken Levant with a mind to "taking" their billions of barrels of subterranean unmined oil. It is to laugh.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on January 28, 2017, 10:32:15 pm
One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2017, 11:11:00 pm
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2448-these-soldiers-fought-u.s.-trump-just-banned-them.html

These people risked their lives (and their lives are still at risk because of their past associations) for the US and its soldiers. Now Trump has banned (or is about to ban) them from entering the country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: TheContrarian on January 29, 2017, 05:21:24 am
One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.

Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on January 29, 2017, 05:31:15 am
One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.

Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.

For someone who claims to be British, you really don't comprehend the English written word very well do you? Pyro is hardly citing his/her relative as a reliable source. The statement is simply the repetition of  conjecture. By definition not said to be a reliable source.

For fuck's sake, at least make an attempt at reading. I realise it's hard to focus given your vigorous self abuse but maybe take a breather before typing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 29, 2017, 08:33:35 am
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316718-wh-defends-holocaust-statement-that-didnt-mention-jews

I mean it's true that not all the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish but they were the one group of people that the Nazis specifically made their target and whom they had been terrorizing for years already. I think I can even say that they were the main target and the others were the "other untermensch."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 29, 2017, 03:03:10 pm
So Trump's approval rating after one week?
36% percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-approval-rating-quinnipiac-poll/

That's bad. But obviously not surprising. I can't believe this man got elected or that people were so gullible to vote for him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 29, 2017, 03:24:05 pm
One of my relatives thinks Trump's likely to stage a military coup, of the US, successfully. She repeatedly compares the US to Rome while doing so, of course.

Totally a trustworthy source and not the demented shrieking of someone who doesn't understand how governments work.

For someone who claims to be British, you really don't comprehend the English written word very well do you? Pyro is hardly citing his/her relative as a reliable source. The statement is simply the repetition of  conjecture. By definition not said to be a reliable source.

For fuck's sake, at least make an attempt at reading. I realise it's hard to focus given your vigorous self abuse but maybe take a breather before typing.
Why? He just wants to bloviate. Bloviating only requires alternative facts, reading real ones is for libtards!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 29, 2017, 05:24:26 pm
Alt-Right is tearing itself apart: http://www.gq.com/story/deploraball-drama

4Channers, Goobergaters and neo-Nazis can't make a coherent team and they are either fighting over which one of them is the coolest or whether or not they should be closeted Nazis or in full-Nazi mode.

One guy was told to stop with his Nazi salutes and keep a lid on his anti-semitism, the result:

Quote
    Cernovich is a huge cuck. Mike Cernovich is a massive cuck.

    I am alt-right. I have always been alt-right. I have never said I'm not alt-right, unlike Mike and Paul Joseph Watson and Milo and these other cucks.

*giggle*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 29, 2017, 06:17:07 pm
Nazi Politics has never been unified, All For Hitler, or even particularly kind to one another.

For example, here's some drama that went on;

Reinhard Heydrich - infamous sociopath and the guy other Nazis went to for organizing stuff from genocide to the fucking Olympics - played three different men against one another, Himmler, Goering and Bormann. All thought Heydrich was their friend. Eichmann believed he and Heydrich were similar in spirit, but Reinhard reportedly saw Eichmann as a leech who followed whatever others were doing.

Goering was infamous for his drugs, his parties, and his wasteful ways and others disliked the way he only peaked in to goings on to voice his disdain.

Himmler was an avid control freak, a manipulator who played at being a harmless bureaucrat to more adequately control others. He could not stand being removed from a position of control. For him, Reinhard was a friend due to their close work, and yet he was never anything to Reinhard but a convenient cover for when he, er, did things that even other Nazis disliked.

And all these men had eyes on being Fuhrer one day and tirelessly worked against one another - all of them convinced some were their friends and others their foes, sometimes changing classifications by the day or week.

So you see, this is nothing new. The Alt-Reich for all their tawdry displays is falling into exactly the same kind of infighting and factionation that dominated the Third Reich and in part contributed to its downfall. In an empire governed by hatred, eventually those who rule will direct their hate at one another.

Never will they be content - they'll divide up even their preferred white race into subraces and genuses like the idiots they are, because hate is all they have. There is no cohesion, no remarkable unity, just utter vicious idiocy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 29, 2017, 06:46:16 pm
4Channers, Goobergaters and neo-Nazis can't make a coherent team and they are either fighting over which one of them is the coolest or whether or not they should be closeted Nazis or in full-Nazi mode.

I don't actually miss Ultimate Prattle On/Alcoholic Flagon but It'd be entertaining to see what kind of rhetorical bullshit he'd spout to justify being totes progressive while concern trolling crocodile tears about how the "real progressives" in the alt-right are being oppressed by mean radflakes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 29, 2017, 07:49:57 pm
The only good is Bannom may have played his hand waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to fucking soon.  It's gonna be interesting now that the fucking Koches have drawn a line in the sand over this.

Ironbite-they need to get control of the Orange Piss Pot before the mid term campaigns start or the people are gonna swing blue haaaaaaaaaaaaaard.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 30, 2017, 05:25:01 am
So... is there anyone apart from the customs agents and the majority of the senate on Trumps side anymore? Because he lost the LAPD now: http://usuncut.com/news/lapd-police-chief-just-openly-rebelled-trumps-immigration-orders/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on January 30, 2017, 08:41:49 am
Did he ever have the support of the LAPD? We're taking about the most liberal part of California.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 30, 2017, 08:53:23 am
Good point, but now they are openly defying his order. (Or at least the organization is. Statistically it's likely that he has some supporters among them as well.)

EDIT: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/30/14442046/tom-price-innate-immunotherapeutics

Who's surprised? Anyone?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 30, 2017, 11:32:14 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadist-groups-hail-trumps-travel-ban-as-a-victory/2017/01/29/50908986-e66d-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_jihadist-groups-635pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4be33b9564d1

You know who loves the Muslim ban? ISIS.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 30, 2017, 11:41:16 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadist-groups-hail-trumps-travel-ban-as-a-victory/2017/01/29/50908986-e66d-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_jihadist-groups-635pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4be33b9564d1

You know who loves the Muslim ban? ISIS.

Yeah, he's playing right into their hands. A clash of civilizations is exactly what the Jihadis want.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 31, 2017, 07:55:45 am
Not only that but by banning muslims he's legitimizing their holy war they want so badly with the west.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 01, 2017, 01:18:24 am
Number of days it took each President to achieve majority disapproval in polling (note: not lacking a majority approving, but having an outright majority disapproving):

Ronald Reagan: 727
George H. W. Bush: 1,336
Bill Clinton: 573
George W. Bush: 1,205
Barack Obama: 936
Donald Trump: 8
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 01, 2017, 04:53:12 am
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/trumps-education-secretary-pick-plagiarized-her-senate-questionnaire-responses-report/

Somebody please tell me that Rawstory is one of the Onion-type fake news sites because this is too cliche to be real. The new head of the department of education copied her answers off of net.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 01, 2017, 07:07:41 am
Nope
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 01, 2017, 06:55:22 pm
Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon-Mobil, which had a multi-billion contract with Russia killed by Obama administration sanctions over the invasion of Crimea, has been confirmed as Secretary of State. His qualifications for this position can be found behind the spoiler tag.

(click to show/hide)

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00036

Three Democratic Senators voted for confirming him: Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Mark Warner (D-VA). Additionally, Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, voted to confirm him.

No Republican Senators opposed Tillerson's nomination. Chris Coons (D-DE) did not vote.

Note: Sens. Heitkamp, Manchin, and Warner have all received large donations from the energy industry and support the Keystone XL pipeline. Sen. King opposed the Keystone XL pipeline.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 01, 2017, 07:07:09 pm
God damn it Warner.....for fucks sake man.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 02, 2017, 02:32:21 am
Australia's PM Malcolm Turnbull and Trump are having a spat over who hates Muslim refugees more.

Turnbull had made an agreement with Obam to take some asylum seekers trapped in rapey hellhole Manus Island. Trump has reacted pretty much as you'd expect him to (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/02/australia-struggling-to-save-refugee-agreement-after-trumps-fury-at-dumb-deal) calling it a "dumb deal" and allegedly hanging up on Turnbull.

Turbull is in a bit of a bind here, he thought he'd scored a political coup because Aussie conservatives hate refugees as much as American ones and he could get America to take them. But then the American ones voted for Trump...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 02, 2017, 02:39:01 am
Trump presidency will not last four years. I don't think it will last even a year. The way this is going the first shots will be fired sooner or later and I'm not sure how many sides the second US civil war will have but it is coming and it will be soon.

(Granted that I would not be surprised if Trump's side will win the war but I'm sure they'll think of a new title for him when he rules the YUGE STATES OF MURICA.)

EDIT: and that Australia thingy. The most offensive part of this, in my mind, is how Trump is really using newspeak. "Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!"

Note, "illegal immigrants." He is talking about refugees and lumping them together with the people who cross the border illegally. This is despicable.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dakota Bob on February 02, 2017, 11:33:50 am
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/trumps-education-secretary-pick-plagiarized-her-senate-questionnaire-responses-report/

Somebody please tell me that Rawstory is one of the Onion-type fake news sites because this is too cliche to be real. The new head of the department of education copied her answers off of net.

And I'm sure there will be Democrats that will actually vote to confirm her.

I have a feeling 2017 is gonna suck harder than last year...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 02, 2017, 02:32:08 pm
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/317571-white-house-denies-relaxing-sanctions-on-russia

The White house eased the sanctions to US corporations dealing with Russia. Or as the White house put it they "did NOT ease the sanctions to US corporations dealing with Russia." Because of course they have alternative facts.

From now on (unless they change things again) technology companies can export stuff to Russia as long as the FSB promises that those items will not be used in the Crimean war.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 02, 2017, 06:52:46 pm
A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future.
 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)
Quote
“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 02, 2017, 07:04:06 pm
A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future.
 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)
Quote
“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.

You do realize the US has been at war for the last 140 years, right? The 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie ended Red Cloud's War, and the US unilaterally abrogated that treaty no later than 1877.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 02, 2017, 10:53:01 pm
A conservative's take on the first weeks of the Trump administration:

Quote
The state visit with Teresa May seemed to go well enough. I'm glad to see Sir Winston's bust back on display after Obama summarily removed it from sight (incidentally, he also has a place of honor on the main floor of the Pentagon). I'm hopeful for a US/UK trade deal.

The EO on refugees wasn't unconstitutional or illegal (despite some of the headlines) but the internal comms weren't there and that caused the implementation to be bungled. Unnecessary error, but fixable, and on the whole not really that big a deal.

He made a killer SCOUTS nomination. That means a lot.

Iran is the one starting shit with the Iran situation, not Trump. Remember, he made his bones as a counter-puncher.

On the other side of the ledger, what's with the dust-up with Australia? Not cool.

Also, what's with flirting with the Obama position on Israel? Also not cool.

I missed the speeches, so I won't opine on those.

So on the whole, the week was a mixed bag, but much more to the positive. I'm hoping that Trump and the Australian PM can kiss and make up, but I'll take this over whatever would have come out of President Hillary's office this week, that's for sure.

(And by that standard, he has a lot of latitude and a really low bar).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 02, 2017, 10:58:20 pm
It really shows how fetishistic their wanting for a "strong man" ruler is.

They would've voted Hitler in in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 02, 2017, 11:00:37 pm
Thing is, I'm actually disappointed by that person in particular. Earlier in the process he'd indicated that he was opposed to both Clinton and Trump and would probably vote for Johnson... and then voted for Trump. (He's in Maryland, so it's not like that impacted the results of the election, but still.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 02, 2017, 11:18:21 pm
A year ago President Bannon said straight out that war with China and War in the Middle East is inevitable in the future.
 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt)
Quote
“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

Now he's in power while his orange mannequin distracts everybody by pooping all over the world stage. It's a matter of time, fascism needs war or everybody including those in positions of power realizes it's not working. War will come.



Bit of a problem there.  Once the GOP gets what they want out of Trump, he's impeached and WHOOPS there goes President Bannon.

Ironbite-he needs to start that war like...tomorrow if he wants to stay in power and Trump doesn't actually have the military right now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 03, 2017, 06:27:45 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00043

So shortly before the end of Obama's presidency, the Department of the Interior proposed a rule that would have prevented mining companies from dumping byproducts into streams. Now the Senate, at least, has voted to overrule it... with Democrats Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), and Claire McCaskill (MO) voting for it, and Republican Susan Collins (ME) voting against it. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) did not vote.

Because fuck people who need clean water (read: everybody), right?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 03, 2017, 08:14:10 pm
Is it bad I'm wondering if it's possible to pipe that garbage towards Capitol Hill?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 03, 2017, 10:04:36 pm
Manchin and McCaskill really disappoint me - Manchin reads from his votes like an alt-right type who just rides democratic coattails, and I do not even know with McCaskill any more.

^ I would agree with you - if they like waste product so much, pipe that into Congress. Well, the smell would probably not change, considering the fetid garbage currently inhabiting the place.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 04, 2017, 02:07:41 am
Trump told the Countering Violent Extremism federal program to stop focusing on White Nationalist groups. (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-is-setting-us-free-white-supremacists-celebrate-reports-that-trump-will-dial-down-scrutiny-136039e12fad#.du07b151i)

Quote
“Donald Trump wants to remove us from undue federal scrutiny by removing ‘white supremacists’ from the definition of ‘extremism,’” the founder and editor of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer (which takes its name from a Nazi propaganda publication) wrote in a post on the site. “Yes, this is real life. Our memes are all real life. Donald Trump is setting us free.”

Well that's a nod to his most loyal fans isn't it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 04, 2017, 08:31:03 am
It's like a nightmare i can't wake up from.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 04, 2017, 10:43:36 am
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-johnson-amendment-political-activity-churches.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region%C2%AEion%3Dtop-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Say goodbye to the separation of church and state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 04, 2017, 11:40:38 am
So churches don't pay taxes,  and now they get to control politics.  Looks like we're heading towards that Christian oligarchal theocracy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 04, 2017, 03:31:54 pm
Or at least an attempt at one anyways.

Ironbite-not sure the Orange Piss Pot'll be in power long enough.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 04, 2017, 04:00:20 pm
According to an article I saw on a news website, Jared Lushner and Ivanka Trump stopped Trump from going after LGBT rights more than he has already.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-lgbt-order-234617
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 04, 2017, 05:58:09 pm
Well la de da for them!

Ironbite-don't care.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 04, 2017, 10:51:54 pm
Effects of repealing the ACA:

1. Twenty to thirty million people will lose health insurance.

2. At least forty thousand more people will die each year.

3. Well over a million jobs will be lost as people have to save money against hospital bills and for prescription medications rather than spending that money in the economy.

4. A few hundred ridiculously rich families will get a massive tax cut.

I'm glad to see where the Republicans' priorities are.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 05, 2017, 12:07:28 am
Assuming that the 2018 elections are legitimate, they're sacrificing their future for ...nothing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 05, 2017, 12:46:50 am
Here's the thing.

The Democratic Party has been focused on presidential years, not midterm years, of late. (Observe that they made mild gains in Congress in 2012 and 2016, and took huge hits in 2010 and 2014.) So already the Republicans have this edge on them in 2018 unless they can seriously reverse course.

Thanks to that disastrous showing in 2010, the House is gerrymandered all to hell against the Democrats. I can't really see them making up 30 seats they'd need for a majority there.

Nearly half of their Senate caucus is up for re-election in 2018, who came in on the back of Obama's 2012 win and the one midterm election of late where the Dems did well, in 2006 (because Dean actually had a fifty-state strategy, unlike Wasserman Schultz who was just a good fundraiser and had to raise tons of money to pay off the campaign debt Obama dumped on the DNC). When the 2008 group, who also rode Obama's coattails, came up in 2014, the Dems got hammered. 10 of the Democratic Senators up for re-election are from states Trump won, and not only that, but in the meantime the Voting Rights Act has been emasculated and Republicans, who control many of those states, have enacted tough voter suppression laws. So I can't see them picking up another three Senate seats--in fact, I think it's more likely they'd retake the House than the Senate, and I think the Republicans will actually extend their Senate majority.

So the VRA won't get updated, the voter suppression laws won't get struck down, the House maps will largely remain in effect for 2020, and it'll take something really, really special for the Dems to make big gains there. They could well beat Trumpelthinskin, or the religious fundamentalist who would replace him if he were impeached, but they've dug themselves a deep, deep hole and it will take a big change in the party to get themselves out of it any time soon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 05, 2017, 02:17:52 am
Basically, when the Democrats aren't specifically helping the Republicans across the party lines they are merely incompetent and the main two reasons to vote for them are a) at least they aren't Republicans and b) the de-facto two-party system in USA means that voting a third party is just useless.

EDIT: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/documents-confirm-trump-still-benefiting-from-his-business/2017/02/04/848fdd5a-eae0-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.e72c827ddf63

Wasn't there some clause or law or something that Trump was supposed to follow? And does this mean that someone can do something about it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on February 06, 2017, 02:24:37 am
As far as I know, so long as the President isn't profiting off of foreign interests, they are allowed to own businesses. It is, however, my understanding that tradition has had every previous President cut ties with any business interests they have, partly to prevent a violation of the Title of Nobility Clause, partly so they can focus on the job and partly to prevent any conflict of interest that would directly impact their ability to perform the job of the President fairly to the people.

Now, seeing as Trump is so lazy that he reportedly didn't even read the order to put Bannon on the NSC, he obviously doesn't care about his ability to do his job. Because his motivations in anything he does are his ego and his wallet, he obviously doesn't care about any conflicts of interest if they benefit him, regardless of how they hurt everyone else. And because he has numerous business interests around the world, he is probably in violation of the Title of Nobility Clause and will most definitely be in violation of it when foreign diplomats inevitably show preference to his hotels to try to gain his favor.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 06, 2017, 05:49:57 pm
Man the Trump tranision was such a rousing success but I think it might've been a bit rushed.  I mean besides not having time to give the Orange Piss Pot a crash course in basic civics, Obama forgot to show Trump where the light switch is and where the exit doors are. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)

Quote
Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room. Visitors conclude their meetings and then wander around, testing doorknobs until finding one that leads to an exit. In a darkened, mostly empty West Wing, Mr. Trump’s provocative chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, finishes another 16-hour day planning new lines of attack.

Ironbite-uh......really guys?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 06, 2017, 06:48:54 pm
Bannon: They will never see it coming. I'll be king, King of my own country, and that fat ignoramus will be as my court jester! MUAHA! MUAHA! HAHAHA!

Staffer: Steve? Are you okay in there?

Bannon: I mean huhuhu...I was just coughing from all the dust!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 07, 2017, 04:19:16 am
Fun fact for today, Trump doesn't believe in global warming unless it threatens his golf properties. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 07, 2017, 03:18:23 pm
Fucking Betsy Devos was confirmed for a position she is unqualified for.
Here are the senators up for re election in 2018 that voted for this woman.

Dean Heller (NV)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Deb Fischer (NE)
Bob Corker (TN)
Ted Cruz (TX)
Roger Wicker (MS)
John Barrasso (WY)
Orrin Hatch (UT)

We have to get these assholes out of office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 07, 2017, 03:33:04 pm
I could maybe see Nevada going, but I can't see any of the other seats switching, and as I've noted previously, I think the Republican majority in the Senate will grow.

I think the Dems have a chance if they go populist left (which includes booting out some sitting Democratic Senators in primaries), rather than wishy-washy corporatist "Third Way" centrism (which actually is pretty right-wing compared to the public), but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 07, 2017, 03:36:17 pm
It'll probably happen sooner rather then later but I want McCain gone now.

Ironbite-man has no spine despite being a "maverick".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 07, 2017, 03:39:51 pm
It'll probably happen sooner rather then later but I want McCain gone now.

Ironbite-man has no spine despite being a "maverick".

He was a "maverick" two decades ago. Then he saw all the money to go Bush in 2000, which was a major factor in his Presidential primary loss, and his voting record got a lot more conservative after that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 07, 2017, 04:18:37 pm
I guess you don't have to worry about the new head of Department of Education if the GOP manages to get rid of the department completely: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/318310-gop-lawmaker-proposes-abolishing-department-of-education
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 07, 2017, 05:59:24 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4GPWNyUcAAQBkw.jpg:large)

To her credit, Sen. Murkowski voted against confirming Betsy DeVos in spite of the contributions.

EDIT: According to Open Secrets, Sen. Collins has received $2,000 from the National Education Association, and Sen. Murkowski has received $23,500.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 07, 2017, 10:47:53 pm
It's good to see you can just buy yourself into a position you're not qualified for.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 08, 2017, 12:15:54 am
OK I watch these guys way more than I should but I find them hilarious. I should probably find the clip directly from the O'Reilly Trump interview but can't be arsed. Trump thinks Barack Obama really likes him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p61W7KQzziI
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 08, 2017, 12:35:12 am
It is amazing just how well Trump and Porky Minch's mindsets keep aligning.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 08, 2017, 05:19:33 am
Meanwhile...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-trump/

It costs New York City more than $1,000,000 per day to protect Donald Trump, particularly Melania and Barron Trump. That comes out to at least $30,000,000 per month.

http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/basic-facts-about-homelessness-new-york-city/

There are 15,856 homeless families in New York City.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/section-8/voucher-payment-standards-vps-utility-allowance-schedule.page

Section 8 funding for those families? Roughly $28,000,000 per month.

New York City is literally spending more on the Trumps than they are on the homeless.

EDIT: In fairness, the amount of money being spent by NYC on securing Trump Tower may have dropped for now with Trump spending time in the White House (and at Mar-a-Lago) as opposed to when he was President-Elect, but it's still ridiculous that it was true at any time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 08, 2017, 08:02:53 am
I think i heard mayor Deblasio and governor Cuomo were looking to hit up the feds to cover the costs, because it's not fair to the New York tax payers.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 08, 2017, 03:39:10 pm
OH boy I can't wait for that fight to happen!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 08, 2017, 03:48:41 pm
OH boy I can't wait for that fight to happen!

*Starts making popcorn* Neither can I.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 08, 2017, 07:40:59 pm
Jeff Sessions, a racist so heinous that a Republican-led Senate rejected him for a federal judgeship when President Reagan nominated him for one in 1986, has been confirmed as Attorney General by a vote of 52-47.

Sen. Sessions voted "Present." Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was the only defection, voting in favour of Sessions' nomination. Both independent Senators voted against the nomination.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 09, 2017, 12:17:53 am
Large image.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on February 09, 2017, 02:00:00 pm
Why is that an image? It's all textual content.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 09, 2017, 02:46:09 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 09, 2017, 02:49:21 pm
Why is that an image? It's all textual content.

Dunno. Might be a screen capture from a page where it was textual content.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 09, 2017, 05:00:05 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40

That is now the third one of these I have seen. The other two were "America First - Netherlands Second" and "America First - Bavaria Second" - The guy doing the voice in each one is so good I suspect he's the same guy in all 3.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 09, 2017, 06:43:31 pm
In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html)  9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.

Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 09, 2017, 06:49:44 pm
In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html)  9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.

Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.

The Ninth Circuit is a bunch of liberal losers. They don't know how to win and will not keep us safe. Sad!

SCOTUS will keep us safe when Sessions makes a tremendous argument before them. SCOTUS will make a tremendous ruling. We'll make America safe again!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 09, 2017, 08:00:40 pm
In his first fight with the court system, the Orange Piss Pot has taken a massive body blow and has been left reeling. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html)  9th Circuit upheld the suspension order.

Ironbite-lets see if he lets it die or has Sessions take to the SCOTUS.

The Ninth Circuit is a bunch of liberal losers. They don't know how to win and will not keep us safe. Sad!

SCOTUS will keep us safe when Sessions makes a tremendous argument before them. SCOTUS will make a tremendous ruling. We'll make America safe again!

Their decision'll be yuge!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 09, 2017, 08:44:22 pm
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 09, 2017, 09:05:19 pm
The fact that people refer to Judges of the Supreme Court 'voting' their party line is a sad indictment on the US judiciary. However given the decision of the first instance judge (and his background) you would hope that politics (rather than the law) doesn't intrude to deeply in the decision of the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 09, 2017, 09:06:39 pm
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?

I think that depends on whether the decision comes down before, or after Neil Gorsuch is nominated.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on February 09, 2017, 09:39:55 pm
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?

My bet would be on Roberts being the swing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 10, 2017, 12:16:15 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40

As it turns out we have one too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-qP_CIZJus
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 10, 2017, 12:20:14 am
So what are the odds of the supreme court going against this ban? I think Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will vote against it. But will Kennedy swing to their side, or vote his party line?

Keep in mind that it'll be a while before any case on this matter reaches the Supreme Court. These rulings have been on whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed once the case is fully heard, not a ruling on the matter itself. The judges have found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed, and so have stayed the ban.

If the Ninth Circuit rules on the merits and strikes down the ban, and the government appeals to the Supreme Court, then, should Gorsuch not have been confirmed, and assuming no other changes to the composition of the Court, a 4-4 Court would leave the Ninth Circuit's decision in effect. It's even possible, although unlikely, that the Court could deny certiorari.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 10, 2017, 01:50:12 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9Qt-bSz40

As it turns out we have one too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-qP_CIZJus

And the rest: http://www.everysecondcounts.eu/

Also, I saw Trump say on FB: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

...He said that because he lost in court. The jokes are already filling the net but his fans seem to think this is the best kind of presidential behaviour.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on February 11, 2017, 02:38:06 pm
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 11, 2017, 04:39:48 pm
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)

*facepalm*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 11, 2017, 05:00:08 pm
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)

Ugh, that's terrible. I think that's the worst thing I've seen yet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: lord gibbon on February 11, 2017, 08:31:54 pm
Oh fuck, look what stupid thing Trump just did today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
How...how could you do this to me?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Zygarde on February 11, 2017, 08:41:28 pm
...God damn it queen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 11, 2017, 08:56:03 pm
Personally, I don't see what's so bad about that. I for one am thrilled that Trump will never let me down or give me up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 11, 2017, 11:25:20 pm
Ha, didn't check the link; never look at linked videos.  Also, what is this, 2009?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 11, 2017, 11:26:34 pm
Was there any point to that?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 12, 2017, 01:59:13 am
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.

In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php

...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 12, 2017, 05:02:03 am
Of course.

Ironbite-thats what I expect from the Legion of Doom
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 12, 2017, 12:04:36 pm
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.

In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php

...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.

Does she not know that online archive services exist?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 12, 2017, 12:11:17 pm
a) How many people know about those in general?

b) Will those archives update the info as needed?

c) Does the existence of those archives make this any less of a dick move?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 12, 2017, 10:23:24 pm
Yeah the archived White House website acknowledges the existence of climate change.

The existence of this archive alone is not comforting.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on February 13, 2017, 07:29:52 am
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.

In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php

...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.

Does she not know that online archive services exist?

Oh my sweet baby-back Jesus cum, Lana in two minutes found the ultimate way to defeat the Trump administration. Free punch and pie for all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 13, 2017, 07:54:07 am
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.

In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php

...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.

Does she not know that online archive services exist?

Oh my sweet baby-back Jesus cum, Lana in two minutes found the ultimate way to defeat the Trump administration. Free punch and pie for all.

Yeah, she's a veritable paragon of anti-Trump values.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 13, 2017, 09:01:01 am
I was just being sardonic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 13, 2017, 05:46:05 pm
The point was that the world is a cruel and merciless cold void devoid of all sympathy and we will all die alone.

In other news, the new secretary of education of USA sure got busy. http://m.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/A-disability-website-disappears-Murray-10924413.php

...Because if families with disabled children know what rights and resources they have they might actually use them and apparently Devos opposes that kind of stuff.

Does she not know that online archive services exist?

Oh my sweet baby-back Jesus cum, Lana in two minutes found the ultimate way to defeat the Trump administration. Free punch and pie for all.

I think we need to parse out this part in bold. Are we talking about cum from a sweet baby-backed Jesus? Or sweet cum from a baby-backed Jesus? Or Jesus cumming on a rack of baby-back ribs?

If I was a hot-blooded christian would I eat ribs which had been marinaded in Jesus cum? Does it matter if the cum is from Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the barista at my local coffee shop?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 14, 2017, 03:33:41 am
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2017/PPP_Release_National_21017.pdf

A new poll about Trump, released February 10. Here's some highlights:

53% of respondents disapprove of President Trump's job performance and 52% have an unfavourable opinion of him. Among Trump voters, however, 91% approve of his performance and 93% have a favourable opinion of him.

49% of respondents oppose his travel ban, but 93% of Trump voters support it.

57% of respondents disagree with this statement: "[T]he Bowling Green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration." However, 51% of Trump supporters agree with it. (Note: Kellyanne Conway's statement about the "Bowling Green massacre" was false (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/03/kellyanne-conway/fact-checking-kellyanne-conways-bowling-green-mass/).)

48% of respondents think the intent of the travel ban was to prevent Muslims from entering the US, but 73% of Trump voters do not think that was the intent of it. Meanwhile, 65% of respondents oppose banning Muslims from entering the US, but among Trump voters opinion is almost evenly split, with 43% opposing it and 41% supporting it.

53% of respondents trust judges more than Trump (38%) to make the right decisions for the US, and 64% do not think Trump should be able to overturn judicial decisions with which he disagrees. However, 78% of Trump voters trust Trump more (14% trust judges more), and 51% think he should be able to overturn judicial decisions with which he disagrees.

45% of respondents have an unfavourable opinion of Steve Bannon (22% have a favourable opinion and 33% are not sure). However, among Trump voters, only 9% have an unfavourable opinion of him, while 46% have a favourable opinion and 46% are not sure (yes, yes, rounding).

47% of respondents have an unfavourable opinion of Kellyanne Conway, but 73% of Trump voters have a favourable opinion of her. Similarly 41% of respondents have an unfavourable opinion of Sean Spicer, but 65% of Trump voters have a favourable opinion of him. Also, 49% of respondents have an unfavourable opinion of Betsy DeVos, but 53% of Trump voters have a favourable opinion of her.

47% of respondents support the Affordable Care Act, but 76% of Trump voters oppose it.

Given the choice between keeping the working parts of the ACA and fixing the broken parts, or scrapping the ACA entirely and starting over, 65% of respondents support the former option, but 62% of Trump voters support the latter option.

58% of respondents think Trump should release his tax returns, and 62% think he should fully divest himself from his business interests. However, among Trump voters, 63% think he should not release his tax returns, and 50% think he should not fully divest himself from his business interests.

Given the choice between President Trump and President Pence, 38% of respondents preferred the former, 30% preferred the latter, and 32% weren't sure.

52% of respondents think the New York Times is more credible than Donald Trump, but 82% of Trump voters think Trump is more credible than the Times.

50% of respondents have a favourable opinion of Saturday Night Live, but 77% of Trump voters have an unfavourable opinion of it. Also, 48% of respondents find SNL more credible than Trump, but 88% of Trump voters think Trump is more credible than SNL.

56% of respondents oppose building a wall with Mexico if Americans have to pay up front, but 75% of Trump voters support it under those circumstances.

55% of respondents do not think millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election, but 55% of Trump supporters do think that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election.

52% of respondents would rather have Barack Obama as President, to 44% who prefer Donald Trump. When instead comparing Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, these numbers become 49% and 45%.

7% of respondents support invading Mexico, compared to 83% who do not support it. However, 14% of Trump voters support such a policy, compared to 71% who do not.

Support for impeaching Trump is divided, with 46% supporting doing so and 46% opposing the same. Perhaps predictably, only 5% of Trump voters support this, compared to 93% who do not, and among Clinton voters, 83% support impeachment compared to 6% who do not.

66% of respondents think the US is a safe country. Even a majority of Trump voters, 55%, think so.

Black History Month has a 64% favourability rating among respondents, but only a 45% favourability rating among Trump voters. Only 28% of respondents think there should be a White History Month, but 46% of Trump voters think there should be one.

68% of respondents disapprove of the job Congress is doing, 52% of respondents disapprove of the job Sen. McConnell is doing as Senate Majority Leader, and 47% of respondents disapprove of the job Speaker Ryan is doing as Speaker of the House.

If there were an election for Congress on the day the respondent was polled, 49% of respondents said they would vote for a Democratic candidate, compared to 41% who favoured a Republican candidate.

80% of respondents did so via phone; 20% did so over the internet. Questions about their methodology can be directed to the e-mail address at the top of the first page of the release.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 14, 2017, 08:57:45 am
Wonder how those penultimate numbers will change as the Presidency wears on and is revealed to have been a dumpster fire since day one.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 14, 2017, 02:06:10 pm
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/13/spies-must-bored-easy-trump-makes-jobs/

The fact that everyone in the GOP isn't insisting on impeaching Trump ASAP is a clear sign that they care less about USA than they care about their position.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 14, 2017, 03:52:33 pm
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/13/spies-must-bored-easy-trump-makes-jobs/

The fact that everyone in the GOP isn't insisting on impeaching Trump ASAP is a clear sign that they care less about USA than they care about their position.

Its how it is.  The GOP are only interested in Trump for as long as they can get their agenda across.  Nothing of their agenda actually has anything to do with the voters because they don't give two fucks about them.  But the longer this goes on, the more likely mid-terms will be a slaughterhouse.

Ironbite-and I for one can't wait to have some GOP Pulled Pork.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 14, 2017, 06:44:24 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00063

Steven Mnuchin, who worked at Goldman Sachs, a bank Trump railed against during the campaign, and headed up a bank that did massive robosigning, has been confirmed as Treasury Secretary by a 53-47 vote. The vote was party-line other than Joe Manchin (D-WV), who voted to confirm Mr. Mnuchin to his position.

Also, David Shulkin was unanimously confirmed as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Linda McMahon was confirmed 81-19 as the administrator of the Small Business Administration. The dissenting votes on Ms. McMahon's nomination were Democratic Sens. Baldwin (WI), Booker (NJ), Brown (OH), Durbin (IL), Gillibrand (NY), Harris (CA), Heinrich (NM), Markey (MA), Merkley (OR), Murray (WA), Reed (RI), Schatz (HI), Schumer (NY), Udall (NM), Van Hollen (MD), Warren (MA), Whitehouse (RI), and Wyden (OR), along with independent Sen. Sanders (VT).

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00064
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00065
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 14, 2017, 07:44:05 pm
McMahon...

It'd be kind of funny if she suddenly declared she was turning from Heel to Face and kneed Trump in the groin.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 14, 2017, 07:47:38 pm
Honestly it was her who took the WWE to the heights it has been.  But ruthlessly exploiting it's workforce by claiming their contractors not employees.

Ironbite-god damn it just oppose every single thing this man does ok?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on February 14, 2017, 07:53:03 pm
McMahon...

It'd be kind of funny if she suddenly declared she was turning from Heel to Face and kneed Trump in the groin.

She got a lot of support from the Connecticut senators, both of whom she ran against in 2010 and 2012. They vouched for her that, being up close and personal with her during her Senate campaigns, she was qualified for the position.

Doesn't change that she only got control of the WWE so Vinnie could hide his assets after Uncle Sam kicked him in the sack for that whole "feeding wrestlers steroids" thing in the 90's. Though, this is the first presidential administration to have a member receive a Stone Cold Stunner, and the first to have received two Stone Cold Stunners.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 16, 2017, 03:43:27 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00068

Mick Mulvaney has been confirmed 51-49 as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The vote was along party lines (both independent Senators voted against), except for the dissension of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

EDIT:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00069

Also today, the Senate invoked cloture on the nomination of Scott Pruitt, a climate-change denier who as Attorney-General of Oklahoma sued the EPA and has taken lots of money from oil companies, to be the Administrator of the EPA.

The vote was 54-46, party-line (both independent Senators voted against), except for the dissensions of Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 16, 2017, 05:41:57 pm
Quote
"The leaks are absolutely real," he said. "The news is fake because so much of the news is fake."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 16, 2017, 06:03:05 pm
I...I don't know what to think of that.

Ironbite-its just depressing to think about.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 16, 2017, 06:24:50 pm
So the leaks about the Russian stuff was real, but it was fake because the news is fake news?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 16, 2017, 07:43:03 pm
Exactly.

Ironbite-so the only ones we can believe are.....clowns.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 16, 2017, 08:38:50 pm
Russia is fake news! I don't have any ties to Russia. I certainly don't have any loans with Russia. No one in my campaign was funded by Russia, to my knowledge!

Anyway it was something I was told. But you agree it was a huge electoral victory.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 16, 2017, 09:22:26 pm
Russia doesn't even exist! It's a yuge hoax cooked up by the media!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 17, 2017, 02:38:18 pm
The net is full of stuff about the latest Trump press conference and it really looks like a disaster. Or as his fans put it: "PRESIDENTIAL AF"

Other than that The Donald Reddit mainly seems to agree that Bill Clinton is a rapist and there are no other news.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on February 17, 2017, 03:10:00 pm
Considering the fact that the only way we know President Trump even exists is from the newsmedia, "everything the newsmedia says is a lie" seems self-defeating for Trump's supporters...

Edit: It also gives about-to-retire news anchors the perfect chance to troll-em. Just say "And for my last news cast, I have an announcement to make. I am lying, right now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 17, 2017, 06:25:50 pm
So in Trumps continued war with the media the orange fuck tard now put a survey on media accountability on gop.com https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/
I can't wait until those "real" news sites like Info wars and Brietbart to quote the results of this survey.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 17, 2017, 10:16:51 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00071

Scott Pruitt, Trump's climate change-denying, EPA-suing nominee to be the head of the EPA, has been confirmed to his position by a vote of 52-46.

The vote was party-line (both independent Senators voted against), except for Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), who voted in favour, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who voted against, and Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and John McCain (R-AZ), who did not vote.

EDIT: Corrected list of senators voting for and against.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on February 18, 2017, 03:15:23 am
There are still debates to go, but Kirsten Gillibrand looks like the favorite to take my vote in 2020. Got to love her opposition to Trump's cabinet
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 18, 2017, 03:57:52 am
Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 18, 2017, 04:23:59 am
Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?
I would imagine when Pence becomes president, he'd appoint his own vice president who'd then be next in line for the throne. So yeah, no elections until 2020 regardless of impeachments.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on February 18, 2017, 07:19:53 am
Won't you get an early election when the impeachings get going? I know that Pence will replace Trump but what happens if/when he is impeached as well? Will they just go down the line picking successors and not have elections until 2020?
I would imagine when Pence becomes president, he'd appoint his own vice president who'd then be next in line for the throne. So yeah, no elections until 2020 regardless of impeachments.

Yeah, we have a chain of replacement for presidents and Vice Presidents. No re-elections, just new president picks his new VP
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 18, 2017, 09:15:34 am
New VP? Can it be anyone they want? God knows who Pence picks... Hopefully not Sarah Palin though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 18, 2017, 09:22:55 am
Let's hope he picks Joe Exotic; he's broke as shit and won't wear a suit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 18, 2017, 09:26:44 am
I doubt any impeachment is going to happen. Not with a fully Republican congress.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 18, 2017, 10:23:49 am
I doubt any impeachment is going to happen. Not with a fully Republican congress.

That Republican Congress would probably prefer Pence to Trump. They're just waiting for a) Trump to give them everything they've been wanting to do for decades and b) Trump to fuck up hard enough that even most of his hardcore supporters admit that he has to go. (Because if they don't wait on the second one, those supporters will abandon them.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on February 18, 2017, 11:48:49 am
That Republican Congress would probably prefer Pence to Trump. They're just waiting for a) Trump to give them everything they've been wanting to do for decades and b) Trump to fuck up hard enough that even most of his hardcore supporters admit that he has to go. (Because if they don't wait on the second one, those supporters will abandon them.)

(a) is impossible, because the GOP goals are self-contradictory.

(b) is irrelevant, because Trump's hardcore supporters have no problem with lying and don't trust anyone else, so any fuck-ups that the media reports can simply be denied, and successes can be pulled from The Onion.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 18, 2017, 12:13:24 pm
No breaks on the Trump train! If the GOP turns on him the Trump-fanboys will turn on them. They will either have to watch USA burn or risk losing voters and political power. (We shall see which they care more about.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 18, 2017, 03:12:50 pm
They've got a wolf by the ears.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 18, 2017, 09:55:04 pm
No breaks on the Trump train! If the GOP turns on him the Trump-fanboys will turn on them. They will either have to watch USA burn or risk losing voters and political power. (We shall see which they care more about.)
My guess is they'll wait until the ACA repeal. That will hit Trump's base hard, if they spin it right they can blame it on him in a way that's convincing to grassroots Republicans who, lets face facts, are probably just dumb enough to buy it.

Then it's pres Pence and the only opposition they'll get is from the hardcore Trumpites, IE the Nazis and they're easily dismissed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 19, 2017, 04:02:49 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/chris-wallace-galls-fox-friends-with-dictatorship-warning-trump-crossed-a-line-attacking-media/

Even on Fox news some people have dared to question Trump. Sad to see that many of them are still defending him as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 19, 2017, 07:02:38 pm
So Trump basically gets all his information from Fox News. Hence 'Last night in Sweden' - http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/donald-trumps-implied-sweden-terror-attack-lastnightinsweden-takes-off/news-story/3d82f08cd1f7e7bdba4cb100d3d062d8 (http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/donald-trumps-implied-sweden-terror-attack-lastnightinsweden-takes-off/news-story/3d82f08cd1f7e7bdba4cb100d3d062d8)

The scary thing is that the fact this is bullshit will never reach his supporters. Effectively the President has the mindset of a typical fox news viewer. That's fucking scary. But also explains so much.

I hope the people at Fox News are starting to feel some remorse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 19, 2017, 07:09:06 pm
They are.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/19/fox-news-anchor-chris-wallace-warns-viewers-trump-crossed-the-line-in-latest-attack-on-media/

Ironbite-oh they are.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 19, 2017, 09:26:23 pm
They are.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/19/fox-news-anchor-chris-wallace-warns-viewers-trump-crossed-the-line-in-latest-attack-on-media/

Ironbite-oh they are.
Fucking Fox news is telling a sitting Republican president to lay off threatening the media.

What planet have I woken up on again?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on February 19, 2017, 09:38:16 pm
Don't worry, the rest of Fox news is pissed at him for telling Trump off for it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on February 20, 2017, 02:46:51 pm
People don't usually feel remorse for saying what they think is the truth.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 20, 2017, 04:52:40 pm
I'm pretty sure most of Fox News don't think it's the truth.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 21, 2017, 01:50:42 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-uk-us-crown-queen-1.3990696

Mr. Trump goes to London, and preceding him are protests, a debate over petitions on the matter in the House of Commons, a motion by a Conservative MP to sack to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and warnings that his visit could require having thousands of police officers on the streets.

EDIT:

Trump is far from the first controversial head of state to be received by the Queen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_visits_received_by_Queen_Elizabeth_II

Among controversial leaders preceding him:

Haile Salassie I of Ethiopia
President Francisco Craveiro Lopes of Portugal, the second President during Salazar's rule as Prime Minister
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran, after Mossaddegh was kicked out by the CIA at MI6's behest
Various Kings of Saudi Arabia
President Nicolae Ceaucescu of Romania
President Suharto of Indonesia
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe
Various Presidents of China
President Vladimir Putin of Russia
President Park Geun-hye of South Korea
President Michael Higgins of Ireland
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 22, 2017, 01:48:39 pm
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/21/1636419/-Yes-Trump-s-Aide-Really-Did-Throw-White-Power-Sign?detail=facebook

Is this just a coincidence or did mister "the president's powers will not be questioned" make a white power sign with his hands?

I mean on one hand having your hands like that could really be a coincedence, on the other hand... There was the "Lugenpresse" incident and the "hail trump" speech from Spencer and all those nazi salutes as well...

At what point are there too many white-power or Nazi symbols and terms for simple coincidence to be an acceptable answer?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 22, 2017, 02:08:25 pm
On the other hand, the very same article goes on to say that linking your thumb and forefinger in a circle is racist because some internet frog does it. That quickly lost me a lot of trust in their knowledge about symbolism and the proper use of hand gestures, quite honestly.

EDIT:

(http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/white-power-handsign-2.jpg)

This is the handsign the boiled fish is supposed to be making. I don't see it at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 22, 2017, 06:39:16 pm
Snopes says it's false. I'm skeptical of the whole story. Could he be doing it? Maybe, is he adjusting his suit and the camera caught it at that awkward time? Probably more likely. I don't really like the man but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it's due.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 23, 2017, 07:00:56 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-HUbdEAxo8

There is no better clip of Alex Jones than the first one Colbert shows in this one...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 24, 2017, 07:41:54 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/bannon-trump-administration-is-in-unending-battle-for-deconstruction-of-the-administrative-state/?utm_term=.8f1f656d639a

Quote
If you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction,” Bannon said. He posited that Trump’s announcement withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was “one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history.”

Emphasis mine. If you think it was just a coincidence that the new head of EPA wants to disband the organization or that Devos is harming the public education in USA then you are mistaken. Bannon is doing what he said he would, dismantling the US government from within.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 24, 2017, 10:00:52 am
And the GOP just goes with it not aware that they lose all power if they let Bannon's master plan go through.

Ironbite-boggles the question as to why though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 24, 2017, 12:49:10 pm
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/834157016755101696/video/1

Kentuckian to Mitch McConnell, after lambasting him over the need for affordable health insurance: "And if you can answer any of that, I'll sit down and shut up like Elizabeth Warren!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 24, 2017, 03:37:17 pm
In an even bit of scarier news of our authoritarian take over. Spicer forbade CNN, The NY Times, Politico and Buzzfeed from entering the press briefing today.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/index.html

This is like massively unconstitutional right? Is someone going to call them out on this?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 24, 2017, 03:46:26 pm
Not massively unconstitutional.  Damn stupid.

They have no actual state run media to counter what those publications are about to unleash.  The media is a really powerful tool but the Trump Admin has no real friends in it.  Infowars and Briebart don't count because that reaches such a small base.  By doing this, and doing this so early, you tip your hand and get smacked down by more respectable media sources and have no counter.

Ironbite-this worked in 1930s Germany but won't work here in 2017 USA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 24, 2017, 03:53:09 pm
Yeah but it seems like they may be using certain news networks like Fox, or Brietbart to become state run media sites? By blocking everyone but those "news" organizations from press conferences, aren't they turning them into the state run media? Though they're technically not run by the state, they're more state approved.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on February 24, 2017, 04:05:11 pm
I hope the rest of the media does their work and fights the narratives the administration is trying to push through instead of begging for crumbs from the outlets who are given the privilege to listen to the lies.

At least some reporters did the right thing and boycotted the farce. Every self-respecting outlet needs to have their reporters do the same.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 24, 2017, 04:21:36 pm
I don't see the Trump administration caring about media outlets boycotting as long as their hand job crews are there to praise them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on February 24, 2017, 04:50:43 pm
If they don't care - and I think you are right that they probably don't - then the boycott would serve to discredit their propaganda. The target would not be the administration but the message and the outlets spreading it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 24, 2017, 05:30:13 pm
And that's not what you want to do when you're ELECTED!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 24, 2017, 11:19:51 pm
Meanwhile, with all these angry people confronting Republicans at town hall meetings...

Louie Gohmert invoked Gabrielle Giffords' shooting to justify why he's not holding town hall meetings in his district... only for Giffords to hear about this...

Quote
Town halls and countless constituent meetings were a hallmark of my tenure in Congress. It's how I was able to serve the people of southern Arizona. I believe that listening to my constituents was the most basic and core tenet of the job I was hired to do. I was shot on a Saturday morning. By Monday morning my offices were open to the public. Ron Barber, at my side that Saturday, who was shot multiple times, then elected to Congress in my stead, held town halls. It's what the people deserve in a representative.

Dear Rep. Gohmert: how does that mic feel after it fell on your head?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on February 26, 2017, 01:33:38 pm
A little guide on how to parent your toddler president.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/low_concept/2017/02/parenting_your_toddler_president.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 27, 2017, 05:12:27 am
Sean Spicer allegedly confiscated phones from aides to prevent leaks but this was leaked immediately.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 27, 2017, 03:50:38 pm
He didn't confiscate anything.  He ran a check of all the aides under his control phones and then told them not to leak what he did.  It was then promptly leaked out to the press.

Ironbite-cause nobody in this administration gets what privacy is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 28, 2017, 12:07:01 am
Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 28, 2017, 12:32:18 am
Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...

I think there's a difference between whether it's a government phone or a personal phone, because the latter would definitely be off-limits without a warrant but the former could well be open to his inspection.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 28, 2017, 01:48:51 am
Is it even legal for Spicer to go through someone's phone? Because in Finland it would be something that requires a warrant from a judge I think...

I think there's a difference between whether it's a government phone or a personal phone, because the latter would definitely be off-limits without a warrant but the former could well be open to his inspection.

You wouldnt need a warrant if they consent. Sounds like a looming industrial relations problem.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 03, 2017, 11:33:43 pm
I had some computer problems of late, which is why I wasn't doing any naming-and-shaming of Democratic Senators (I'm considering Sens. Sanders and King as Democratic since they caucus with the Democrats) voting for horrific Trump Cabinet nominations. But let's do some now...

I can't remember if I covered the vote on Scott Pruitt himself, former AG of Oklahoma who sued the EPA 14 times and wrote letters to them that were literally written for him by energy companies, but Sens. Heitkamp (D-ND) and Manchin (D-WV) voted for him. Sen. Collins (R-ME) voted against him. Sens. Donnelly (D-IN) and McCain (R-AZ) did not vote.

Ben Carson, for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Sens. Donnelly (D-IN), Heitkamp (D-ND), King (I-ME), Manchin (D-WV), Tester (D-MT), and Warner (D-VA) voted for him. Sen. Isakson (R-GA) did not vote.

Ryan Zinke, for Secretary of the Interior. Sens. Bennet (D-CO), Brown (D-OH), Coons (D-DE), Cortez Masto (D-NV), Donnelly (D-IN), Heinrich (D-MN), Heitkamp (D-ND), Kaine (D-VA), King (I-ME), Manchin (D-WV), McCaskill (D-MO), Murphy (D-CT), Nelson (D-FL), Tester (D-MT), Udall (D-NM), Warner (D-VA), and Wyden (D-OR) voted for him. Sen. Isakson (R-GA) did not vote.

Wilbur Ross, for Secretary of Commerce. Sens. Bennet (D-CO), Brown (D-OH), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Coons (D-DE), Cortez Masto (D-NV), Donnelly (D-IN), Duckworth (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Hassan (D-NH), Heitkamp (D-ND), Kaine (D-VA), King (I-ME), Klobuchar (D-MN), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-FL), Peters (D-MI), Schatz (D-HI), Shaheen (D-NH), Tester (D-MT), and Warner (D-VA) voted for him. Sen. Isakson (R-GA) did not vote. (No, there's no typo in that list--Joe Manchin actually opposed a non-Betsy-DeVos Trump nominee.)

Rick Perry, who said he wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy, for Secretary of Energy. Sens. Carper (D-DE), Cortez Masto (D-NV), Donnelly (D-IN), Heitkamp (D-ND), King (I-ME), Manchin (D-WV), McCaskill (D-MO), Stabenow (D-MI), Tester (D-MT), Udall (D-MN), and Warner (D-VA) voted for him. Sen. Isakson (R-GA) did not vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 04, 2017, 10:09:06 am
Well...at least it sounds like Senator Isakson has an okay head on his shoulders, if nothin else.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 04, 2017, 01:45:28 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/5F1hxjP.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 04, 2017, 01:47:59 pm
Well...at least it sounds like Senator Isakson has an okay head on his shoulders, if nothin else.

Nah, he was busy holding a telephone "town hall". (You know, where you get to screen the participants and the questions so that you don't get asked anything you don't have an answer to.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 04, 2017, 02:44:37 pm
So now the idiot is claiming Obama wiretapped Trump tower during the campaign. Most likely to deflect from this growing Russia issue. He needs to stop campaigning and try to run the country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 04, 2017, 03:00:00 pm
So now the idiot is claiming Obama wiretapped Trump tower during the campaign. Most likely to deflect from this growing Russia issue. He needs to stop campaigning and try to run the country.

The US is in perpetual campaign mode--one of the downsides of fixed election dates. Plus the Republicans have a real chance of picking up a Senate supermajority in 2018.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 04, 2017, 03:17:54 pm
Not if Trump keeps this up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 04, 2017, 04:16:37 pm
Historically speaking, presidents don't tend to hold onto power in congress for long.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 04, 2017, 08:04:18 pm
Historically speaking, presidents don't tend to hold onto power in congress for long.

But 2018 is an extremely atypical year.

The House is, of course, gerrymandered all to hell. It would take a ton of voter anger at Republicans to flip that body to the Democrats.

As for the Senate, the Democrats have made gains in three straight Class 1 elections: 2000, when Gore won the popular vote, 2006, when Dean's fifty-state strategy paid off with House and Senate majorities, and 2012, when Obama was reelected. They're defending more than twice as many seats as the Republicans, ten of which are in states Trump carried. It's difficult for me to see how they hold onto all of them, especially seats like Heitkamp's in North Dakota or Manchin's in West Virginia.

Plus the DNC just pissed off a good chunk of progressives by electing Tom Perez as DNC chair--the one candidate for that position who had no endorsements from Sanders supporters. Every other candidate had endorsements from both Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters, while Perez had only been endorsed by people on the Clinton side. How this anger manifests itself--maybe through primary challenges to people like Heitkamp and Manchin, or through a boycott at the November polls--remains to be seen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on March 04, 2017, 11:27:37 pm
So now the idiot is claiming Obama wiretapped Trump tower during the campaign. Most likely to deflect from this growing Russia issue. He needs to stop campaigning and try to run the country.

The US is in perpetual campaign mode--one of the downsides of fixed election dates. Plus the Republicans have a real chance of picking up a Senate supermajority in 2018.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in America.

1. Fixed elections do not mean perpetual campaigning.  First, few politicians talk election unless it is within a year or two (Potus and Senate) of reelection. Second, it shows a profound degree of spurious reasoning alongside a preference for parliamentary democracy to even suggest that.

2. The GOP will probably keep their majority in the Senate, but no way do they win a supermajority in 2018, or even 2020 for that matter. 2018 favors the GOP, but not to that degree.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 04, 2017, 11:43:37 pm
And yet more typical "We need to involve Sanders Democrats" wank.

I swear the man has started a cult.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 05, 2017, 07:45:17 am
I see the GOP losing a lot of seats in the house in 2018 not enough to give it to the democrats and probably maintaining or gaining a seat in the Senate. 2020 is probably when the dems might overtake something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 05, 2017, 10:48:11 am
And now trump with no evidence, and just on hear say is asking Congress to investigate this imaginary wire tapping of trump tower that he some how heard of or made up himself.
This just seems like him saying nuh uh you are to the whole Russian investigation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 05, 2017, 10:58:50 am
And now trump with no evidence, and just on hear say is asking Congress to investigate this imaginary wire tapping of trump tower that he some how heard of or made up himself.
This just seems like him saying nuh uh you are to the whole Russian investigation.

My six-year-old nephew responds to criticism more maturely.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on March 05, 2017, 09:31:09 pm
I see the GOP losing a lot of seats in the house in 2018 not enough to give it to the democrats and probably maintaining or gaining a seat in the Senate. 2020 is probably when the dems might overtake something.

Yeah, but for the dems to take the House in 2018, 538 reports they'd need to win the national vote by about 60-40. Fucking gerrymandering. That said, Trump is very unpopular, and midterms typically go to the minority party, so the dems should gain a few seats in the House.

The real thing to watch in 2018 and 2020 is state races, as then the dems can undo the gerrymandering that kept them out of power for 10 years
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 05, 2017, 09:57:43 pm
The real thing to watch in 2018 and 2020 is state races, as then the dems can undo the gerrymandering that kept them out of power for 10 years

Art. 1, Sec. 4, Clause 1:

Quote
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

That power extends even to dictating a voting age for federal elections; see Oregon v. Mitchell.

And as Justice Scalia noted in Vieth v. Jubelirer:

Quote
It is significant that the Framers provided a remedy for such practices* in the Constitution. Article 1, §4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permitted Congress to “make or alter” those districts if it wished.

The Dems need to overcome the federal gerrymandering, not necessarily the state gerrymandering, because Congress possesses the residual power to draw the maps. If they overcome the state gerrymandering but not the federal, the Republicans could change to maps to favour them, but if they overcome the federal gerrymandering, they can draw the maps no matter what the states want.

What I don't know is if that power over the "Manner of holding Elections" extends to voter ID requirements; if it does, they could get rid of all the voter suppression laws that have been passed in the last decade.

*Gerrymandering
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 05, 2017, 11:24:27 pm
Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on March 06, 2017, 12:38:27 am
Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.

You sure it wasn't independently discovered by multiple people?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 06, 2017, 12:48:05 am
Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.

You sure it wasn't independently discovered by multiple people?

If anything, it's a natural offshoot of Britain's "rotten boroughs," where boundaries were left untouched for decades until Old Sarum (population a few sheep) had more MPs than Manchester (booming industrial city).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 06, 2017, 04:06:51 am
Now Trump has said that Obama has 'wire-tapped' trump tower. The best thing to come out of it is Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying if that's true then it is a big deal. Ignoring the fact that Trump could get direct knowledge if there was any.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJTGjxhcCI4
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 06, 2017, 04:30:13 am
Whomever thought up gerrymandering should have been shot before he uttered a single word of it to anyone.

You sure it wasn't independently discovered by multiple people?
Who all happened to be the sole person on the electoral roll in one hundred separate districts?

In other news John Oliver has christened the multi-car pile up that has been the Trump cabinets response to revelations about Russian interference in the election "Stupid Watergate"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_RlJ2WJCSc

Also, hells fucking bells!
Now Trump has said that Obama has 'wire-tapped' trump tower. The best thing to come out of it is Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying if that's true then it is a big deal. Ignoring the fact that Trump could get direct knowledge if there was any.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJTGjxhcCI4

The Trump's surrogate's response to that reporter was essentially that by "take the media seriously" Trump has taken the sum total of media reporting, including the tinfoil hat fringe-especially the tinfoil hat fringe and come out howling "muh Obama tapppped muh wires" like a confused centenarian thinking that he's back dodging ordinance in the Somme. This is supposed to...reassure people?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 06, 2017, 04:49:08 am
...like a confused centenarian thinking that he's back dodging ordinance in the Somme. This is supposed to...reassure people?

No, like a cowardly twenty-something with "bone spurs" dodging STDs at orgies while children of poorer parents go to Vietnam to be cannon fodder.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 06, 2017, 05:06:45 am
...like a confused centenarian thinking that he's back dodging ordinance in the Somme. This is supposed to...reassure people?

No, like a cowardly twenty-something with "bone spurs" dodging STDs at orgies while children of poorer parents go to Vietnam to be cannon fodder.
Eh, I didn't mean to imply Trump would be brave enough to put his orange arsehole into danger. Merely that he sounded like he was having a "grandad moment".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 06, 2017, 07:26:23 am
New travel ban set to be implemented today.  It's the same as the old one only Iraq has been left off the no go country list.

Ironbite-thats ballsy
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 06, 2017, 08:07:45 am
How long before it is also struck down by a federal judge?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 06, 2017, 01:26:21 pm
How long before it is also struck down by a federal judge?

You mean "How long before Trump goes on a Twitter tirade about how judges are threatening national security?"

EDIT: But then this is of course the old trick: propose something really outrageous so that your follow-up looks reasonable. (You see the same thing with abortion; for instance, in Ohio, Kasich vetoed a bill that would have banned it after about six weeks so that he could look reasonable signing a twenty-week ban.)

Failing that, of course, you just keep signing slightly modified versions of the same thing to overwhelm the courts.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 07, 2017, 02:14:56 am
In other news Ben Carson is a very stupid man.

Quote
"That's what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity, There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 07, 2017, 04:12:08 am
....I don't know which part of that statement I should criticise first.

Luckily Samuel L. Jackson already commented on this:
Quote
OK!! Ben Carson....I can't! Immigrants ? In the bottom of SLAVE SHIPS??!! MUTHAFUKKA PLEASE!!!#dickheadedtom
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 07, 2017, 07:28:37 am
Well this is the man who said that pyramids were built to store grain. So is anyone surprised?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 07, 2017, 05:06:01 pm
I'll never make another "brain surgeon" joke again.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 07, 2017, 05:53:03 pm
Did he ever operate on himself?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 07, 2017, 06:02:28 pm
I'll never make another "brain surgeon" joke again.

'Brain Surgery' huh well it's not Rocket science is it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on March 07, 2017, 06:14:25 pm
New travel ban set to be implemented today.  It's the same as the old one only Iraq has been left off the no go country list.

Ironbite-thats ballsy

It also doesn't turn away permanent residents and people with visas.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 07, 2017, 06:18:46 pm
New travel ban set to be implemented today.  It's the same as the old one only Iraq has been left off the no go country list.

Ironbite-thats ballsy

It also doesn't turn away permanent residents and people with visas.

Which might actually make it constitutional, combined with the fact that it got rid of the religious screening.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 07, 2017, 09:44:39 pm
If it gets bounced off the courts again expect more entertaining tweet-trums from Donnie.

Is there a precedent a politician promising to ban something and then discovering that in order to keep their promise they have studiously avoid calling their ban a ban of the thing they're trying to ban?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 08, 2017, 11:15:00 pm
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/for.2016.14.issue-4/for-2016-0040/for-2016-0040.pdf

Paper looking at the advertising campaigns in the 2016 election.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 09, 2017, 01:25:09 am
Psychology Today weighs in on Trump's mental health.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201702/the-elephant-in-the-room
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 09, 2017, 08:20:39 am
Do I think the Orange Piss Pot is mentally ill?  No.  I think he's just so incredably self-centered and ego centric that he has no empathy or decency that hasn't withered and died on the vine.  The man's world view is classic "got mine fuck you" and he will only ultimately be for himself.  He will throw anyone and everyone under a bus just to save his own skin and that includes the rest of the country.

Ironbite-and the GOP will be the first up against the wall and Trump will be firing the first shot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 11, 2017, 02:12:43 pm
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

The American Society of Civil Engineers has released their 2017 Infrastructure Report Card.

How to put this gently... nah, heck with gently. Your infrastructure is crap and you need to fix it now.

Aviation: D
Bridges: C+
Dams: D
Drinking Water: D
Energy: D+
Hazardous Waste: D+
Inland Waterways: D
Levees: D
Ports: C+
Public Parks: D+
Rail: B
Roads: D
Schools: D+
Solid Waste: C+
Transit: D-
Wastewater: D+

Overall: D+

You want to create jobs--good jobs, well-paying jobs? Get on with fixing all of that.

And, after all, Trump did say he'd be "the greatest jobs President God ever created" and that he would spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 11, 2017, 03:06:53 pm
Yeah he probably wants to spend that infrastructure money to show how big his dic, i mean build his wall.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 11, 2017, 10:03:07 pm
It'll be a trillion spent on friends of Trump for a bill of goods.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 13, 2017, 01:03:21 pm
http://resistancereport.com/politics/kellyanne-conway-spying-microwaves/

She finally managed to say something crazier than her "alternative facts" comment...

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 13, 2017, 01:58:19 pm
Me thinks Kellyanne Conway just enjoys being on tv.

In other news, you know that one trillion in spending on infrastructure that Donald Trump is looking for? How are we going to pay for that? With taxes? No see that would make the poor 2% of America's population have to spend their precious money. No were going to add more tolls to roads or up public transportation costs, so you can spend more of your hard earned money going to work everyday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBYY1O_o-zM
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 14, 2017, 01:13:52 am
It's almost like Donald Trump is a dishonest scumbag who doesn't care about the people who voted for him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 15, 2017, 07:34:28 pm
Hawaiian Judge blocks the new travel ban nationwide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html

Quote
A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order Wednesday evening blocking President Trump’s ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world, dealing a political blow to the White House and signaling that proponents of the ban face a long and risky legal battle ahead.

The ruling was the second frustrating defeat for Mr. Trump’s travel ban, after a federal court in Seattle halted an earlier version of the executive order last month. Mr. Trump responded to that setback with fury, lashing out at the judiciary before ultimately abandoning the order.

He issued a new and narrower travel ban on March 6, with the aim of pre-empting new lawsuits by abandoning some of the most contentious elements of the first version.

But Mr. Trump evidently failed in that goal: Democratic states and nonprofit groups that work with immigrants and refugees raced into court to attack the updated order, alleging that it was a thinly veiled version of the ban on Muslim migration that he had pledged to enact last year, as a presidential candidate.

Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories about President Trump’s administration.
Donald Trump Budget Slashes Funds for E.P.A. and State Department
MAR 15
Jackson and Trump: How Two Populist Presidents Compare
MAR 15
Is It Illegal to Publish a President’s Tax Returns?
MAR 15
Trump Calls 2005 Tax Return Release ‘Fake News’
MAR 15
U.S. May Soon Increase Pressure on China to Constrain North Korea
MAR 15
See More »

RECENT COMMENTS

MareeB 1 hour ago
Checks and balances!I'm sure we'll see a twitter meltdown sometime soon. Unless he's still fighting with Snoop Dogg.It seems this was also...
Tracy Mitrano 1 hour ago
The Trump Administration is testing the Constitution of the United States. For school children, this kind of activity is a textbook civil...
Ludwig 1 hour ago
I think the federal judge is overstepping his authority. The president does have such powers under the constitution. But Trump has been...
SEE ALL COMMENTS  WRITE A COMMENT
Administration lawyers argued in multiple courts on Wednesday that the president was merely exercising his national security powers and that no element of the executive order, as written, could be construed as a religious test for travelers.

But in the lawsuit brought by Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin, Judge Derrick K. Watson appeared skeptical of the government’s claim that past comments by Mr. Trump and his allies had no bearing on the case.

“Are you saying we close our eyes to the sequence of statements before this?” Judge Watson, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, asked in a hearing Wednesday before he ruled against the administration.

Yeah the argument that the past statements made by the administration hold no merit in this case really didn't hold water.  Which I suspected would be the case.  It's still the same travel ban just with a new hat.  That's it.

Ironbite-wonder if he'll go for a third strike on this?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 15, 2017, 11:01:53 pm
His policies failing makes me really happy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Wurdulac on March 16, 2017, 12:43:48 am
Is it just me, or is there a common refrain among Trump's supporters that "he said he'd get things done and by golly, that's what he's doing!" without anyone actually questioning whether or not the shit he's getting done is actually making things better for people?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 16, 2017, 06:39:03 am
Ironbite-wonder if he'll go for a third strike on this?
He might, Trump believes in nothing but Trump remember and he can use this drama to fire up his base and distract them from the fact that they'll lose their healthcare, won't get their old jobs back and that a whole lot of his cabinet and people close to him are real cozy with Russia.

Not that he isn't racist, he's fucking racist but it's not his primary motivation, that would be getting adulation from rubes and enriching himself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 16, 2017, 06:45:47 am
Is it just me, or is there a common refrain among Trump's supporters that "he said he'd get things done and by golly, that's what he's doing!" without anyone actually questioning whether or not the shit he's getting done is actually making things better for people?

It gives the authoritarians the feeling that there is a strong leadership. Facts be damned, it must be good since it feels safe.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 16, 2017, 07:42:09 am
TRUMP says that he is doing a great job. They trust him because unlike the lying political elite, Trump is trustworthy. It's not like he would lie after all...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 16, 2017, 07:52:01 am
TRUMP says that he is doing a great job. They trust him because unlike the lying political elite, Trump is trustworthy. It's not like he would lie after all...
It's an alternative fact that this never happens.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 16, 2017, 09:17:40 am
A Maryland federal judge has also joined Hawaii in freezing the travel ban solid.

Ironbite-the Orange Piss Pot can't be happy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 20, 2017, 12:52:21 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySTQk6updjQ

Remember when I said that when Trump says he will "run USA like a business" he really means "slash and burn, take out as much profits as you can while destroying it" ...Which is how he bankrupted casinos he was running and destroyed most of his other businesses as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 20, 2017, 04:40:33 pm
And Comey just came out with the "Yeah we're looking into a Russian Connection with the Trump campaign and have been since July" stunner on the Trump Administration.  Wait....so why'd you give us that bullshit about Hillary?

Ironbite-OH I KNOW WHY BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE WOULDN'T BE AS BAD AS HE ACTUALLY IS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 20, 2017, 07:13:00 pm
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office?  Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard.  At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on March 20, 2017, 07:51:46 pm
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office?  Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard.  At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 20, 2017, 09:17:06 pm
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office?  Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard.  At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.

Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 20, 2017, 11:49:31 pm
President Pence: Now, for my first executive order, everyone must eat flavorless nutrition pills like I do.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on March 20, 2017, 11:53:19 pm
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office?  Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard.  At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.

Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.

Let's be real here. Pence is your ordinary garden-variety reactionary. Bad, sure, but he's not Trump. He'll do things like get rid of health care, try to ban gay marriage and abortions, and enforce Christianity, but Trump will do all those things too. What he won't do is deliberately insult world leaders because he's feeling angry, make up imaginary wiretappings because he's had a bad week, and try to call into question the basic structures of our government. Those are things he won't do, and that's why I'd rather have President Pence than Trumpy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 21, 2017, 01:32:47 am
Shitgibbon says (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-calls-comey-testimony-fake-news):

Quote
The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!

Comey says (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/20/fbi-director-comey-confirms-investigation-trump-russia):

Quote
I have been authorised by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Today is a good day.  :)

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif)

Oh, and this is for Thatcher's fanny cheese-sorry Contrarian.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 21, 2017, 04:18:54 am
And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."

...


...


...Are they going to explain that?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 21, 2017, 05:04:35 am
Is it just me, or has the Raging Cheeto already visibly aged during his first few weeks in office?  Shit, at least Obama took a year or so before he started to look kinda haggard.  At this rate, he'll probably die of a heart attack before the year's up.

Yes fucking please! I'd love to attend Trump's funeral.

Problem is, then your get Pence AKA Trump without even the faux-populism and a shit-ton more actual misogyny and homophobia.

Let's be real here. Pence is your ordinary garden-variety reactionary. Bad, sure, but he's not Trump. He'll do things like get rid of health care, try to ban gay marriage and abortions, and enforce Christianity, but Trump will do all those things too. What he won't do is deliberately insult world leaders because he's feeling angry, make up imaginary wiretappings because he's had a bad week, and try to call into question the basic structures of our government. Those are things he won't do, and that's why I'd rather have President Pence than Trumpy.

It might be easier for these actions to become normalized under a less obviously monstrous leader like Pence. Would people be as motivated to resist him? I truly don't know but I am worried that the answer is no.

On the other hand, there is a good possibility that Bannon would lose at least some of his power, hopefully most of it since Pence is not as easily manipulated as Trump. That would be a huge deal.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on March 21, 2017, 06:16:30 pm
And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."

...


...


...Are they going to explain that?

No
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 21, 2017, 06:33:16 pm
And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."

...


...


...Are they going to explain that?

No

One theory I heard bandied around (by completely biased but amusing commentators) was that Comey thought he was buying himself some appearance of impartiality. Effectively Comey thought Clinton had an unassailable lead and wanted cover for when he had to start prosecutions of members of the Trump campaign post election. Although this appears entirely too cynical.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 21, 2017, 07:44:13 pm
And now for the FBI explanation for why they didn't talk about this during the election while going public about how they "definitely may have found something on Clinton" and then waiting a few days before going "oops, my bad, we got nothing."

...


...


...Are they going to explain that?

No

One theory I heard bandied around (by completely biased but amusing commentators) was that Comey thought he was buying himself some appearance of impartiality. Effectively Comey thought Clinton had an unassailable lead and wanted cover for when he had to start prosecutions of members of the Trump campaign post election. Although this appears entirely too cynical.
It simply isn't possible to be too cynical with this utterly shambolic shitshow.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 21, 2017, 11:06:42 pm
So, who saw Mick Mulvaney on Face the Nation (https://youtu.be/Mjm4BgT5U0s?t=19s)?

Apparently, we must have a huge prison population up here, since we have universal health care, and the only way to do that is to throw people in jail for not having health insurance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 22, 2017, 01:16:10 am
Well we have it and lots of us are descended from convicts.

Retroactive intergerational imprisonment?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 22, 2017, 02:20:33 am
Well we have it and lots of us are descended from convicts.

Retroactive intergerational imprisonment?

Well, it's definitely why my dad's in prison right now and not receiving, and responding well to, treatment for his multiple myeloma.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 22, 2017, 02:43:44 am
Further to what I said earlier about Comey - the Majority Report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jBoQtG7t70
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 23, 2017, 08:27:36 pm
The latest poll e-mailed by the Trump Team

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba72d65c2e225faa08ff21850e3c0a727f59caeb3cbf1efb8f95554c995f757c.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 23, 2017, 09:27:51 pm
That is, or should be, an actual fucking textbook definition of leading questions in a survey.  Like, fuck, they couldn't have been more blatant if they'd have made the possibilities:

> I love America and kittens
> I love Hitler and shooting sweet old grannies in the face
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on March 23, 2017, 09:32:37 pm
This is quite frankly the best title/cover image combination of all time (http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-republican-health-care-bill-has-crashed-and-burned-1793579916?rev=1490304438040&utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)

Coincidentally, the best description I have heard of Trump is from fivethirtyeight, where they call him "A honey badger driving a zamboni," which that image just happens to resemble.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 24, 2017, 05:21:30 pm
And the healthcare bill failed!
Fuck you guys for trying to push that poison through. I'm glad some Repubs had some major sense in them to keep that shit away from the Senate.

Now Trump is trying to blame the Democrats for not supporting this bill through. Nah Uh buddy, you guys control the house by a large margin. Your party failed to provide the votes for it. This is your fault!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 24, 2017, 07:21:44 pm
Seen from a "conservative" (read: regressive/reactionary):

Quote
Saw this on Twitter today:

"TRUMP: So, Paul, how's it going over there today? Am I winning or are you losing?"

Got to admit, all policy aside, Trump's ultimatum was a masterful solution to his political problem with the AHCA... although this was largely a problem of his own making. Trump saves quite a bit of face (not all of it, but quite a bit), and Ryan/Congress ends up looking like a complete failure, making Trump all the more powerful on the Hill.

Breitbart comments are saying this was the Trump plan all along to destroy Paul Ryan, which is absurd, but Trump has cannier spur-of-the-moment political instincts than I once gave him credit for. He took the trilemma presented by FiveThirtyEight the other day  (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-has-no-good-options-on-health-care/)and kinda did the best parts of all three.


In many respects, AHCA was indeed more conservative than the ACA. Entitlement reforms, tax reforms, and so forth -- all very conservative. But when it came to the core mechanics of health care delivery, which are really the center of the bill, AHCA tried to solve the "three-legged stool" problem by retaining a bunch of unwieldy regulations, backed up by imposing price controls on insurance companies. All in the name of "removing" an individual mandate that was not really removed in any meaningful sense. And where was the effort to seriously extend insurance portability, so you can carry one policy between jobs and into the individual market? You cannot have a successful continuous coverage mandate if there a whole lot of people out there who are incapable of maintaining continuous coverage!

The tax credits system was very conservative, I admit, but in the stupidest way possible. It's like if Paul Ryan wanted to play directly to every single stereotype about Republicans throwing the poor under the bus for the sake of middle-class whites (and the Freedom Caucus, I am sad to say, was all too eager to push him farther). I leave it to Avik Roy to say (https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/07/house-gops-obamacare-replacement-will-make-coverage-unaffordable-for-millions-otherwise-its-great/#3ffe83c237fd) what I think about all that.

Still, I've come to regret saying that I want an "actually conservative" bill. Parts of the AHCA that were unconservative were terrible... but parts that were, by any standard definition, pretty conservative, were also pretty terrible. Those parts managed to synergize to turn the core of this bill into an unholy, insurance-destroying mess.

So I guess what I want is a carefully thought-through bill that is built on conservative principles of minimal intervention, simplicity, state primacy, and individual empowerment -- but I'm willing to tax and spend quite a bit of money to get there, I don't think it's vital to cut taxes as part of a health care reform, and I want the poor to be not screwed over, all of which are traditionally considered old-school liberal priorities. Both the Huffington Post and Breitbart comment sections would crucify me for my plan. (Guess I'm still a Reformocon at heart, even after the last year.)

Of course, it is worth noting that ACA fans would likely say that their bill does indeed follow the principles of minimal intervention, simplicity, state primacy, and individual empowerment... but I think the ACA does those things in the same way the AHCA does insurance portability. Which is to say, it kinda looks like it might if you don't look closely, but then you do look closely and it's a horror show.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 25, 2017, 01:01:49 am
At this point the only credible way to claim that Trump is successful is if you believe that he is trying to destroy USA on purpose.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 25, 2017, 01:07:32 am
Oh, for more fun from this "conservative": he wants Medicaid to become a block-grant system.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 25, 2017, 07:11:05 am
> I love America and kittens
> I love Hitler and shooting sweet old grannies in the face
Oh come on, plenty of Trump supporters claim they love America and Hitler!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on March 25, 2017, 09:23:40 am
> I love America and kittens
> I love Hitler and shooting sweet old grannies in the face
Oh come on, plenty of Trump supporters claim they love America and Hitler!

No, don't call them out on their racism. You'll make them feel bad and then the dems will never win again. Haven't you heard anything that the dynamic paragon of reverse anal has told us?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 25, 2017, 03:24:16 pm
....Reverse anal?

Ironbite-really?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 26, 2017, 12:04:18 am
Basically, pooping out a disembodied cock.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 26, 2017, 12:58:59 am
How about alternative anal?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 26, 2017, 05:57:34 pm
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 26, 2017, 06:12:49 pm
It depends if his close circle has explained it to him since I doubt he is insightful enough to realize it by himself. He probably believes the anti-obamacare propaganda and it's possible Ryan & co are have not even bothered to explain the real situation to him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 26, 2017, 06:46:05 pm
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.

He is secretly happy that the AHCA was pulled, because it makes Ryan look weak for being unable to keep his caucus in line.

Trump and Ryan don't exactly get along and Trump would like nothing more than to have as House Speaker someone as pliable and subservient as Mitch McConnell.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 26, 2017, 06:58:02 pm
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.

He is secretly happy that the AHCA was pulled, because it makes Ryan look weak for being unable to keep his caucus in line.

Trump and Ryan don't exactly get along and Trump would like nothing more than to have as House Speaker someone as pliable and subservient as Mitch McConnell.

But McConnell is in the Senate and not congress. Who in Congress would be as compliant as McConnel
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 26, 2017, 07:10:20 pm
In keeping with that....

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/325810-fox-news-host-promoted-by-trump-calls-on-paul-ryan-to-step-down

Quote
Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro, whose show President Trump urged his followers on Twitter to watch earlier in the day, opened her program on Saturday evening by calling on Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to step down.

"Ryan needs to step down as Speaker of the House. The reason: He failed to deliver the votes on his healthcare bill, the one trumpeted to repeal and replace ObamaCare," Pirro said in her opening statement.

Which is exactly the type of dumbassity I expect from the Orange Piss Pot.  He has no idea how politics actually works and thinks this strong arm tactic is the way to go.  Couple this with Bannon having a shit list on his White House office wall and I expect some GOP seats to go blue come 2018 as Trump and Bannon seek to replace those republicans that were "disloyal" to him with more malleable puppets only to have the Dems swoop in and take those seats.

Ironbite-provided the Democrats not  shoot themselves in the ass.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: lord gibbon on March 26, 2017, 09:31:48 pm
Yeah, that's the big if. As my dad always says, "The Democrats have an amazing talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 27, 2017, 12:41:08 am
Does anyone think that Trump is secretly happy that Trumpcare didn't pass. That way most of Trumps key demographics can keep receiving benefits. All he has to do is stop calling it Obamacare and start calling it the Affordable Care Act.
Nah, he's not a big picture guy. He's a 'nick as much shit as you can and get out' type fella. Reading between the lines isn't common among people who don't like to read.

I vote simple incompetence over Machiavellian manipulation where Drumpf is concerned.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 27, 2017, 01:17:03 am
I'm not saying it was his original plan. He thought it would be simple "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated". Now that he's realised 'Obamacare' is probably pretty good and removing it would fuck his voters. His gut is now just to leave it. As long as he pretends the ACA is different to Obamacare he can pretend its all good and his voters will be happy with it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 27, 2017, 03:26:55 am
I'm not saying it was his original plan. He thought it would be simple "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated". Now that he's realised 'Obamacare' is probably pretty good and removing it would fuck his voters. His gut is now just to leave it. As long as he pretends the ACA is different to Obamacare he can pretend its all good and his voters will be happy with it.
Well his voters are dumb enough to buy that line, I'll grant you that.

Sorry, sorry don't call them thick, bigoted or psychotic particularly if they are or they'll log into the FSTDT forums out of the blue, read this post and declare they aint never voting for no Demo-crat again and run off to hug their security blanket.

Sorry!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 28, 2017, 12:20:44 am
Yeah, that's the big if. As my dad always says, "The Democrats have an amazing talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

I won't deny this is true (seriously they had the most honest, qualified candidate running to continue the successful policies of a popular president and they still lost.)  But the fact that the republicans can control the government completely and still defeat themselves so utterly that Obamacare looks here to stay, it's going to be interesting to see who can fail the hardest.

Also I wanted to share this quote

Quote
I've been thinking that right now, the Democrats really need to avoid falling into the grave the GOP dug for themselves by actually proposing new laws. Like just every chance they get the floor, throw something out there. Doesn't even matter if it's feasible. Propose single payer. Propose mincome. Propose phasing out fossil fuels by 2030. Propose Mars colonies. Propose open season on murdering billionaires. They don't all have to be good. Just get the ideas out there on the table. Change them from "Things no one would ever seriously try" to "Things we coulda tried if we hadn't left the arsonist party in charge." However many years later they get bakc in power, they've already got some stuff on the table that the people have heard of and thought about, instead of years of "Trust us, we'll have a great plan," which turns out to alienate everyone. And all those ideas that would've been considered unthinkable will have evolved into "The reasonable alternative to the clusterfuck we're in now."

Heck, since Hillary's chance has come and gone, maybe she could write a blog where every week she just very politely says what she'd have done instead.

Rather than the GOP's strategy of being "The party of No", they should as hard as they can be the party of "This instead".

I don't know if the senate rules allow it, but maybe when the vote on Gorsuch happens, instead of voting "Nay", get every single democrat to register their official vote for the record as "Merrick Garland.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 28, 2017, 07:38:34 am
Quote
...Propose Mars colonies. Propose open season on murdering billionaires. ...

This.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Doom_Cover.jpg)

But with the Koch brothers instead of zombiespacemagicdemons.

I would play the shit out of that!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 29, 2017, 05:50:14 pm
Ok I voted for Trump but I am glad that this healthcare plan didn't go through. I am going to give it the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably is glad himself that it didn't go through, that means that the House can probably come up with a better plan. I know Trump isn't popular here but I like him so far.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 29, 2017, 06:01:41 pm
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on March 29, 2017, 06:17:30 pm
Ok I voted for Trump...


Oh, that is rich. Bless your heart.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 29, 2017, 06:41:28 pm
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?

Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.

I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 29, 2017, 07:07:26 pm
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?

Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.

I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.

Hey Radiation,

Just a couple of questions, correct me if I'm wrong on anything:

1) I thought you were a Muslim, or at least had some sort of islamic tint to your religious beliefs, was that right? And do/are you still?

2) I also thought you had trouble finding work/healthcare? Are you on Medicare/ Medicaid? I remember you had trouble with your teeth

3) What do you think immigrants (legal or illegal) get for free that americans don't?

4) What was it about Benghazi and Hillary's involvement that concerns you?

5) Are you not concerned about Trump ordering a military strike in Yemen which resulted in the death of both a US soldier and an 8 year old Yemeni girl which was considered too risky by the previous administration? It also did not result in any new intelligence information. I

6) I've heard the story about Hillary threatening rape victims, although when I've read the details the apparent threat is along the lines of Hillary saying 'hello', are you not equally concerned about the stories that Trump raped an underage girl and has sexually assaulted women personally?

7) When you say Hillary is corrupt what do you mean? Is it concerns about nepotism? Like allowing her totally unqualified daughter to have an office in the Whitehouse or security clearance?

8 ) Were you not concerned that a guy who said he has effectively bribed politicians and wouldn't release his tax returns was corrupt?

9) Do you really think that Trump and the Republicans are going to benefit you and your family, and if so why?

I'm curious about these things, I'm not calling you stupid or dumb

Edit: sorry I didn't mean to put an emoji in, I just wanted it to be number 8
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 29, 2017, 07:09:36 pm
Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking.

This I admit I can't understand.  "Speaking your mind" is one of those things that sounds good, but I don't get how it's a reason to vote for someone on it's own merits.  Especially when what's on their mind is stuff like "The Tiananmen square massacre was strong leadership" or "Global warming was invented by the Chinese."

Quote
I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds.


You like how he supposedly isn't? 

Quote
Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist)


Again I don't get that.  Sure there are extremists and assholes in the internet Social Justice movement, but how does that make Trump qualified to be president.  How is being "politically incorrect" more important then being actually correct?

Quote
I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.

None of this is true.  Yes you may have some anecdotal evidence but overall economist find the impact of illegal immigration on jobs to be negligable, and it's been declining since the 2008 crash anyway.  Nor are Trump's proposals going to do much to stop it anyway.  And illegal immigrants aren't getting anything for free, indeed they get lower pay and less welfare while paying just as much for any other goods and services.

Quote
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.

Do you have a source on the intimidating rape victims one?  I ask because I hadn't heard that before, and given all the crap about her e-mails and Benghazi if there was any truth to that I would assume fox would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

Anyway does Trump's corruption bother you?  ie the Trump University scam or how he's been using the office of the presidency to advance his businesses or the possibility of him working with Putin to undermine the US elections?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 29, 2017, 07:55:10 pm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-self-funding-his-campaign-sort/
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/feb/22/corey-lewandowski/trumps-campaign-manager-we-dont-have-any-donors/

Trump wasn't self-funding his campaign--and that was early in the primaries.

A lot of the money he gave his campaign was a loan, which his campaign can repay to him when he gets... donations.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 29, 2017, 08:40:28 pm
Ok I'll try to answer these to the best of my ability:


Hey Radiation,

Just a couple of questions, correct me if I'm wrong on anything:

Quote
1) I thought you were a Muslim, or at least had some sort of islamic tint to your religious beliefs, was that right? And do/are you still?

I am no longer Muslim, I still have the materials on it but I really no longer practice any aspect of it. I am in fact researching Kemetic Science and Thelema right now.

Quote
2) I also thought you had trouble finding work/healthcare? Are you on Medicare/ Medicaid? I remember you had trouble with your teeth

I have Medicare/Medicaid and I have dentures that were paid by my grandma who has since passed away in 2012. I was going through school at the time but had to drop out due to being switched on multiple medications for my bi-polar.

Quote
3) What do you think immigrants (legal or illegal) get for free that americans don't?

The truth? I have no problem with those that have come here legally, I've had relatives from Sicily that came here through the proper channels and have worked their butts off to be American citizens. They have to pay taxes and stuff just like regular Americans. As for illegals they shouldn't be here, period. They come here, have babies and get on welfare, disability etc and those resources could be used for Americans in need. Here's an article about the impact of illegals on the social safety network, it's short but to the point:

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/money/business/2014/07/27/illegal-immigrants-impact-us-economy/13234585/ (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/money/business/2014/07/27/illegal-immigrants-impact-us-economy/13234585/)

From that article:

Quote
Yes, they compete for jobs with native workers, and that causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. However, where the rubber meets the road, the biggest threat to our economy is how these people will impact our social safety nets and other public programs.

and

Quote
As a country, we have to be realistic about illegal immigration: as long as the U.S. economy offers greater opportunities than the economies in Central America and Mexico, people will continue to do what they need to do to get here. We just don't have the money or manpower to do much about it.

Here is another link that I found that seems to be intensive about illegal immigration.

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_economic_costs.html (http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_economic_costs.html)



[url]http://www.fairus.org/publications/immigration-poverty-and-low-wage-earners-the-harmful-effects-of-unskilled-immigrants-on-american-wor]http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_economic_costs.html[url]

[url]http://www.fairus.org/publications/immigration-poverty-and-low-wage-earners-the-harmful-effects-of-unskilled-immigrants-on-american-wor (http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_economic_costs.html[url)

Quote
4) What was it about Benghazi and Hillary's involvement that concerns you?

The fact that she left four of our people behind and did not rescue them when the terrorist attacks happened, that's what I remember at least.

Quote
5) Are you not concerned about Trump ordering a military strike in Yemen which resulted in the death of both a US soldier and an 8 year old Yemeni girl which was considered too risky by the previous administration? It also did not result in any new intelligence information.

I don't watch the news as I don't have a TV so I had to look that up, but, didn't Obama strike some Middle Eastern country with numerous drone strikes and pretty much start the Syrian Civil War? I recall hearing a lot about drone strikes so if Obama did that then why is everyone jumping on Trump about this? It's awful but Obama seems to have done much worse.

Here's an article that I found about Trump's move:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/22/yemen-strike-might-indicate-trumps-military-competence/ (http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/22/yemen-strike-might-indicate-trumps-military-competence/)

Quote
6) I've heard the story about Hillary threatening rape victims, although when I've read the details the apparent threat is along the lines of Hillary saying 'hello', are you not equally concerned about the stories that Trump raped an underage girl and has sexually assaulted women personally?

She allegedly did, I wouldn't put it past her. As far as Trump, I have checked that story out and it seems that it really hasn't been verified.

Quote
7) When you say Hillary is corrupt what do you mean? Is it concerns about nepotism? Like allowing her totally unqualified daughter to have an office in the Whitehouse or security clearance?

Like I said, she supposedly intimidated some rape victims. She didn't help our ambassadors in Libya when they needed to be rescued. She said something racist in the past, something along the lines of "We need to bring these [black/inner city] thugs to heel." She and Obama have worsened the situation in the Middle East by bombing them and starting the Syrian Civil War. She didn't keep important, secret information on a secure server but used her own to send emails and such, and one more thing that is escaping my memory at the moment.

Quote
8 ) Were you not concerned that a guy who said he has effectively bribed politicians and wouldn't release his tax returns was corrupt?

How true is that? I know that Rachel Maddow got his 2005 tax forms that showed that Trump did indeed pay taxes. The media has had it out for Trump since day 1.

Quote
9) Do you really think that Trump and the Republicans are going to benefit you and your family, and if so why?

I don't know but I took a chance by voting for him. Perhaps by getting rid of illegals, trying to get manufacturing jobs back here in the USA, renegotiating NAFTA perhaps people like my nieces and nephew can get into jobs that are substantial, have good wages and be able to live comfortable enough lives.

I'm curious about these things, I'm not calling you stupid or dumb

Edit: sorry I didn't mean to put an emoji in, I just wanted it to be number 8

It's ok lol. This took me a while to answer, I don't have my regular computer so I had to look some things up. I just only ask that people respect my viewpoints as I would respect theirs. I don't want any trouble.




Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 29, 2017, 09:43:43 pm
While I agree that illegal immigrants are a bad thing for society (this is usually the part where a bunch of bleeding heart Americans accuse me of racism against Mexicans and only Mexicans with no hint of irony or self-awareness) and that it's ridiculous that America goes out of its way to not catch and deport them, Trump is not going to be the one to change that. It's people like Trump who benefit from illegal immigrants, as they can pay them well below minimum wage and withhold things like benefits and safety measures that legal workers require. He doesn't want them gone and it absolutely shows in his proposed solutions. Instead of doing the sensible thing and having law enforcement stop deliberately turning a blind eye to illegals (kind of like this, for example (http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/03/15/24966/lapd-eases-impound-policy-illegal-immigrants/)), he wants to spend billions building a wall across the entire Mexican border that will do absolutely nothing to impede illegal immigrants, not to mention do nothing about those that are already in America.

Basically, Trump's not making an honest effort to remove illegal immigrants, he's simply pandering to those who think illegals all cross the border via the Speedy Gonzales method.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 29, 2017, 10:12:59 pm
Ok I voted for Trump...


Oh, that is rich. Bless your heart.


You can take the girl out of the honky tonk but you can't take the honky tonk, can't take the honky tonk, out of the girl.

Ironbite-*epic sax solo*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 29, 2017, 10:22:10 pm
I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.

They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 29, 2017, 10:35:07 pm
I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.

They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA
It's bad because it's all at the lower class's expense, which is already having a rather bad time of things. Those illegals paying more taxes than they use in services are doing so because they're doing some unskilled job for well below minimum wage, a job that would otherwise be done by a legal worker for at least minimum wage and benefits.

Not to mention, the poor paying less taxes than they recieve in government services is exactly how it's supposed to work. It's the rich who're meant to pay more than they receive. It's one of the ways the government reduces inequality, much like progressive tax and minimum wage and benefits. Illegals fucking it up is not a good thing for society overall.

As for your other points, they wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the US took the same approach as the rest of the world and tried to keep their numbers to an absolute minimum, rather than simply paying lip service to the idea while in practice keeping them around as a substitute for slaves.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 29, 2017, 11:41:31 pm
I don't see how illegal immigrants are bad for society. Particularly in the US they pay more in taxes than they take out in services. Besides which try running the us agriculture industry without them.

They have also found that if they start cracking down on immigrants it encourages crime because immigrants won't call the police. They have seen how this happens in LA
It's bad because it's all at the lower class's expense, which is already having a rather bad time of things. Those illegals paying more taxes than they use in services are doing so because they're doing some unskilled job for well below minimum wage, a job that would otherwise be done by a legal worker for at least minimum wage and benefits.

Not to mention, the poor paying less taxes than they recieve in government services is exactly how it's supposed to work. It's the rich who're meant to pay more than they receive. It's one of the ways the government reduces inequality, much like progressive tax and minimum wage and benefits. Illegals fucking it up is not a good thing for society overall.

As for your other points, they wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the US took the same approach as the rest of the world and tried to keep their numbers to an absolute minimum, rather than simply paying lip service to the idea while in practice keeping them around as a substitute for slaves.

I can't help but think that most of those problems would go away if employers could not get away with paying them less money than legal workers
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on March 29, 2017, 11:56:32 pm

I don't know but I took a chance by voting for him. Perhaps by getting rid of illegals, trying to get manufacturing jobs back here in the USA, renegotiating NAFTA perhaps people like my nieces and nephew can get into jobs that are substantial, have good wages and be able to live comfortable enough lives.



Those jobs aren't coming back. They're gone to countries where they can pay their workers a dime a day. Unless you want to abolish the minimum wage and hike income inequality to even more ridiculous levels.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 30, 2017, 12:22:34 am

She allegedly did, I wouldn't put it past her.

Why wouldn't you?  Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians in the United States (according to politifact).  I'm not aware of anything in her backround that suggests she'd do this.  I do not believe that story is true.

Quote
She didn't help our ambassadors in Libya when they needed to be rescued.

That is not true.  Investigations found no evidence of any wrongdoing on her part.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html?_r=0

Quote
She and Obama have worsened the situation in the Middle East by bombing them and...

Now I will grant you that one.  The drone war was the worst thing about the Obama presidency.  However considering that Trump said he wants to "bomb the shit out of them (ISIS) and sent exxon to suck up their oil" and said in the first debate that he would respond to Iranian sailors taunting American sailors by sinking Iranian ships at sea, I don't see how this can be a point in his favor.

Quote
...starting the Syrian Civil War.

...What are you talking about?  The start of the Syrian civil war had nothing to do with Obama at all.  This is what happened: 1) Non-violent protesters call for democracy in Syria. 2) Assad has his military open fire, killing thousands.  3) Protesters start shooting back. 4) Islamist groups join shooting, eventually take over resistance.  Obama and Hillary didn't have anything to do with it.  You can criticize their handling of the situation, but they did not start the war.

Quote
She said something racist in the past, something along the lines of "We need to bring these [black/inner city] thugs to heel."

What?

...WHAT???

Are you freaking kidding me?

Donald Trump support racist conspiracy theories about Obama's birth.  He started his campaign calling Mexican immigrants rapists.  He called for an illegal ban on an entire religion.  He retweeted fake statistics on black crime rates from neo-nazis.  He refused to condemn the KKK in a live interview.  He said that five black teenagers who were proven innocent by DNA evidence should be executed anyway.  he ran a campaign entirely based on racism, to the point where stormfront founder Don Black credited him with reviving Neo-Nazism as a political force.

DIRECT QUESTION

Does any of that bother you?

Because I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say that Hillary allegedly "bringing thugs to heel" offends you if your fine with everything Trump did.   
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 30, 2017, 12:47:55 am
I can't help but think that most of those problems would go away if employers could not get away with paying them less money than legal workers
Absolutely. Not holding employers accountable for hiring illegals is just as big an issue as not deporting said illegals.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 30, 2017, 02:56:51 am
I'm sorry, but saying Hillary Clinton being racist is why you voted for Trump is quite possibly the most ironic thing I've heard all year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 30, 2017, 03:14:23 am
I'm sorry, but saying Hillary Clinton being racist is why you voted for Trump is quite possibly the most ironic thing I've heard all year.

It's probably the most obvious one but in almost* every category Hillary is more qualified than Donald so focusing on any of her flaws seems odd as it means ignoring the same flaws in him.

Corruption: Trump has several legal problems and it already is apparent that he is using presidency to help his business.
Track record: Clinton is a successful politician and has done well in business. Trump has repeatedly failed and even his most "succesfull" businesses are either: Burning down a successful company to get some money out of it quickly or attaching his name to something that he cannot control at all and taking credit for the success (which seems to be his MO as a president as well.)
Marriage: Complaints about Clinton are mainly "her husband cheated on her" (as if that is her fault) while Trump himself has cheated on his wives and bragged about it.
Birtherism: Trump was one of the major celebreties going on and on about Obama having faked his birth certificate yet he somehow had the audacity to claim that Hillary started it?
"Saying it like it is" claim: Trump lies repeatedly. He misdirects, he lies, he says things that are quite easily disproven just so that he can be on the news again. And somehow his fans at the same time consider him honest and claim that he doesn't mean what he said. Like all those voters who said that they think Trump was being metaphorical when he said that he is definitely going to build a physical wall on the border. Clinton has lied occasionally but never in the same scope as Trump does repeatedly.
Work time: Hillary has been on the job constantly for years. Trump did very little by himself in business (since his companies run better without him) and as a president has spent more time on vacation than any other POTUS before him. Trump himself complained about Obama taking vacations and spending tax payer money and now he himself does it and even more... Granted that some think that this is just Trump delegating again and that this is a good thing, but it's not like Hillary (and Obama) knew how to delegate as well but still stayed on the job and at least tried to keep track of what is going on (while Trump is infamous for ignoring intel.)

The list goes on. I am not trying to attack Radiation (or other Trump fans) and I'm just merely astonished at the double standards here. How do people ignore all the evidence against Trump and why focus on minor nitpicking only when talking about Clinton?

*The sole exception being that Hillary is a career politician so Trump can be seen as an outsider. ...And some people might think that being a woman is a flaw.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 30, 2017, 04:13:37 am
Do you mind if I ask why you like him?

Firstly, I liked how he speaks his mind, though at times I think there are times he needs to think before speaking. I also like that he supposedly isn't attached to the establishment and that he ran on his own campaign funds. Also, I am getting tired of all of the SJW, BLM, politically correct bullshit and he represented an opposition to that. (That SJW PC crap turned me into a centrist) I also liked that he wants to go after illegal immigrants who have been taking jobs away from Americans. I know personally of quite a few people who have either been passed over for some Mexican or have been fired from a majority Mexican job who possibly may have illegal immigrants in it. So I am against that but not for those who have came here the proper way and worked their asses off to be here, it's not fair for those to have gone through all that to build a life here and see illegals come in and get everything for free.
Secondly, Hillary is corrupt. I have read some of the Wikileaks emails and I also have read about how she threatened and intimidated some of Bill's rape victims. She also had that whole thing with Benghazi and some other stuff that escapes me at the moment but all I knew was I didn't want her as President. Maybe someone else but I really feel the DNC messed up with having her run.
If this makes me "dumb" or "stupid" then so be it, I know I won't get along with everyone on here.

I still have my own personal political beliefs about certain things. I don't hate anyone but I just want to be open about this.

Everything you say about Hillary, Trump seems to have taken as his job description - he is little more than Putin's hand puppet, the Russian's hand wedged tightly up his ass and making him talk.

As for your talk of an opposition to "SJW, BLM PC Crap", it has turned you into little better than Milo Yiannopolous, not a centrist. As for people passed over for Mexicans or other Latinos, well, my heart is absolutely dry if those incidents even happened at all. The much spoken of white working class is moribund, delirious, despicable, and deserves to rot - let them have their heroin needles and Xanax "prescriptions".

Trump does not say it like it is. He says it like how he wishes it was. He claims to be strong but he is a weak willed, easily manipulable man that can be easily led around by the nose.

The media rightfully has it out for this hideously corrupt waste of skin crowned by a dead ferret and his septic, pus filled followers.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 30, 2017, 04:57:33 am
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00094

The Senate voted 50-48 to strike down an FCC rule that would have prevented ISPs from selling your browsing history to third parties.

The vote was strictly party-line. Sens. Isakson (R-GA) and Paul (R-KY) did not vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll202.xml

In the House, the vote was 215-205, with 9 not voting. No Democratic Representative voted for the resolution; 15 Republicans joined them. Of the 9 not voting, 6 were Republicans and 3 were Democrats.

The 15 Republicans who voted to maintain privacy were Reps. Amash (R-MI 3rd), Brooks (R-AL 5th), Coffman (R-CO 6th), Davidson (R-OH 8th), Duncan (R-TN 2nd), Faso (R-NY 19th), Graves (R-LA 6th), Herrera Beutler (R-WA 3rd), Jones (R-NC 3rd), McClintock (R-CA 4th), Reichert (R-WA 8th), Sanford (R-SC 1st), Stefanik (R-NY 21st), Yoder (R-KS 3rd), and Zeldin (R-NY 1st).

The 9 Representatives (other than Speaker Ryan) who did not vote were Reps. Duffy (R-WI 7th), Hill (R-AR 2nd), Marino (R-PA 10th), Pittenger (R-NC 9th), Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL 27th), Rush (D-IL 1st), Simpson (R-ID 2nd), Slaughter (D-NY 25th), and Tonko (D-NY 20th). There are five vacancies, in Montana's At-Large district, South Carolina's 5th, Georgia's 6th, California's 34th, and Kansas's 4th.

The Verge compiled a list of the people who voted for the resolution with how much money the telecoms gave them:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

Mitch McConnell, for instance, received over $250,000 from the telecoms, but Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) sold out your privacy for a paltry $1,000. (The newly appointed Sen. Luther Strange from Alabama hasn't even had time to take any money and still sold you out!) In the House, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA 23rd) took almost $100,000, while Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI 6th), John Shimkus (R-IL 15th) and Steve Scalise (R-LA 1st) took over $100,000, and Rep. Gregory Walden (R-OR 2nd) took a whopping $155,100, but Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK 1st) cost only $1,000, Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN 1st) needed only $500, and Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA 3rd) was willing to go for a mere $300.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 30, 2017, 07:10:24 am
People actually take the Benghazi manufactroversy seriously, still?

Weird.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on March 30, 2017, 08:00:45 am
And some people might think that being a woman is a flaw.

Eh, casual sexism is losing the popular vote by roughly three million, and accusing the system of being rigged because a woman can't possibly get more support than you, Mr. Manly Man.

ETA: I'm gonna speak more about this later. Gird your shit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 30, 2017, 08:36:00 am
All the stuff about Trump's lying, sexism and so on are important in their own right but they pale when compared to a couple of vital issues:

1. Climate change. This is something I myself didn't really consider enough earlier but he is helping the Republicans to do irreparable damage. Trump personally and the Republican party as a whole deny and directly contribute to the worst direct threat our species is dealing with.

2. Health care. While it seems the ACA repeal has failed for now it is not for the lack of trying by Trump & co. This would have directly killed tens of millions of Americans.

I would be interested in knowing how can one ignore these issues and vote Trump if they are not living in a complete Republican / conservative bubble and have the time to actually do some basic research on them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 30, 2017, 01:19:20 pm
Not to mention the inhumane way Trump has handled deporting undocumented immigrants  (deporting people who have no lives, jobs, homes or connections to the countries they were born in) and his (illegal anyway) Muslim bans.

Trump has botched basically everything he's done as president and I find it hard to believe anyone who isn't die hard Republican or just plain stupid could continue to support him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 30, 2017, 02:36:54 pm
Quote
Donald Trump support racist conspiracy theories about Obama's birth.  He started his campaign calling Mexican immigrants rapists.  He called for an illegal ban on an entire religion.  He retweeted fake statistics on black crime rates from neo-nazis.  He refused to condemn the KKK in a live interview.  He said that five black teenagers who were proven innocent by DNA evidence should be executed anyway.  he ran a campaign entirely based on racism, to the point where stormfront founder Don Black credited him with reviving Neo-Nazism as a political force.

DIRECT QUESTION

Does any of that bother you?

Because I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say that Hillary allegedly "bringing thugs to heel" offends you if your fine with everything Trump did.

So what if Trump is "racist" seriously the only people pumping out that narrative is the leftist media. Even if he did say that shit that's on him and he is not perfect in anyway, he's human, but don't act like the Democrats can't be racist either. You do know about the Dixiecrats right? Maybe you should look back at the Civil Rights era and see who the people were that actually wanted to oppress the black people.

Speaking of racists, the people that I have been seeing that are the most openly racist people are blacks. Look at their BLM marches. You can't tell me them saying "kill all white people" and "fuck all white people" isn't racist. I don't hate blacks but there has been an increasing amount of demonization of white people by the left.

Another thing, the second largest group of people who voted for Trump were Hispanics so he must have done something to appeal to them.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Where is it that he refused to condemn the KKK?  I don't know about the teenagers so I can't speak on that but the only reason Trump is "racist" is because the media, who are mostly liberal leaning (seriously did you even see their ridiculous projections on election night only to see every state they projected for Hillary to turn red?! They propped Hillary up so much that people could see the bias in the media) has ran a narrative that Trump was racist while sweeping any flaws of Hillary under the rug. With that said, I am done with this thread.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 30, 2017, 02:56:25 pm
Yeah, seriously, you're saying that one of the reasons you voted for Trump is because Clinton is supposedly racist. And now you're deflecting Trump's demonstrable racist actions and statements. That's just plain hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 30, 2017, 04:11:33 pm
Oh good a new alt-reich shitposter. Complete with lugenpresse accusations and deflecting racism. If radiation keeps this up I think we have our new Ultie.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on March 30, 2017, 04:19:21 pm
"They both do it" is not a reason to pick the more egregious offender over the lesser one.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 30, 2017, 04:52:59 pm
Quote
So what if Trump is "racist" seriously the only people pumping out that narrative is the leftist media. Even if he did say that shit that's on him and he is not perfect in anyway, he's human, but don't act like the Democrats can't be racist either. You do know about the Dixiecrats right? Maybe you should look back at the Civil Rights era and see who the people were that actually wanted to oppress the black people.

This is such a stupid statement. Trump can't be too bad because look Dixiecrats? Nobody holds the Dixiecrats up as shining members of the democratic party like Republicans are with Trump. And do you know what happened to those Dixiecrats? Did you ever hear of the southern strategy? All of those civil rights era Democrats had to go somewhere, and they turned into modern day southern Republicans.

Quote
Speaking of racists, the people that I have been seeing that are the most openly racist people are blacks. Look at their BLM marches. You can't tell me them saying "kill all white people" and "fuck all white people" isn't racist. I don't hate blacks but there has been an increasing amount of demonization of white people by the left.

Black people whom have been held down since slavery, since Jim Crow era laws, who were gentrified into poorer neighborhoods with less government support, and segregated because white people didn't want to see them or deal with them, and are still being treated like shit from law enforcement to this day, and are now being continued to be held down by systemic racism that has now pretty much become cultural due to laws passed by white people for white peoples own personal gain, and they are mad at white people for this? Stop the fucking presses! They have every right to be mad. And yes there are some racist eggs in the bunch but I wonder how that fucking happened? You don't get to deflect the racism they've received against them and still receive because they're properly angry.

Quote
Another thing, the second largest group of people who voted for Trump were Hispanics so he must have done something to appeal to them.

Yeah, and Hispanics are the second largest ethnicity next to white people in the states, and growing. So it's no shock that the second largest group who voted for Trump were the second largest ethnicity. Even with that Hillary Clinton still won the majority of Hispanic voters.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 30, 2017, 04:59:47 pm
Interesting potted history about the Dixiecrats, yep they were racist which is why Nixon courted them leading to the thick vein of racism in the GOP culminating in President Trump.

Also maybe we're talking about a different BLM but they seemed more "getting shot by cops kind of blows" than "black folks uber alles". Someone should tell the white people joining them at their marches.

Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 30, 2017, 05:08:27 pm
Just out of curiosity I did a Google search. It seems there really is a BLM leader in Toronto who is an actual black supremacist and right wing sites have had a field day with her. Even she did not call for killing of all whites, her words were twisted on that particular issue. Of course, her opinions must mean the whole movement is racist and that racism against whites causes more damage than racism against blacks. If you live in the same planet as Radiation does nowadays, that is.

Edit: a link to Toronto Sun if someone is interested http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 30, 2017, 06:12:02 pm

Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?

I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views,  more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs,  BLM,  the demonization of white people,  etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 30, 2017, 06:57:37 pm

Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?

I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views,  more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs,  BLM,  the demonization of white people,  etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.

Are you sure you hold liberal views if you are parroting alt-right talking points? I'm a bit surprised because I would have thought you would be the natural demographic for Sanders. I know people were upset about him not winning the democratic nomination but I would have thought you would go with the party closest to what he was pushing for.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 30, 2017, 07:10:38 pm

Radiation, this is fucking strange. I'm not convinced you aren't just fucking with us. U trolling?

I did vote for Trump but maybe I could be wrong. The fact is I still have liberal views,  more left of center. All the stuff about SJWs,  BLM,  the demonization of white people,  etc I got from watching mostly alt-right YouTube channels and websites. I could go on but I am at the food pantry right now.

Are you sure you hold liberal views if you are parroting alt-right talking points? I'm a bit surprised because I would have thought you would be the natural demographic for Sanders. I know people were upset about him not winning the democratic nomination but I would have thought you would go with the party closest to what he was pushing for.

Yes I have some liberal views. I believe I am homosexual so I am for LGBT rights, right now I am wrestling with that part of my identity. I am on the fence about abortion as I don't like it but I also think that we need clinics with competent doctors who know the human body rather than go back to the days where women died from botched abortions. I actually voted for Sanders in the primaries, I wasn't too upset but there was something about Hillary that I didn't trust, I just don't like Hillary for some reason so I didn't want to vote for her and I didn't want to throw my vote away. I also think the DNC is fractured over this and I am hoping they get things back together again by 2020, then maybe I will vote Democratic again. I just don't like all of the far left stuff that is happening right now, particularly with race as it feels like a personal attack on me.
Like I said I have been watching alt-right videos on Youtube, namely Mark Dice ( I don't like him entirely since he goes into conspiracy theories and I don't necessarily believe in those, like the Pizzagate thing) Andywarski, Rebel Media, Ben Shapiro, Some of Milo Yiannopolous (I don't like him that much anymore since he is a pedophile apologist) Some Black Guy, Tommy Sotomayor, MyNameIsJosephine and others that I can't remember right now. I don't agree with everything in the alt-right but I also don't agree with everything on the alt-left or on the left these days.

Ok, I got to put the food away before they spoil.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 30, 2017, 07:27:30 pm
So is fucking Milo Yiannopolous and he's a pile of shit for the ages with a fresh crop of flies buzzing around him.

Milo is more than just a pedo apologist - he's singled out transgender students, he has engaged in targeted harassment and he has actively worked with Neo-Nazis.

The Alt-Reich is just a pretty new word for what we always called them, which is simply Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists. That you take any criticism of the establishments deemed "white" as an attack on you says you are of the same batch as Yiannopolous and others like Andrew Anglin and Joshua Bonehill.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 30, 2017, 07:33:14 pm
Radiation, why are you offended by Hillary Clinton saying something racist but not offended by Trump saying something racist?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 30, 2017, 08:46:57 pm
I never said I was offended per se, I was just pointing out how Trump was being called racist yet Hillary said something racist in the past but no one held her to task about it in this past election cycle.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 30, 2017, 09:06:17 pm
To Quote (paraphrased) Larry Wilmore:  "Bernie Sanders marched with Martin Luther King jr and Hillary started her political carrier working undercover to expose housing discrimination.  Where I stand the democrats have earned the benefit of the doubt on race."

Sorry but I'm assuming the quote is taken out of context or isn't true because almost everything else you said about Hillary is provably wrong.

Hillary did not leave anyone to die in Benghazi.  Multiple investigations cleared her of wrongdoing.

Same for her E-mails.  No investigation found any wrongdoing on her part.

And She and Obama did not start the Syrian Civil War.  That doesn't even make sense.  How could they have?  What leads you to that conclusion?

The reason Trump's racism was focused on more then Hillary's is because his entire campaign was only about race.  The only consistent policies he advocated were "build the wall" and "ban Muslims".  When this guy is at Trump's rally and no-one like that is at Hillary's then yes Trump's is going to get the focus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOteZSaejh8
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 30, 2017, 09:41:38 pm
Well, I think we have our new Ultimate Paragon, Skybison.

Any bets on how long this one will last?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 30, 2017, 10:51:13 pm
No I am not going to be your new UP or a chewtoy. I don't know why you all are dogpiling me just because I voted for Trump and have different viewpoints. This forum used to allow for civil discourse but quite honestly I feel I am being attacked. I don't know if I even want to stay or not and I have been on these forums since way back and it was never quite like this back then. At least back then we did tolerate and respect those with differing opinions. And no, I am not whining or being a crybaby since someone will bring that up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 30, 2017, 11:00:35 pm
Radiation, I know you've been here long enough to know that we're not dogpiling or attacking you. You're saying stupid shit and we're calling it out for the stupid shit it is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 30, 2017, 11:01:44 pm
I'm sorry if you feel attacked but there is a difference between a different viewpoint and a falsehood.  The Earth is Round and The Earth is Flat are not two equally valid viewpoints to be respected.  One is correct and the other is wrong, and if someone advocate the latter refuses to admit they were mistaken, why should they be respected?

Hillary Clinton did not start the Syrian Civil War.  That's just wrong.  She did not leave people to die in Benghazi.  That's just wrong.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 30, 2017, 11:08:52 pm
Well, I think we have our new Ultimate Paragon, Skybison.

Any bets on how long this one will last?
Well I thought we had the old one was back, with a sparkly new avatar.

Regardless, this all does show how the alt right has been good for Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 30, 2017, 11:21:09 pm
Ok, tell you what. I'm going to sleep on this and do some more research, if anything my mind can always be changed about something, I just feel a bit hurt right now and not really thinking rationally.

I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.

But yeah let me sleep on this and in the meantime if you want to give me links you can. My medications are starting to hit me and I got to go to bed. I just want you to know that I am still a kind hearted person.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 30, 2017, 11:43:33 pm
Radiation, I'm a bona fide SJW who works for a pittance teaching Syrian and Afghani refugees English and I think power+prejudice is incoherent. I've happily submitted black supremacists to RSTDT.

That said I don't think BLMs argument is supremacist or racist, they're just a bit worried about a disproportionate number of black people getting shot by coppers-that's fair enough!

Yes, some nutters tagged along with BLM but being an old time lefty, and member of this board I can tell you that every grouping has its crazies. It doesn't follow that they're all crazy!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 31, 2017, 10:33:10 am
I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.

Nobody makes the choice of receiving white privilege. Nobody (well, this being the internet almost nobody) makes the argument that it makes you or me a bad person. It means we don't encounter the same difficulties and prejudices in our lives that a non-white person does and being aware of that helps us empathize more with them. It also doesn't mean that we cannot face other difficulties that may make our lives as a whole more difficult than many non-whites' lives; a non-white person in your or my situation just would have the additional burden of racial prejudice.

I would like to know what the basis for your anxiety is. Can you explain further with sources if possible? I am asking out of genuine empathy hoping to help you find a way to a closure on the issue.

I made the assumption that Yusra Khogali is a source for a lot of it since based on a Google search she seems to get a lot of attention from alt-right and regular right wing websites. She has posted a black supremacist rant with the added bonus of pseudoscientific fantasy but does not promote killing all whites unlike the right-wing narrative tries to tell you.

What did she actually tweet?
Quote
Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today.

Sigh. The "Die cis scum" debate in a racial context. Anyone intending to point out how this is bad, mmkay, should just read through that mess again.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Even Then on March 31, 2017, 01:22:58 pm
Fuck it, I'll bite. Radiation, how do you define "SJW" or "PC crap"?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 31, 2017, 04:38:15 pm
I am not good at defining things, what do you want me to do? I am pretty sure you can see examples on Youtube and elsewhere but SJWs are those far leftists who get offended by everything and want to force their viewpoints on everyone else. Political correctness is basically replacing words are phrases that are deemed "offensive" with words that are less offensive unfortunately this causes censorship and people can't say what they want to say.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 31, 2017, 04:40:51 pm
Have you seen what Trump does whenever anyone criticises him? He's a right-wing SJW.

Or how about Rick Perry banning the use of the terms "climate change" and "Paris Accords" in the Department of Energy? That's literal political correctness.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 31, 2017, 05:13:49 pm
A social justice warrior is just anyone who has taken the fight for any races, sexual orientations, genders, gender inequality and gender equality, religion etc way too far to the point where It's not a left wing or right wing thing. Alt righters are just white people SJWs who need their internet safe spaces like on /pol/ or r/The_Donald or Breitbart just like every other special internet snow flake.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 31, 2017, 05:31:15 pm
You know what? I don't think I am even going to win here so I guess I am just going to leave. I used to love this place for having real, rational discussions and people respected others but now I feel that I am being ridiculed because of who I voted for and why. I have had nothing but respect for those who had different beliefs and ideas but apparently I don't belong here and no I am not "running away" nor am I unable to take it so I am just going to go.

Maybe in the future I will come back, I don't know but all I want to say is congratuations on getting the mainpage back and good luck to you.

I'm done, I'm out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on March 31, 2017, 06:23:31 pm
Ok, tell you what. I'm going to sleep on this and do some more research, if anything my mind can always be changed about something, I just feel a bit hurt right now and not really thinking rationally.

I will say that I still don't like SJWs, BLM, and the notion of "white privilege" and "white supremacy" That hurts me because deep in my heart I have no hatred for other races yet I am being attacked by these extremists for my skin color. I have been taught that we should be equal and I believe in that whole heartedly.

You may not have hatred, but scientist have found that almost everyone has very strong unconscious racism without knowing it.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/inquiring-minds-david-amodio-your-brain-on-racism

You can be a racist without openly hating anyone.  Me too, I can easily think of times when I've acted on unconscious racism and didn't realize it until later.

I actual want to say something about Morality here: my view is that if you are certain that you aren't racist, that you are kindhearted, that you are a good person to the point where you take offense and outrage at the idea you might not be, that kind of thinking makes you a bad person.

I do not believe in God, but I actually do think that Christians are right about some of their basic ideas about morality: we are all sinners.  Pride is the root of most sin.  And being a good person is about seeking redemption. 

One of my favorite books ever, Evil by Roy Baumeister a book on the psychology of why people do evil things, has this line that really stuck with me. (paraphrasing a bit) "Psychologist gathered data to find what were the different categories of pathologically violent people.  But when you use modern statistical methods it turns out there aren't different categories, just one (with a few rare exceptions):  The Fragile Narcissist."

Now I am not accusing you of being pathologically violent, or of being mentally ill.  But Fragile Narcissism can still show up in normal people, and it makes them into bad people.  The certainty that you are good and kind and being unable to handle the idea that you aren't, that stops you from being able to see it if you are in the wrong.  It stops you from trying to improve yourself.  It justifies cruelty because if you are good then what you've done can't be bad.

Being a good person is about having the humility to admit you aren't perfect.  That you aren't a good person.  But that you will put in the work to be better.

The Trump movement strikes me as entirely based on Fragile Narcissism.  This anger over being thought of as racist seems a very common theme.  It's all about "We know we're the greatest.  The problem is everyone else's fault.  We should stop apologizing, stop examining our own actions.  How dare they think we are wrong, that we are flawed.  We are justified in doing cruel things like banning refugees because we are good and they are bad because they don't think we are good."  That that pitch is always tempting, as are it's many equivalents on the political left.  But whenever you hear that remember, that's Satan speaking.  That is the path to the darkside.  And it will always end in tears.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 31, 2017, 06:38:34 pm
Rads...tha hell?  I have yet to see anyone openly ridicule you; from my point of view, they want to understand how you could do what ya did for the reasons you claim to have.  Being 100% honest, I don't get it, either.  Hillary could've literally called a black person "nigger" once, and that still wouldn't come close to the levels of racism D-Tizzle has expressed numerous times in the past.  The problem is that you seem to willfully ignore your side doing the same shit you accuse Hillary et al of doing.

We are giving you a chance, how's about you reciprocate?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 31, 2017, 07:05:54 pm
This is just a shot in the dark, but maybe he feels like he's being ganged up on? I think it might be a good idea to have a one-on-one debate with him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 31, 2017, 07:09:07 pm
She.  Radiation is a she.

Ironbite-and gone.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on March 31, 2017, 07:16:06 pm
She.  Radiation is a she.

Ironbite-and gone.

Well, I'll nix my post as my points tend to contain a fair amount of invective, and I really don't want her to leave.

Not that Radiation isn't being unreasonable; she is. She posted her views, had an obvious double standard, was called on it, and is now leaving because that's easier than confronting short-comings within her paradigm.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 31, 2017, 07:30:13 pm
She.  Radiation is a she.

Ironbite-and gone.

*Looks up* How the hell did I miss that? Sorry about misgendering you, Radiation. And if you're reading this, I'm willing to hear you out. Who knows? Maybe I'll learn something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 31, 2017, 07:32:52 pm
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData

So now that both the Senate and the House have voted to strip you of any privacy protections on the Internet, people are looking to raise money to buy the browsing history of all 265 Republican Representatives and Senators who voted to do that. (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 31, 2017, 07:53:35 pm
*sigh* While I don't like the idea of people quitting because they feel ganged up on, as far as I can see that didn't happen here. People might have been passionate about the ideas they were debating but the invective was on a pretty low dial. For when it's turned up look at the locked Gamergate thread or any discussion with Contrarian.

I'm sorry you're leaving Radiation, but people weren't saying you were bad. They were saying you were wrong. Different.

You can be a racist without openly hating anyone.  Me too, I can easily think of times when I've acted on unconscious racism and didn't realize it until later.

This.

"Racist" is not solely restricted to this (http://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/4f062fa0-3f2f-4414-9334-8ec99400cb9e/6acddfa7-b633-4c34-907d-e525931ed19e.jpg), this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5RKcSfJTkT4/TCj_NT0dMDI/AAAAAAAAEp4/mlVsceW5r4w/s1600/klansman1.jpg) or even this (http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/56c640526e97c625048b822a-480/donald-trump.jpg).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on March 31, 2017, 08:04:02 pm
*sigh* While I don't like the idea of people quitting because they feel ganged up on, as far as I can see that didn't happen here. People might have been passionate about the ideas they were debating but the invective was on a pretty low dial. For when it's turned up look at the locked Gamergate thread or any discussion with Contrarian.

I'm sorry you're leaving Radiation, but people weren't saying you were bad. They were saying you were wrong. Different.

Ok, I won't leave, leave but I need to be away for a while at least. This whole thing has me upset.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 31, 2017, 08:44:15 pm
And that's on you.  You knew this place was left-leaning and somewhat logical.  You came in here, sputtered a bunch of points and haven't made a single attempt at defending them from a logical standpoint.  Honestly we haven't changed Radiation, you have.

Ironbite-we're not that much of an echo chamber....chamber...chamber.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 31, 2017, 09:58:34 pm
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
*redacted due to irrelevance* (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)


Yeah, I think it's safe to say that Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles would be more likely to veto something like this than Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 31, 2017, 10:01:22 pm
https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
*redacted due to irrelevance* (Plus President Trump's, if he signs it.)


Yeah, I think it's safe to say that Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles would be more likely to veto something like this than Trump.

I don't doubt Trump will sign it. I can only hope the Dems (all of whom opposed the resolution, save only the three Representatives who did not vote) make a campaign issue out of it in 2018.

Because I will bet any amount of money that if you asked any number of random people on the street whether they think ISPs should be able to sell their personal browsing histories to third parties, the answer would be an overwhelming "NO!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 31, 2017, 11:04:33 pm
If it's done right, I'd be okay with this. If ISPs do what social media has been doing ever since it was a thing and offer their service for free in exchange for selling your data, while also giving the option of paying and keeping your data to yourself if you so desire, that would be pretty cool.

A shame the current lot far too corrupt and/or incompetent to make it work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on March 31, 2017, 11:08:40 pm
Not to mention they expect you to pay for ISP service, and they expect to be able to sell your data.

I ditched Hulu Plus because they have ads + a subscription fee. Double dipping is not cool.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 01, 2017, 12:29:30 am
I am not good at defining things, what do you want me to do? I am pretty sure you can see examples on Youtube and elsewhere but SJWs are those far leftists who get offended by everything and want to force their viewpoints on everyone else. Political correctness is basically replacing words are phrases that are deemed "offensive" with words that are less offensive unfortunately this causes censorship and people can't say what they want to say.

I guess I'm going to renege a bit in the interest of asking some questions on this:

1. Which "words and phrases" are being replaced by political correctness? Since you are citing political correctness as a problem that stifles words and phrases, I would like specific examples.

2. How does replacing "offensive" words and phrases "with words that are less offensive" stifle intelligent debate? You can still effectively make the same points, only with slightly different wording to convey the message; it's like telling a story while not saying the "fuck" word in polite company.

3. To what extent should society accept these offensive "words and phrases"? And I want to put emphasis on your use of "words and phrases," in contrast to ideas or thoughts. Words have varying degrees of utility and vulgarity. For example, words like esoteric, opulent, elide, and panacea have high utility (they are fun to say, good to drop in conversation, and are quite specific in their meaning and usage) without vulgarity. In contrast, words and phrases like faggot, "white power," and the n-word have less value (or specificity for that matter) and considerably more vulgarity. So, where do you draw the line on words among these two considerations?

4. Maybe my career path has influenced my views, but I tend to see censorship more as the state restriction on speech, not necessarily adverse social opinions. Said differently, if the state is arresting you for saying something (other than a confession), that is probably a violation of free speech. On the other hand, if society is rejecting what you have to say, then that is the free market place of ideas saying your views have no value to society. So, to what extent should society have to accept offensive words and phrases? If Fred calls Jim the n-word, should society not be free to shun (rather than accept) Fred for his callous disregard for basic decency?

5. How does the concept of "social justice warriors" validate Casino Mussolini for president? Social Justice Warriors are typically people on the internet who get called "cucks" by people with an odd penchant for a certain internet frog: not politicians or legislators. Saying "I'm voting for Donald Trump because of social justice warriors" is rather akin to saying "I'm voting for Frank Underwood so that Tyrion doesn't get killed in season 7": It's a non sequitur wherein the action taken is unrelated to the perceived problem.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 01, 2017, 01:01:44 am



2. How does replacing "offensive" words and phrases "with words that are less offensive" stifle intelligent debate? You can still effectively make the same points, only with slightly different wording to convey the message; it's like telling a story while not saying the "fuck" word in polite company.



If you do away with the prohibition against 'vulgar language' you get Australia. I've heard sweet old grandmothers say "fuck you, cunt" in passing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 01, 2017, 01:07:47 am



2. How does replacing "offensive" words and phrases "with words that are less offensive" stifle intelligent debate? You can still effectively make the same points, only with slightly different wording to convey the message; it's like telling a story while not saying the "fuck" word in polite company.



If you do away with the prohibition against 'vulgar language' you get Australia. I've heard sweet old grandmothers say "fuck you, cunt" in passing.

Well, your country is weird. Seriously, the fuck is vegemite?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 01, 2017, 01:42:46 am
Its the left over yeast from the brewing process, also it is life.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 01, 2017, 09:00:58 am
So, all the shit flavour of beer without the only reason one consumes said libation, ethanol?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on April 01, 2017, 09:02:52 am



2. How does replacing "offensive" words and phrases "with words that are less offensive" stifle intelligent debate? You can still effectively make the same points, only with slightly different wording to convey the message; it's like telling a story while not saying the "fuck" word in polite company.



If you do away with the prohibition against 'vulgar language' you get Australia. I've heard sweet old grandmothers say "fuck you, cunt" in passing.

Well, your country is weird. Seriously, the fuck is vegemite?
The stuff scraped off the bottom of the Carlton United Breweries vat.

People spread it on their toast!

also it is life.

Helix concurs. (https://www.popmythology.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/syfy-helix2.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 02, 2017, 02:16:25 am
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00101

The Senate on March 30 passed H.J. Res. 43, which will allow states to withhold Title X funding from Planned Parenthood.

The vote was evenly split. No Democratic or Independent Senator (both Independents caucus with the Democrats) voted for the resolution. Additionally, Sens. Collins (R-ME) and Murkowski (R-AK) voted against the resolution. Vice President Pence cast a tiebreaking vote passing the resolution.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll099.xml

When the House voted on the matter, on February 16, it passed 230-188. Reps. Lipinski (D-IL 3rd) and Peterson (D-MN 7th) voted in favour of the resolution, and Reps. Dent (R-PA 15th) and Faso (R-NY 19th) voted against it; the vote was otherwise party-line. Speaker Ryan did not vote. Also not voting were Reps. Amodei (R-NV 2nd), Barton (R-TX 6th), Bass (D-CA 37th), Bishop (D-GA 2nd), Butterfield (D-NC 1st), Cramer (R-ND At Large), Curbelo (R-FL 26th), Richmond (D-LA 2nd), Rush (D-IL 1st), Stewart (R-UT 2nd), Trott (R-MI 11th), and Zinke (R-MT At Large). There were four vacancies at the time of the vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on April 03, 2017, 07:15:19 pm
Ok, so I had a few days to look over what I said and did and I know this is not the thread for it but I actually did do some reading on Trump and... most of you are right and quite frankly I wouldn't have voted for him if it wasn't due to populism, which is what it was. But the thing is, it's done and now we have to deal with this guy for the next 4 years and he'll probably be a 1 term president. I really don't have any more to say really, so sorry?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 03, 2017, 08:35:57 pm
Hey Radiation, what state do you vote in?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on April 03, 2017, 08:36:44 pm
I live in Michigan, why?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 03, 2017, 09:49:00 pm
I live in Michigan, why?

Oh, sharp as a pillow, aren't you?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 03, 2017, 09:50:04 pm
Was just wondering whether your vote helped turn the election, in a state which Trump won by .3%
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on April 03, 2017, 10:56:01 pm
Possibly but Michigan is mostly a conservative state save for cities like Detroit and Flint which often makes Michigan a swing state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 03, 2017, 11:06:23 pm
Prior to the most recent election, the last time Michigan voted for the Republicans in a presidential election was 1988 with George HW Bush.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on April 03, 2017, 11:20:42 pm
Wow, I didn't know that, that is interesting, thank you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 03, 2017, 11:48:56 pm
So a 28 year swing
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 04, 2017, 12:34:30 am
If it's any consolation, you're far from the only one to regret your vote (https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 04, 2017, 02:00:34 am
If it's any consolation, you're far from the only one to regret your vote (https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/22/how-many-trump-voters-really-regret-their-votes/?utm_term=.44c1d09802ad

But maybe one of the few.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 04, 2017, 02:33:04 am
If it's any consolation, you're far from the only one to regret your vote (https://twitter.com/trump_regrets?lang=en).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/22/how-many-trump-voters-really-regret-their-votes/?utm_term=.44c1d09802ad

But maybe one of the few.

The poll uses a nationally representative sample of participants. It would be interesting to see what a similar poll would look when applied to the state level in key states like Michigan. I do not expect the voters in traditional red states to regret their decision as often as the voters in the states that swung red and this is a more important factor if you are speculating how the election would go if redone now.

Edit: the piece makes the claim that the "Trump coalition" is intact. It is a minority coalition that hangs on having control of these swing states.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 04, 2017, 03:29:24 pm
https://www.propublica.org/article/as-seas-around-mar-a-lago-rise-trumps-cuts-could-damage-local-climate-work

You know what place will be underwater if climate change isn't checked? Mar-a-Lago. So, naturally, Trump has decided that climate change isn't real and is cutting the budget for programs that would fight it.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/3/15105582/trump-signs-internet-privacy-rule-reversal-fcc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-iYLLWVJCc

Trump has signed the resolution passed in the House and Senate to reverse an FCC decision that barred ISPs from selling your browsing history without your consent.

They can now sell it to, say, advertisers, allowing ever-more-tightly targeted ads.

But anyone with enough money can buy anyone's browsing history, and use it for blackmail, or revenge. Send it to their boss, their parents, their spouse, their kids...

https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData

Go buy the browsing histories of the 266 Republicans (50 Senators, 215 Representatives, and President Trump) who signed off on this odious resolution and use it to get them kicked out of office in their next election... or, better, to embarrass them so much they're forced to resign.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 04, 2017, 05:13:37 pm
The Cards Against Humanity guy is already vowing to do just that.  I have a feeling this is gonna get dropped real fast.

Ironbite-especially once the real juicy stuff gets out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 04, 2017, 11:31:11 pm
Indeed - if ex-Congressmen can be included, I bet Aaron Schock's internet search history would be a doozy!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 05, 2017, 02:13:13 am
Anyway to get Trump's search history.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 05, 2017, 02:15:19 am
I wonder how much of Trump's search history revolves around Ivanka?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on April 05, 2017, 07:36:22 am
I wonder how much of Trump's search history revolves around Ivanka?
...and what are the other search terms.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 05, 2017, 07:39:12 am
I wonder how much of Trump's search history revolves around Ivanka?
...and what are the other search terms.

I'll bet good money that the phrases "best bronzer" and "how to get a dead squirrel off your head" is in his search history somewhere.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 05, 2017, 09:41:53 am
http://www.spin.com/2017/03/trump-supporters-internet-privacy-fcc/

I wonder what they are saying now that anyone can find out what the Alt-Reichers have been doing on the net? Up to the last moment many thought that Trump would veto a bill that takes rights from people and lets corporations monetize privacy.

And really, Radiation isn't the only person who voted for Trump. Majority of white men AND women in USA voted for him. ...Well at least 69% of the white men who voted, voted for Trump. What with voter turnout as low as it is I'm not sure if it is more likely to bumb into a white guy in USA who voted for Trump than someone who didn't vote or voted for someone else.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 05, 2017, 01:08:29 pm
Voter turnout was only slightly less than normal, so you have about a 50/50 chance of running into a voter in the first place. However, I'd say that 69% is pretty good odds if you know that you're going to run into a voter, especially if you're in a deeply red state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 05, 2017, 11:05:16 pm
Bannon seems to have fallen out of favor:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 05, 2017, 11:10:04 pm
In Nazi...I'm sorry, Alt-Right politics, falling out of favour with Der Fuhrer is very easy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 06, 2017, 09:55:08 am
Apparently his fall came from the Internet calling him President Bannon which the Orange Piss Pot did not like.

Ironbite-at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 06, 2017, 10:14:48 am
An anti-Trump subreddit is laughing at how they managed to "defeat the POTUS with the power of memes." Funnily enough, the same tactic got Trump into office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 06, 2017, 01:38:18 pm
Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly voted for cloture on Neil Gorsuch, both before and after McConnell invoked the nuclear option.

At least they didn't vote for the nuclear option...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 06, 2017, 04:25:24 pm
I want to give a special shout out to John McCain for brining Republican hypocrisy to a new level by voting for McConnell going nuclear and then calling it "a bad day for democracy."

Fuck him and his party.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 06, 2017, 04:33:44 pm
Which is why I look at all his tough words towards the Orange Piss Pot with a sideways look.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 06, 2017, 05:02:24 pm
I want to give a special shout out to John McCain for brining Republican hypocrisy to a new level by voting for McConnell going nuclear and then calling it "a bad day for democracy."

Fuck him and his party.

Well, it's all those damn Democrats' fault, you know. If they'd just rolled over and voted for cloture the way they're supposed to, none of this would have happened.

But seriously, this was coming from the day Reid nuked the filibuster on other executive nominations.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 06, 2017, 10:32:25 pm
That moment when launch military strikes in Syria (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html?adkey=bn), but refuse to take in Syrian refugees.

I give up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 06, 2017, 10:53:11 pm
That moment when launch military strikes in Syria (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html?adkey=bn), but refuse to take in Syrian refugees.

I give up.

First shots of WWIII.

I wish I thought I was exaggerating.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 07, 2017, 12:03:08 am
I feel like Trump did this impulsively. I hope this idiot didn't escalate things even further. Especially since I'm hearing rumors that there were Russian soldiers on those bases.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 07, 2017, 12:04:42 am
I feel like Trump did this impulsively. I hope this idiot didn't escalate things even further. Especially since I'm hearing rumors that there were Russian soldiers on those bases.

"Trump is impulsive and thin-skinned!"

"Trump is Putin's bitch!"

So... what happens when he decides to prove he isn't Putin's bitch, because he's so impulsive and thin-skinned?

This.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 07, 2017, 12:27:01 am
Russia, you let another crazy German egomaniac take power. You have nobody but yourself to blame for this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 07, 2017, 12:28:41 am
I want to give a special shout out to John McCain for brining Republican hypocrisy to a new level by voting for McConnell going nuclear and then calling it "a bad day for democracy."

Fuck him and his party.

Several Republicans have said something to the tune of "this is a bad idea and it is going to bite us in the ass in a few years" but I don't see them voting against this anyway.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 07, 2017, 11:41:50 am
I feel like Trump did this impulsively. I hope this idiot didn't escalate things even further. Especially since I'm hearing rumors that there were Russian soldiers on those bases.

"Trump is impulsive and thin-skinned!"

"Trump is Putin's bitch!"

So... what happens when he decides to prove he isn't Putin's bitch, because he's so impulsive and thin-skinned?

This.

Yeah, don't violate President Cuckservative's safe space with your  trigger words.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 10, 2017, 10:40:43 am
The recent PR stunt in Syria is badly needed by the Trump administration. A poll taken in March but published last week (http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-approval-plunges-amid-russia-inquiry-obamacare-repeal-failure-ibdtipp-poll/) show that Trump's support was falling among the rural voters and white men - i.e. his core voter groups. While his racism wasn't enough to push the voters away his other policies seem to have had this effect. People hate his budget proposal and the Obamacare repeal attempt.

Unfortunately the poll doesn't seem to separate the Evangelicals as their own group. I would have liked to see if there was any sign that that particular bastion was starting to crumble a bit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 14, 2017, 02:45:25 am
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-im-very-very-proud-191902853.html

USA dropped the second biggest non-nuclear bomb in the world onto ISIS target. Trump is pleased. Guess who has THE BIGGEST non-nuclear bomb in the world? Russia. If Vlad decides to one-up Trump on this what do you think will happen?

a) Trump will calmly admit that he lost this contest of "Who's got the biggest balls bombs?"

b) Trump will go nuclear. First metaphorically and then quite too literally.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 14, 2017, 02:47:12 am
Or c) he'll order the military to build an even bigger bomb, a tremendous bomb, a huge bomb, the explosion will be beautiful, believe me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 14, 2017, 10:36:54 am
OH and he's in Mar-A-Largo right now.  That's right, fucker couldn't even wait till Friday to go back to Florida.

Ironbite-hell, I think he got down there before the bomb hit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on April 14, 2017, 09:57:43 pm
Wasn't the bombing on an airfield that was supposedly holding some chemicals or something like that? Either way this doesmake me a bit nervous. I don't want to witness World War III, I was hoping I would long be dead before that happens.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 14, 2017, 10:21:07 pm
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 14, 2017, 11:14:39 pm
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.

Was that really necessary?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 14, 2017, 11:55:10 pm
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.

Was that really necessary?

And the urban nihilist will ask "is anything really necessary?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 15, 2017, 01:30:25 am
Wasn't the bombing on an airfield that was supposedly holding some chemicals or something like that? Either way this doesmake me a bit nervous. I don't want to witness World War III, I was hoping I would long be dead before that happens.

No? Trump bombed an airfield in Syria while making sure that the missiles would only do easily repairable damage to the field. In Afghanistan the MOAB target was a tunnel network which is likely to have collapsed by the shockwave. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/world/asia/mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan-us-moab.html?_r=0

Some say it killed 36 ISIS militants. The_Donald is saying that it killed 100 ISIS militants "and cucks got fucked" (which is a bit odd as this is the opposite of what "cucking" refers to.)

Some say that there were no civilian casualties but the people on the scene have reported civilian deaths. I guess we'll never know the truth because things like this cannot be verified and therefore to be fair and balanced we must assume that Trump did everything correctly and ISIS is no more.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 15, 2017, 01:32:39 am
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.

Was that really necessary?

Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.

Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".

So I'll say it again.

Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 15, 2017, 11:47:06 am
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.

Was that really necessary?

Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.

Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".

So I'll say it again.

Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.

She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 15, 2017, 11:53:10 am
You've learned nothing
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on April 15, 2017, 11:58:10 am
I for one am outraged and offended.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 15, 2017, 01:15:56 pm
Is that what you call hard as a rock?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on April 15, 2017, 03:39:57 pm
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.
YOUR Prez, Radiation. You made your bed now sleep in it.

Was that really necessary?

Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.

Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".

So I'll say it again.

Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.

Really? You're going to say that kind of shit to me? As Lana has said, I do regret my voting decision but instead you have to act like a dick toward me? That isn't really being fair.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 15, 2017, 05:31:38 pm
So does anyone ever notice that whenever a politician proposes expanding Medicare, or increasing tuition subsidies for low-income students, or forgiving student loan debt, or spending money on rebuilding civic infrastructure, the immediate outcry is "But how will you pay for that?", but when a politician proposes spending an extra $54 billion on the military, no one makes a peep about its affordability?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 15, 2017, 06:36:57 pm
Because we've conditioned to see those sorts of expenditures as a "bad thing".  We Americans really can't actually grasp the fact that the world has moved on from a manufacturing economy to a service one.  And service jobs are a finite resource.

Ironbite-the whole world might need to suffer another economic collapse before anyone figures that out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 15, 2017, 09:09:34 pm
Because we've conditioned to see those sorts of expenditures as a "bad thing".  We Americans really can't actually grasp the fact that the world has moved on from a manufacturing economy to a service one.  And service jobs are a finite resource.

Ironbite-the whole world might need to suffer another economic collapse before anyone figures that out.

And considering Prima Donald's economic policies, I don't think one's that far off...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 15, 2017, 09:32:59 pm
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.

This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 15, 2017, 11:47:44 pm
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.

This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.

Admittedly true.

However consider this.

Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.

Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 16, 2017, 12:33:17 am
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.

This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.

Admittedly true.

However consider this.

Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.

Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?

>Implying any of that justifies kicking her while she's down

Yeah, she said a lot of things I pretty strongly disagree with, but I'm not going to bite her head off over them. Let's try and be constructive, by having an actual conversation with her. It's better than vindictively insulting her. Seriously, you're coming off like a goddamn sociopath.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 16, 2017, 12:43:28 am
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.

This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.

Admittedly true.

However consider this.

Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.

Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?

>Implying any of that justifies kicking her while she's down

Yeah, she said a lot of things I pretty strongly disagree with, but I'm not going to bite her head off over them. Let's try and be constructive, by having an actual conversation with her. It's better than vindictively insulting her. Seriously, you're coming off like a goddamn sociopath.

...that is what I am.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 16, 2017, 12:58:23 am
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.

This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.

Admittedly true.

However consider this.

Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.

Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?

>Implying any of that justifies kicking her while she's down

Yeah, she said a lot of things I pretty strongly disagree with, but I'm not going to bite her head off over them. Let's try and be constructive, by having an actual conversation with her. It's better than vindictively insulting her. Seriously, you're coming off like a goddamn sociopath.

...that is what I am.

Wait. You mean, you've been diagnosed?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on April 16, 2017, 01:25:19 am
If we're doing internet diagnoses can I have ten to go thanks?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 16, 2017, 01:39:29 am
She already regrets her decision. You don't need to twist the knife like a goddamn sadist.

This is niam we're talking about. I'm not sure if he's physically capable of not twisting knives.

Admittedly true.

However consider this.

Radiation says she regrets her vote - but does she regret, really regret, the thought processes that led her to voting for this man. I remember quite well indeed that she said she supported him because he was not politically correct, that she resented the term white privilege as if it was a direct insult to her, and that she disliked that Mexicans were taking jobs and that there were "predominately Mexican jobs". She admitted to listening to alt-right perspectives, and listed a few she listened to.

Even if she regrets voting for Trump, could she honestly say she would not vote for another charismatic demagogue offering an end to all these brown people taking jobs and being politically incorrect and courting the alt-right, but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

And when he inevitably breaks that promise - men like Trump have ALWAYS been apt warmongers no matter what they say - will we get more regrets then?

>Implying any of that justifies kicking her while she's down

Yeah, she said a lot of things I pretty strongly disagree with, but I'm not going to bite her head off over them. Let's try and be constructive, by having an actual conversation with her. It's better than vindictively insulting her. Seriously, you're coming off like a goddamn sociopath.

...that is what I am.

Wait. You mean, you've been diagnosed?

I saw a psychologist last year for that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 16, 2017, 03:12:18 am
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 16, 2017, 03:39:33 am
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)

Trump said one thing to impress the non-interventionist types, and the other to convince warhawks he was going to juse Waffen-SS tactics on ISIS be more commanding and powerful in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 16, 2017, 03:44:23 am
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)

Trump said one thing to impress the non-interventionist types, and the other to convince warhawks he was going to juse Waffen-SS tactics on ISIS be more commanding and powerful in the Middle East.

I know, I know, and everyone heard what they wanted to hear and assumed he didn't actually mean the other and laughed at people who pointed out that he was on both sides of the issue.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 16, 2017, 04:54:21 am
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)

Trump said one thing to impress the non-interventionist types, and the other to convince warhawks he was going to juse Waffen-SS tactics on ISIS be more commanding and powerful in the Middle East.

I know, I know, and everyone heard what they wanted to hear and assumed he didn't actually mean the other and laughed at people who pointed out that he was on both sides of the issue.


That's his secret. He speaks in half-sentences and promises to do everything and nothing and people somehow only hear what they want to hear AND they manage to claim that not only does Trump always mean what he says (unlike other politicians) he also does not mean it when he says things that the fan did not want to hear...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 16, 2017, 09:24:29 am
The administration is systematically purging their websites of scientific data (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/arctic-researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations) that they don't like. The urgent archiving effort and wayback machine have saved most of it but the purge still does limit easy availability of reliable information about subjects like climate change.

Quote from: Victoria Herrmann
All in all, emails about defunct links of sites that weren’t saved are annoying, but harmless. Finding archived materials to replace them add maybe 20 minutes of internet searches to my day – and a bit of anger at the state of the country.

The consequences of vanishing citations, however, pose a far more serious consequence than website updates. Each defunct page is an effort by the Trump administration to deliberately undermine our ability to make good policy decisions by limiting access to scientific evidence.

We’ve seen this type of data strangling before.

Just three years ago, Arctic researchers witnessed another world leader remove thousands of scientific documents from the public domain. In 2014, then Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper closed 11 department of fisheries and oceans regional libraries, including the only Arctic center. Hundreds of reports and studies containing well over a century of research were destroyed in that process – a historic loss from which we still have not recovered.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on April 16, 2017, 10:07:38 am
...but swearing up and down he would not intervene in other countries or start a war.

Don't forget that half the time Trump said that the US shouldn't be intervening and that they should be spending money at home, and the other half of the time he said "You have to take out their families." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM)

Trump said one thing to impress the non-interventionist types, and the other to convince warhawks he was going to juse Waffen-SS tactics on ISIS be more commanding and powerful in the Middle East.

I know, I know, and everyone heard what they wanted to hear and assumed he didn't actually mean the other and laughed at people who pointed out that he was on both sides of the issue.


That's his secret. He speaks in half-sentences and promises to do everything and nothing and people somehow only hear what they want to hear AND they manage to claim that not only does Trump always mean what he says (unlike other politicians) he also does not mean it when he says things that the fan did not want to hear...
Trumps speeches are like the bible. A turbid mix of anecdote, half baked morality and vengeful rambling.

That's disturbing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 17, 2017, 05:42:04 am
http://nypost.com/2017/04/15/trumps-demand-for-carriage-ride-with-queen-roils-british-security/

Trump just wants to be a queen for a day.

I mean, he wants to ride in the carriage meant for the queen of Great Britain.

Quote
The carriage “would not be able to put up much resistance in the face of a rocket propelled grenade or high-powered ammunition,” one security source told the Times of London, noting that tens of thousands of people are expected to protest Trump’s visit.

“Armour-piercing rounds would make a very bad show of things,” the source added.

Still, the White House regards the carriage procession to Buckingham Palace as an essential bit of pomp for his state visit to the UK, currently planned for the second week of October, The Times reported Saturday.

Trump doesn't need armour-piercing rounds to make "a very bad show of things," mind you...

I mean it's not like Trump wasn't already a drama queen or demanded things that are extremely costly but this would be the first time that he puts himself at risk to get something.

If he does get assassinated we can say that he died for what he believed in: riding gold plated, tacky and outdated vehicle which stinks slightly of horseshit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 17, 2017, 05:52:56 am
I guess it's not quite as petulant as it seems at surface since the carriage procession has been used in welcoming other heads of states so the carriage is not exclusively reserved to the queen herself. Don't get me wrong, it still is silly and childish but not any more than what Trump has already shown with his other actions. I wonder if he will realize the security concerns cannot be removed by just telling people to make them go away and he will end up pretending he never asked for the ride.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on April 17, 2017, 04:25:30 pm
I wonder if he will realize the security concerns cannot be removed by just telling people to make them go away

Has it ever worked out that way in the past?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 17, 2017, 05:47:58 pm
I wonder if he will realize the security concerns cannot be removed by just telling people to make them go away

Has it ever worked out that way in the past?

This time it's his own safety in line. His self preservation instinct might kick in if the security folks push the right buttons.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on April 17, 2017, 09:58:33 pm
Didn't stop him from wanting to still live in Trump Tower.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 18, 2017, 08:32:34 am
Securing Trump Tower was possible, it was just expensive for the tax payers. Trump can't force the British to refit the queen's carriage to be more secure.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 18, 2017, 08:53:04 am
Didn't stop him from wanting to still live in Trump Tower.
But he doesn't live in the Trump tower. He lives 50/50 at the White house and Mar a Lago.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on April 18, 2017, 11:32:15 am
Didn't stop him from wanting to still live in Trump Tower.
But he doesn't live in the Trump tower. He lives 50/50 at the White house and Mar a Lago.

Oops. Mea culpa.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 18, 2017, 02:51:01 pm
Didn't stop him from wanting to still live in Trump Tower.
But he doesn't live in the Trump tower. He lives 50/50 at the White house and Mar a Lago.

Oops. Mea culpa.

He wanted to live there but changed his mind, his kid and wife still do. I don't think his change of mind had anything to do with security issues, a building can be secured well enough as long as you spend enough money.

<introspection>
It's telling about my typical train of thought and certain lack of confidence that instead of pointing out the obvious flaw I felt more comfortable pointing out how the claim doesn't prove the thing you think it proves. Directly refuting the truth of the claim wasn't necessary for an argument so I took a less confrontational approach.

In this context it doesn't matter but in a protracted debate/discussion this type of thinking sometimes leads me to an unintentional direction away from my own core argument without me even noticing it myself until later.
</introspection>
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 19, 2017, 12:02:17 am
Congressional Republicans have to be terrified right now. They had to make a massive push to retain Kansas's 4th Congressional District, and Jon Ossoff looks like he'll come within a whisker of taking an outright majority in the jungle primary for Georgia's 6th. With South Carolina's 5th and Montana's at-large on the horizon, these results have to be scaring them spitless.

These are not seats Republicans should have to be fighting to hold, but they are.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 19, 2017, 01:43:53 am
Well, it was exciting but Ossoff lost.

He didn't get over 50% in the first round and now Republicans are going to gang up against him so his chances of winning are reduced.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 19, 2017, 03:34:31 am
Don't count the man out yet.  This is huge.  This seat shouldn't be in contention and yet here we are.  The GOP is seeing the results of backing the Orange Piss Pot and it's not looking good.

Ironbite-the pendulum shouldn't be swinging back blue this hard, this fast
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 19, 2017, 05:31:09 am
Well, it was exciting but Ossoff lost.

He didn't get over 50% in the first round and now Republicans are going to gang up against him so his chances of winning are reduced.

On the other hand, Ossoff came so close to 50% that Handel is going to have a real task on her hand of convincing all the people who chose another Republican candidate to back her in the runoff. Republican candidates as a whole took about 51% of the vote, but Handel herself only got 19.5%. Between people who may choose to stay home because their candidate lost and people whose second choice was Ossoff, it'll be tough for Handel to keep Ossoff from making it over 50% in the runoff.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 19, 2017, 08:55:18 am
I love how Trump is bragging about the Kansas win where the GOP didn't win in a landslide in one of the most conservative districts in the state or how Ossof didn't get the 50 percent but clearly has a big chance of winning in June. Trump this is bad for you. It shows that things are swinging left come 2018 and you have a serious chance of losing the house. You're just to dense to realize.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 19, 2017, 09:39:02 am
The GOP might lose the house. I'm not sure Trump himself really gives a shit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 19, 2017, 01:39:49 pm
If he does he can say goodbye to getting anything accomplished.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 19, 2017, 01:56:09 pm
As long as he can blame someone else he probably doesn't care. Yes, it would make it more difficult to enrich himself and his family but I wouldn't be surprised if he is just too lazy to care.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 19, 2017, 01:56:49 pm
...And then he can blame the Democrats and Obama for all his failures. Win/win situation for him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 19, 2017, 02:04:22 pm
...And then he can blame the Democrats and Obama for all his failures. Win/win situation for him.

He's already doing that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 19, 2017, 02:09:43 pm
Considering how well the Republican strategy of obstruct everything and blame Obama worked, Trump wont give a shit until hes out of people he can throw under the bus. And i imagine that list is about as long as the list people who work in the government.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 19, 2017, 02:11:43 pm
It was Janice in accounting's fault!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 19, 2017, 02:13:26 pm
Considering how well the Republican strategy of obstruct everything and blame Obama worked, Trump wont give a shit until hes out of people he can throw under the bus. And i imagine that list is about as long as the list people who work in the government.

Once he's out of people he can throw under the bus, he'll pick up their mangled corpses and throw them under the train.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 19, 2017, 03:38:27 pm
Count Jason Chaffetz's seat up for grabs in Utah as the Republican moron who's been blocking most investigations into Trump from atop the House Intel Committee is saying he's not going to run for reelection.  Guess he took a look at his poll numbers and said "oh well that's a loss for me."

Really I was expecting a pendulum swing back to blue due to how American politics work.  I didn't expect it to be this hard and this fast.  The Dems need to take a look at every Republican race right now and think about going all in on a few because if Georgia can go blue, think of other places.

Ironbite-like Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 19, 2017, 05:31:53 pm
The problem with Wisconsin is that it is so heavily gerrymandered that the last state election had the Democrats winning over 60% of the vote... and only 49% of the seats. This state no longer has a functional democracy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 19, 2017, 05:42:16 pm
The problem with Wisconsin is that it is so heavily gerrymandered that the last state election had the Democrats winning over 60% of the vote... and only 49% of the seats. This state no longer has a functional democracy.

Plus they have one of the strictest voter IDsuppression laws in the country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 20, 2017, 01:54:15 am
Meanwhile, odds on whether Trump's going to fire Spicer so he can give his old pal Bill O'Reilly a new job?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 20, 2017, 03:29:07 am
...I think Spicer is gonna have to resume his old job as the Easter Bunny before long.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 20, 2017, 03:34:01 am
...I think Spicer is gonna have to resume his old job as the Easter Bunny before long.

Well, the countervailing factor is that O'Reilly, like Trump, is a showman, and is probably better at it. And Trump wants his Presidency to be The Trump Show and won't have anyone overshadowing him, which O'Reilly could well do.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 20, 2017, 08:00:02 am
Likely because Billo the Clown might at least have real charisma, unlike the Angry Cheeto.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 20, 2017, 09:48:16 am
Assuming that replacing Spencer with O'Reilly entered Trump's mind and O'Reilly was interested in the job I think he would get it. Trump's ego and stupidity are large enough that he wouldn't expect being overshadowed. O'Reilly might just not last long in the job if he ended up doing that and the media/SNL twisted the knife stabbed into Trump's ego.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 20, 2017, 10:31:28 am
http://shareblue.com/georgia-state-senator-lets-it-slip-gop-gerrymandered-ossoffs-district-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/

Ooops... Somebody accidentally said out loud that the state had been gerrymandered to make sure that a black candidate wouldn't get elected.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 20, 2017, 11:00:27 am
http://shareblue.com/georgia-state-senator-lets-it-slip-gop-gerrymandered-ossoffs-district-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/

Ooops... Somebody accidentally said out loud that the state had been gerrymandered to make sure that a black candidate wouldn't get elected.

(https://media.tenor.co/images/6bcd0d009a48bb70ebf54cc2a4644601/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on April 20, 2017, 03:59:28 pm
http://shareblue.com/georgia-state-senator-lets-it-slip-gop-gerrymandered-ossoffs-district-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/

Ooops... Somebody accidentally said out loud that the state had been gerrymandered to make sure that a black candidate wouldn't get elected.

Except that that's not what they said. I'm all for punishing Republicans, believe me, but lets at least remember the difference between "they said this" and "they said some other thing, from which we inferred that he was intending to point out this guy's race subtly, which of course would imply this, assuming our inference is correct".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 20, 2017, 04:45:01 pm
Well, Gerrymandering to make it harder for rival parties to win is perfectly legal in USA as the only restriction is if it is done to prevent specific ethnic groups from voting so they can always claim that they only target the Democrats rather than minorities.

John Oliver had a good episode about these practises.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 20, 2017, 05:05:09 pm
http://shareblue.com/georgia-state-senator-lets-it-slip-gop-gerrymandered-ossoffs-district-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/

Ooops... Somebody accidentally said out loud that the state had been gerrymandered to make sure that a black candidate wouldn't get elected.

Except that that's not what they said. I'm all for punishing Republicans, believe me, but lets at least remember the difference between "they said this" and "they said some other thing, from which we inferred that he was intending to point out this guy's race subtly, which of course would imply this, assuming our inference is correct".

Racist or not, it's still shady as all get-out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 20, 2017, 07:07:28 pm
...I think Spicer is gonna have to resume his old job as the Easter Bunny before long.

Come on now, Sean Spicer's resume is much to impressive to be just an Easter Bunny in the mall. We all know Sean Spicer co-starred on Mike and Molly before joining the Trump cabinet. She could easily find a character role in a CBS comedy show.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 21, 2017, 01:04:20 am
Trump will probably hire O'Reilly a few days after good ol' Bill-O gives a press conference and paraphrases his former boss's former boss and says, "You don't have O'Reilly to kick around any more."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 21, 2017, 08:58:28 am
Presented without comment.

Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/329840-trump-lawyer-protesters-violated-campaigns-first-amendment-right-by

Quote
President Donald Trump’s lawyers on Thursday argued that anti-Trump protesters infringed on his First Amendment right by expressing "dissenting views" at his campaign rallies.

According to a report by Politico, Trump's lawyers are asking a judge to halt an ongoing lawsuit against the president by maintaining that protesters "have no right" to voice opposing views during rallies.



Three protesters who were ejected from a March 2016 Trump campaign rally in Louisville, Ky., have sued, claiming that they were roughed up after Trump incited violence by shouting “get 'em out of here!” from the stage.

Trump’s lawyers, however, argued that the then-GOP nominee also specifically said “Don’t hurt ‘em.”

The president's legal team also maintained that Trump had every right to call for the removal of the protesters since they "interfered with the Trump campaign’s First Amendment right.”

Ironbite-*novas*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 21, 2017, 11:48:06 am
Silly robot raptor, don't you know that the Constitution means what the President says it means?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 21, 2017, 02:29:19 pm
So now we have Russia flying its jets near our coasts. We have Assad gassing his own people, North Korea testing it's missile capabilities, and now we have Trump trying to show off the US navy by lying that he sent the fleet to the South China sea.
I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief knowing we have a president who will sink as low to all the dick wagging that other world demagogues like to demonstrate.
As a matter of fact can someone make a political cartoon of Kim Jong Un, Putin, Assad and Trump all standing in a circle over a globe and just having them wave their dicks around saying "Look how big my dick is!" But they're really just very very small.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 21, 2017, 02:35:44 pm
In case you didn't know, China and Russia are moving more troops to their border with North Korea. They are preparing for a possible war between USA and NK.

Whether they would join the war is not certain but at the very least neither of those countries wants a mass of refugees from NK into their country and if it looks like USA tries to take their buffer zone away they are likely to retaliate somehow.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 21, 2017, 02:50:37 pm
Deep in the Warp, the Ruinous Powers are laughing and preparing for one hell of a show.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 22, 2017, 06:11:43 am
https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/66oqxp/the_latest_trump_calls_100day_assessment/dgk4zoi/

A nice summary of Trump's achievements (or lack of) durin the first 100 days.

TL;DR
Quote
So basically, anything he could accomplish easily by signing an EO he's done, and he's barely attempted anything more difficult that requires legislation. The one thing he has tried to accomplish, repeal and replace, crashed and burned incredibly hard. Still, overall he's accomplished a lot more of his promises than I expected, but things are going to get a lot harder from here on out when he has to actually work with congress to get anything done.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 24, 2017, 12:10:54 pm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-9-11-approval-ratings-interview-who-with-first-100-days-us-president-world-trade-center-a7698516.html

You know why Donald Trump thinks the first hundred days of his Presidency have been a success? Because the ratings news networks are getting with him are higher than what they got for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 24, 2017, 04:58:41 pm
...............................holy fuck he's insane.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on April 24, 2017, 05:57:30 pm
You know why Donald Trump thinks the first hundred days of his Presidency have been a success? Because the ratings news networks are getting with him are higher than what they got for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Attention whore.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 24, 2017, 07:22:47 pm
https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

Donald Trump did an interview with the AP, and sounded like a blithering idiot by the standards of blithering idiocy that have been set by him and GWB.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 24, 2017, 08:01:41 pm
Highest ratings since the towers fell.

Ironbite-he's a Grade A Attention Whore.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 24, 2017, 09:10:50 pm
I kinda miss Dubya.


Let alone wondrous Obama...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 24, 2017, 09:17:24 pm
Yeah, we really should have seen a reality TV personality measuring his own success through TV ratings coming.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 24, 2017, 09:24:25 pm
I kinda miss Dubya.


Let alone wondrous Obama...

Have you learned nothing from Jill Stein? Obama is a neo-liberal warmonger, and Hillary is no different. Both of them would be just as bad as Trump. Jill knows this, because her best friend Putin told her she just knows.

Just ignore that bit where she challenged the vote count.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 25, 2017, 12:01:25 am
Yeah, "challenged" the vote count. No way that money didn't just go into her pockets next campaign.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 25, 2017, 12:04:11 am
Its not about money, its about ethics in failing sociopolitical ideologies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 27, 2017, 03:35:26 am
Trump's tax plan (at least a sketch of it) was revealed, and it has such wonders as cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, reducing the top bracket marginal rate from 39.6% to 35% (though it reduces seven brackets to three), abolishing the "death tax" (because America needs a true hereditary aristocracy), giving corporations another "tax holiday" (hey, when was the last time you had a tax holiday?), and killing the alternative minimum tax. It also gets rid of "loopholes" like the deduction for state and local taxes, so you happen to live in a state like California or New York, well, fuck you for not voting Republicanyou're being taxed too much and you should talk to your state legislator about that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 27, 2017, 10:29:04 am
How exactly is he going to pay for all of that?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 27, 2017, 10:33:51 am
Nobody knows.  That's the whole thing that everyone's pointed out.  They do this, and the economy collapses under the burden of this, they'll all wonder who's to blame.  Then blame the poor some more.

Ironbite-cause they're idiots.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 27, 2017, 12:18:21 pm
How exactly is he going to pay for all of that?

This is the modus operandi of the Republican Party. Destroy the budget so that when Democrats get back into power, they're forced to fix your mess instead of doing the stuff they want to do, plus you get to blame them for a ballooning debt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 27, 2017, 05:36:27 pm
Reducing taxes on wealthy corporations isn't going to bring jobs back. It's been proven time and time again that the wealthy don't spend their money, and that they're always looking to make more. Cutting regulations and decreasing taxes just means that wealthy corporations will invest even more in foreign countries. That automation of many industries is going to increase and that they'll put their money in off shore accounts to just sit there.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: lord gibbon on April 27, 2017, 05:42:40 pm
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/330923-people-calling-in-reports-of-extraterrestrials-to-trumps-new-criminal

when do you think the administration will learn?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 27, 2017, 07:32:47 pm
"Excuse me, but there are a group of criminal aliens outside! They're wearing black and spiky armor and one of them just identified himself as Erebus, of the Word Bearers. No, I'm not stoned, and it looks like they're doing somethi---oh good lord they're crucifying my cousin!"

I should call in and say that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 27, 2017, 07:48:53 pm
"Excuse me, but there are a group of criminal aliens outside! They're wearing black and spiky armor and one of them just identified himself as Erebus, of the Word Bearers. No, I'm not stoned, and it looks like they're doing somethi---oh good lord they're crucifying my cousin!"

I should call in and say that.

Tell us how quickly they hang up on you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 27, 2017, 08:16:15 pm
"Excuse me, but there are a group of criminal aliens outside! They're wearing black and spiky armor and one of them just identified himself as Erebus, of the Word Bearers. No, I'm not stoned, and it looks like they're doing somethi---oh good lord they're crucifying my cousin!"

I should call in and say that.

Call in and tell them about how illegal Canadians are crossing our boarders and forcing your family to do Canadian things: watch hockey, eat poutine, listen to Justin Bieber, and ice-skate.

God damned Canadians
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 28, 2017, 01:36:58 am
"Excuse me, but there are a group of criminal aliens outside! They're wearing black and spiky armor and one of them just identified himself as Erebus, of the Word Bearers. No, I'm not stoned, and it looks like they're doing somethi---oh good lord they're crucifying my cousin!"

I should call in and say that.

Call in and tell them about how illegal Canadians are crossing our boarders and forcing your family to do Canadian things: watch hockey, eat poutine, listen to Justin Bieber, and ice-skate.

God damned Canadians

Maybe I should call in and complain about illegal Americans washing up on our shores on rafts.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on April 28, 2017, 02:27:33 am
I say we build a wall and make Trump pay for it.

BTW if you heard about Trump starting a mini-trade war with Canada over softwood lumber, here's an old video explaining what the issue is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGzJ-8fO24
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 28, 2017, 02:35:00 am
Apparently if someone can prove that Melania Trump worked in USA without visa then according to the laws of Trump-America she has to be deported.

Is it possible that all these president-shenanigans were merely a complicated plot for Trump to get rid of his wife without a divorce?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 28, 2017, 03:55:49 am
BTW if you heard about Trump starting a mini-trade war with Canada over softwood lumber, here's an old video explaining what the issue is

Softwood lumber's been a sticking point between Canada and the US for decades.

But Joe Clark solved it a while back. He invented a potion that makes softwood turn hard.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 28, 2017, 09:59:44 am
The Orange Piss Pot will not have any meaningful legislation passed in his first 100 days.  House is going to delay the vote of FuckYouCare due to not having the votes to pass it.

Ironbite-wonder what he'll brag about on Saturday.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 28, 2017, 11:18:12 am
It doesn't look like his tax policy is going to go through that easily either. Especially after they find out that it's going to cost trillions of dollars to make it work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 29, 2017, 02:46:19 am
I'm so glad that Trump only takes in the best, smartest, most honest, totally-not-Russian-agent men and women into his administration:

(http://68.media.tumblr.com/bd1f7f964eae33ddf927ddc5cb5800bf/tumblr_okk2wnujwH1qkt6yoo1_1280.png)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 29, 2017, 09:10:35 am
Wow
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 29, 2017, 03:00:59 pm
The Orange Piss Pot will not have any meaningful legislation passed in his first 100 days.  House is going to delay the vote of FuckYouCare due to not having the votes to pass it.

Ironbite-wonder what he'll brag about on Saturday.

Maybe he'll brag about having signed more executive orders in his first hundred days than any other president in history signed in their first hundred days.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 29, 2017, 03:58:03 pm
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/donald-trump-south-korea

So far USA has threatened to make Mexico pay for the wall (they won't), make Germany pay USA for NATO protection (they won't because that's not how it works), make Canada AND Mexico pay because NAFTA is a bad deal (they most likely won't give USA a better deal, but we'll see.) and finally... Threatened South Korea to make them pay for USA protecting them.

Maybe I'm just not good in business (or diplomacy) as Trump is but this doesn't seem like a good way to treat your allies and friends. Also it doesn't look like a winning streak.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 29, 2017, 05:33:12 pm
He's going to destroy America's ability to deal with international politics and it'll take 50 years before we're treated as anything other then a laughing stock.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 29, 2017, 06:22:40 pm
Or you elect a more competent president with almost as bad policies who is then worshiped as a herald of a new age for American politics since Trump has pretty much dug the bar under the ground.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 29, 2017, 08:06:47 pm
Or you elect a more competent president with almost as bad policies who is then worshiped as a herald of a new age for American politics since Trump has pretty much dug the bar under the ground.

Don't even need to do that. Just impeach Trump or get him to resign, and then you get Pence, who is a) more competent and b) has policies just as bad.

Which is another problem with impeaching Trump, because Pence will look so much better by comparison that everyone will forget that policy-wise he's every bit as bad as Trump and hence all those horrific positions will be normalized, even lauded.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 29, 2017, 10:49:36 pm
I'm so glad that Trump only takes in the best, smartest, most honest, totally-not-Russian-agent men and women into his administration:

(http://68.media.tumblr.com/bd1f7f964eae33ddf927ddc5cb5800bf/tumblr_okk2wnujwH1qkt6yoo1_1280.png)

Please tell me that's not real?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on April 29, 2017, 10:53:49 pm
Its real. Its from a couple months ago.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 29, 2017, 10:57:03 pm
Or you elect a more competent president with almost as bad policies who is then worshiped as a herald of a new age for American politics since Trump has pretty much dug the bar under the ground.

Don't even need to do that. Just impeach Trump or get him to resign, and then you get Pence, who is a) more competent and b) has policies just as bad.

Which is another problem with impeaching Trump, because Pence will look so much better by comparison that everyone will forget that policy-wise he's every bit as bad as Trump and hence all those horrific positions will be normalized, even lauded.


This assumes that Pence wouldn't resign due to being complicit in Trump's actions. However, THEN we get Paul Ryan as president... who's more competent than Trump (probably less than Pence) and just as bad at policy. So, really, we're screwed unless Paul Ryan is found to be connected to Trump's crimes/being compromised/whatever ultimately drives him out of office. Who's fourth in line for president, by the way?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 29, 2017, 11:03:43 pm
Or you elect a more competent president with almost as bad policies who is then worshiped as a herald of a new age for American politics since Trump has pretty much dug the bar under the ground.

Don't even need to do that. Just impeach Trump or get him to resign, and then you get Pence, who is a) more competent and b) has policies just as bad.

Which is another problem with impeaching Trump, because Pence will look so much better by comparison that everyone will forget that policy-wise he's every bit as bad as Trump and hence all those horrific positions will be normalized, even lauded.


This assumes that Pence wouldn't resign due to being complicit in Trump's actions. However, THEN we get Paul Ryan as president... who's more competent than Trump (probably less than Pence) and just as bad at policy. So, really, we're screwed unless Paul Ryan is found to be connected to Trump's crimes/being compromised/whatever ultimately drives him out of office. Who's fourth in line for president, by the way?

Orrin Hatch, followed by Rex Tillerson.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 29, 2017, 11:04:26 pm
Rex Tillerson being fifth in line for president makes my skin crawl.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 29, 2017, 11:05:14 pm
Its real. Its from a couple months ago.

I genuinely feel sorry for Sean Spicer now. He is actually too stupid for this job.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 29, 2017, 11:05:44 pm
Don't forget his one man war against Dippin Dots.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 29, 2017, 11:11:44 pm
What man in his right mind would be against Dippin Dots?!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 29, 2017, 11:13:48 pm
You're assuming that anyone who willingly works for Trump is in their right mind.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 29, 2017, 11:31:30 pm
Does anyone really know how competent or incompetent Jared Kushner is? He has said so little in his foray into politics...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on April 30, 2017, 09:00:17 am
I'm so glad that Trump only takes in the best, smartest, most honest, totally-not-Russian-agent men and women into his administration:

[pic snipped]

Please tell me that's not real?

Not only is it real, he refuses to take down the tweet. It's still there (https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/825565510418968578).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 30, 2017, 11:21:23 pm
So instead of going to the white house correspondence dinner like a mature adult. Trump instead held a rally with his fans in Pennsylvania. His fans took it as Trump flipping off the media. But anyone on the outside can clearly see Trump doesn't want to have his widdle feelings hurt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 01, 2017, 12:45:30 am
Side note: Trump has been president for over three months... and he's still holding campaign rallies.

Has this ever happened before?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 01, 2017, 01:57:43 am
Side note: Trump has been president for over three months... and he's still holding campaign rallies.

Has this ever happened before?

A leader having political rallies despite not being on a campaign trail? Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 01, 2017, 02:01:56 am
Side note: Trump has been president for over three months... and he's still holding campaign rallies.

Has this ever happened before?

A leader having political rallies despite not being on a campaign trail? Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally

It's really sad when Godwin's Law has become a deterministic rather than probabilistic statement.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 01, 2017, 02:06:59 am
Trump kind of invites it - he made an entire segment on his show calling himself a dictator outright, and he takes a leaf from Hitler's book in how he handles politics in his own party, namely, letting infighting go on and pushing some people out and inviting others to further influence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 01, 2017, 02:26:18 am
It's no secret that Trump is a fascist. Any comparisons to historic fascists, especially when he's repeating the kinds of actions they made, is apt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 01, 2017, 02:40:17 am
It's no secret that Trump is a fascist. Any comparisons to historic fascists, especially when he's repeating the kinds of actions they made, is apt.

Thing is, the rest of the Republican Party will do pretty much everything he's doing (to some degree or other), only without the overtly fascist bits.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 01, 2017, 03:16:52 am
Guys like the Republicans have always existed.

The problems start when the overt fascist bits are added, and the strongman shows up.

Once that happens, the mass graves and the concentration camps tend to follow.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 01, 2017, 03:18:43 am
Quote
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 01, 2017, 03:40:00 am
So instead of going to the white house correspondence dinner like a mature adult. Trump instead held a rally with his fans in Pennsylvania. His fans took it as Trump flipping off the media. But anyone on the outside can clearly see Trump doesn't want to have his widdle feelings hurt.

Guess you hadn't heard he's going to seek an amendment to the first Amendment then. 

Ironbite-that basically abolished it
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 01, 2017, 03:56:34 am
I'd compare Donald trying that to Yuan Shu, a random warlord from the 3 Kingdoms Period of China, declaring himself emperor of his own dynasty.

Its political suicide and I hope Trump ends things in such a case like Yuan Shu did.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SomeApe on May 02, 2017, 04:50:45 am
Have you seen this?

https://youtu.be/-TCR5oC5ZQs


"Words are less important to me than deeds."

Ahahaha says the guy who promised a lot of stuff of which he hasn't accomplished anything.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 02, 2017, 07:45:06 am
Preaching redemption by acts?  Fucking heretic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 02, 2017, 07:54:41 am
https://qz.com/972639/the-us-government-will-avoid-a-shutdown-because-lawmakers-ignored-master-dealmaker-donald-trump/?utm_source=qzfb

MASTER OF THE DEAL! Trump is so good at negotiation that he threatened to shut down the government unless the Democrats vote for his stupid wall.

In response Democrats and Republicans made a budget deal that doesn't have any funding for the wall.

But they aren't shutting down the government either.

Trump had also said he wants to cut ACA. Instead the budget proposes giving more money to it.

And he wanted to cut down disaster relief. So naturally the government is going to spend more money on disaster relief.

THE ART OF THE DEAL! SO MUCH WINNING!

(http://img.pandawhale.com/54312-Mission-accomplished-gif-hkaS.gif)

EDIT: Another "win" for Trump regime...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-state-marijuana-laws_us_59077dcde4b0bb2d087023df
Quote
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

In other words, even though Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III wants to crack down on marijuana users he would have to do so on a budget of $0 because the congress is doing the best they can to hinder him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 02, 2017, 11:30:08 am
So congress is pretty much turning it's back on Trump at this point since it seems they don't want his stupid wall either. It seems his wall is becoming the next Guantanamo. But I already knew that was probably going to happen. Congress not working with Trump is most likely going to hurt Republicans even more come next mid term.
Meanwhile Trump seems like he would much rather be out campaigning then actually doing the job of president. Because he could at least be in a room where most of the people want to suck his dick and believe the stupid inane bullshit that he rants.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 02, 2017, 12:06:08 pm
This is essentially because the Republicans didn't want to use reconciliation to force a budget through.

Senate rules allow for only one reconciliation bill per year, and they want to use this year's for killing the ACA.

Hence they needed 60 votes to get a funding resolution passed, which meant they needed ten Democratic Senators to side with them. (Why ten and not eight? Because Rand Paul doesn't vote for budgets that don't balance within four years--which this doesn't--and Ted Cruz doesn't vote for any budgets period because he's trying to be "Mr. Conservative" or something. If they'd used reconciliation, they'd barely pass it, because they'd get 50 votes plus Pence's tiebreaker.) And needing ten Dems means that they can't just look to sway Senators like Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, or Claire McCaskill--they need ones who aren't trying to win favour in their home states by siding with Trump/Republicans.

Combined with McConnell's unwillingness to kill the legislative filibuster, that gave the Democrats significantly more clout than they had on all the other high-profile votes (which were all executive appointments where the filibuster was either gone already or killed in the process).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 02, 2017, 03:56:20 pm
oh god we're so fucked.




http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/02/donald-trump-religious-liberty-executive-order-237888
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 02, 2017, 05:10:42 pm
Yeah I see the courts challenging that. He can sign away with his pen all he wants but Trump has done nothing to pass actual solid legislation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 02, 2017, 05:18:36 pm
Then he'll rant again. And sign another. And try to dismantle the judicial branch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 02, 2017, 05:35:00 pm
And then he'll get bored and play another round of golf in New Jersey.

Ironbite-honestly I don't think he actually understands what, if anything, being President means.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 03, 2017, 08:58:19 pm
So under the new draft of the AHCA, guess what counts as a "pre-existing condition"


- domestic violence
- sexual assault
- C-section
- postpartum depression

WHAT THE FUCK
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 03, 2017, 10:34:19 pm
So under the new draft of the AHCA, guess what counts as a "pre-existing condition"


- domestic violence
- sexual assault
- C-section
- postpartum depression

WHAT THE FUCK

Well, obviously. If you don't understand that then you're clearly an America-hating socialist Muslim Nazi atheist commie.

(http://so.politifake.org/image/political/1204/the-commie-nazis-fascism-communism-nazism-socialism-marxism-politics-1334601768.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 03, 2017, 10:58:28 pm
Well it looks like they're still struggling for votes in the house at the moment. But if this passes and somehow makes it through the senate i can only see it being really bad for house repubs come 2018. If it's not already.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 04, 2017, 12:33:10 am
Well it looks like they're still struggling for votes in the house at the moment. But if this passes and somehow makes it through the senate i can only see it being really bad for house repubs come 2018. If it's not already.

Unless they say "The Democrats did it!" and their voters still believe them. Which wouldn't be the first time they do something like that successfully.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 04, 2017, 02:52:31 pm
FUCCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 04, 2017, 03:46:33 pm
FUCCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK

It'll still be tough to get this incarnation of the AHCA through the Senate. I'm not sure how much of it can be passed through reconciliation, and some Senators, especially those facing tough reelection challenges (like Heller in Nevada, Corker in Tennessee, or Collins in Maine, maybe even Ted Cruz (!), though he's enough of an ideologue that he might not care) may be very reluctant to vote for it even when it only has a 50-vote (plus Pence's tiebreaker) threshold. And if it needs 60, forget it. They might not even bring it to a vote, so that those vulnerable Senators don't have to go on the record as supporting or opposing it.

Ryan just needed to pass something so that he could say that he did his best to repeal the ACA. If it fails now, that's on McConnell.

EDIT: More detailed breakdown.

The AHCA has passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 217-213.

20 Republicans joined 193 Democrats in voting against; all 217 votes for were Republicans. 1 Republican did not vote. Speaker Ryan elected to vote.

Republicans voting against: Biggs (AR-5th), Coffman (CO-6th), Comstock (VA-10th), Costello (PA-6th), Dent (PA-15th), Donovan (NY-11th), Fitzpatrick (PA-8th), Herrera Beutler (WA-3rd), Hurd (TX-23rd), Jones (NC-3rd), Joyce (OH-14th), Katko (NY-24th), Lance (NJ-7th), LoBiondo (NJ-2nd), Massie (KY-4th), Meehan (PA-7th), Reichert (WA-8th), Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27th), Smith (NJ-4th), Turner (OH-10th).

Not voting: Newhouse (R-WA-4th)

EDIT #2:

Apparently, the big stumbling blocks in the Senate are two provisions in the House bill.

First, defunding Planned Parenthood. Both Sens. Collins and Murkowski have said they will not vote for any bill that includes that provision.

Second, eliminating the Medicaid expansion. Sen. Portman has said that he will not vote for any bill that eliminates Ohio's Medicaid expansion.

That takes them to 49 on the House bill right there, and means that any compromise between the House and the Senate will have to retain either the Medicaid expansion or the funding for Planned Parenthood, and even then vulnerable Senators like Heller and Corker might feel too much heat from their constituents to vote for it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 04, 2017, 04:38:12 pm
So the best thing to do is to take the people who voted yes in states where this is set to hurt the most and turn up the heat on those Reps which will have the slower Senate eye this bill like the political poison that it is.

Ironbite-though it might just die because McConnell is very found of power
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on May 05, 2017, 04:49:02 am
I just read a piece about Kimmel's health care monologue in a Finnish newspaper (http://www.hs.fi/nyt/art-2000005194078.html). I laughed out loud when I read the last sentence: "President Trump has not yet tweeted about the subject."

Granted, it is after a short mention about Obama's tweet but it is so telling about what we have learned to expect from Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 07, 2017, 12:35:22 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWEHTQnecI

President Bill Maher delivers his State of the Union address. (NSFW for language.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 07, 2017, 09:54:58 am
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/this-is-not-the-story-we-want-reporters-chased-out-of-meeting-with-kushner-family-fleecing-chinese-investors/

Quote

Reporters alerted to the Bejing event, billed by host Chinese company Qiaowa in their brochures as “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States,” were quickly ushered out as the event started and Kushner’s sister began her sales pitch.

According to the Post, reporters who had initially been seated at the very back of the ballroom were told they would have to leave by a public relations aide saying foreign reporters were disturbing the “stability” of the program. One reporter had their backpack and phone grabbed by an event organizer as reporters were blocked from asking event attendees questions as they exited the ballroom.

Asked why reporters were booted, a public relations aide stated, “This is not the story we want.”

I can't believe how much they are draining the swamp.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 09, 2017, 07:27:49 am
(http://i.imgur.com/v7WnYwk.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/yhD9KQn.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/8zTKj5f.png)

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/861741272373088262
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 09, 2017, 09:03:19 am
Every time Trump tweets, I keep waiting for the golden one that is just pure classified info.  The type of info that gets people killed for.

Ironbite-and then the GOP doesn't impeach the Orange Piss Pot because reasons.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 09, 2017, 09:45:03 am
D-Tizzle and his constant Twitter feed is dangerous to national security?  Ya don't fucking say?!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 09, 2017, 10:21:19 am
Every time Trump tweets, I keep waiting for the golden one that is just pure classified info.  The type of info that gets people killed for.

Ironbite-and then the GOP doesn't impeach the Orange Piss Pot because reasons.

Ah, back when he wasn't in office yet someone joked that at least we would know if aliens exist. Because if the US government has proof of that, truth Trump would not be able to keep from posting it on Twitter on day one.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 09, 2017, 06:25:28 pm
So Now Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, now that it has come out that the white house knew and was warned about Michael Flynn well before Trump took over office and hired him anyways as security advisor due to Sally Yate's testimony, and it was further revealed under oath that Comey was wrong about Hillary Clinton's emails.
So firing him doesn't look suspicious at all. Like that's gonna totally get people to stop investigating the possible collusion between the Trump administration and Russia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 09, 2017, 06:47:41 pm
So, remember that Comey guy that played a yuge role in Trump winning (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/). The same Comey guy that said there was an active investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-to-testify-on-russian-interference-in-the-presidential-election/2017/03/20/cdea86ca-0ce2-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.ab30c18d4eb2)... Well, he's looking for a job. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/comey-misstated-key-clinton-email-evidence-at-hearing-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/05/09/074c1c7e-34bd-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?pushid=59123a73fdd5491d00000033&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.dc8662626ad5)

This must have been how it felt during the Saturday Night Massacre.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on May 09, 2017, 06:50:55 pm
And the popcorn makers around the world celebrate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 09, 2017, 06:52:49 pm
And Trump consulted with Sessions on firing Comey... the same Sessions who said he would recuse himself from anything involving Russia because of what he said during his committee testimony about whether he met with Russian officials.

Comey had something on Trump, and Trump knew it. The next FBI Director will be the biggest political hack in the history of political hackery.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 09, 2017, 07:05:50 pm
But what's to stop Comey from coming out with that information now? What's to stop future committees from using him in future investigations that will most likely happen now that this looks really really fishy.
Unless Comey somehow mysteriously ends up dead......
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 09, 2017, 07:07:13 pm
Which would be even more suspicious and could end up putting a lot of people in prison.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 09, 2017, 07:08:25 pm
But what's to stop Comey from coming out with that information now? What's to stop future committees from using him in future investigations that will most likely happen now that this looks really really fishy.
Unless Comey somehow mysteriously ends up dead......

Legal ramifications.

EDIT:

Also, their official reason for firing Comey is over her mistreatment of Clinton.

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/583/267/e8a.gif)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 09, 2017, 07:11:54 pm
But what's to stop Comey from coming out with that information now? What's to stop future committees from using him in future investigations that will most likely happen now that this looks really really fishy.
Unless Comey somehow mysteriously ends up dead......

Legal ramifications.

EDIT:

Also, their official reason for firing Comey is over her mistreatment of Clinton.

To be fair, she did misstate the nature of Clinton's emails.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 09, 2017, 07:14:27 pm
Well the Orange Piss Pot just went full Nixon.

Ironbite-President Pence by summer?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 09, 2017, 07:14:44 pm
Pronoun whoops.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 09, 2017, 07:16:10 pm
Yeah I wondering why Comey was being referred to as a she.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 09, 2017, 07:18:46 pm
Yeah I wondering why Comey was being referred to as a she.

Brain fart on my part.

But it's true: that's their excuse.

Apparently Trump wants to lock Clinton up himself, he doesn't want anyone else doing it.

EDIT: Oh, and to make it better, Trump came out and said that it wasn't over Comey's investigation of his administration's ties to Russia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 09, 2017, 07:42:38 pm
No instead it was because of how he treated Clinton during the run up to the election.

Ironbite-I'm flabbergasted by the balls on this man.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 09, 2017, 07:47:20 pm
No instead it was because of how he treated Clinton during the run up to the election.

Ironbite-I'm flabbergasted by the balls on this man.

Well, he did assure us that there was nothing wrong down there.

But anyway, this whole thing screams, "There's no smoke! And it's not from a fire! That I didn't set!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 10, 2017, 12:31:38 am
...this man just cannot do dictatorship, nor can he conspire very effectively.

Its like someone took the Nazis, excised the few competent people, and replaced them with utter idiocy and immediately obvious evil. They are trying to make rape a pre-existing condition to deny someone health care! They fired someone as soon as they got the inkling that this person had something on Trump!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 10, 2017, 12:41:55 am
...this man just cannot do dictatorship, nor can he conspire very effectively.

Its like someone took the Nazis, excised the few competent people, and replaced them with utter idiocy and immediately obvious evil. They are trying to make rape a pre-existing condition to deny someone health care! They fired someone as soon as they got the inkling that this person had something on Trump!


Not to deny, teeechnically. Just to price you out so you cannot afford it. The people who support this shit will jump all over you for saying that they can deny you. You need to be more precise, or they'll prove you "wrong" and you'll lose support from the undecideds. We need to be as accurate as possible here, cause this shit is fucking important.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 10, 2017, 12:53:14 am
...True. Nowadays accuracy is important, all the more because one party has decided they don't care about facts.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 10, 2017, 01:04:51 am
https://twitter.com/nbcnightlynews/status/862138080815394820

Get your popcorn (and pitchforks and torches) ready, seems like somethings about to happen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 10, 2017, 01:20:38 am
One more comment on that. Reminder that 45 is modifying Schumer's name w/ "cryin'" b/c he became emotional when discussing family who perished....in the holocaust.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 10, 2017, 02:51:39 am
Well, of course - Donald was rooting for the guys with skulls on their hats!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 11, 2017, 11:02:44 am
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/they-tricked-us-white-house-furious-russia-posted-trump-photos-on-official-government-accounts/

Russians lied to Trump? Say it ain't so!

Also, considering all the shady stuff related to this guy and the meeting... This is still among the least embarrassing things that could have happened.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 11, 2017, 08:40:06 pm
https://youtu.be/XhebmG148Zo?t=10s

Jimmy Carter on the rise of Trump and authoritarianism in the US. (Carter's answer goes until 3:38.)

EDIT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ssVlqpX9x8

100 days of Trump, 100 failures of Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on May 14, 2017, 07:36:35 am
Read a vox article (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15621140/interpret-trump) on Trump that might just be the scariest thinkpiece on Trump, I've seen. It has a really simple premise.

Quote
Trump is exactly as he appears: a hopeless narcissist with the attention span of a fruit fly, unable to maintain consistent beliefs or commitments from moment to moment, acting on base instinct, entirely situationally, to bolster his terrifyingly fragile ego...

That’s who he is: a disregulated bundle of impulses, being manipulated by a cast of crooks and incompetents.

Trump isn't Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Tricky Dick or a Mad King George for that matter because those guys had beliefs and plans. He certainly isn't a Machiavellian Littlefinger type character.

Trump is an id, a screaming reptile brain with the nuclear codes. He's a big kid who's never been told "no" with the most powerful nation state on the planet at his beck and call.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on May 14, 2017, 09:31:32 am
Read a vox article (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15621140/interpret-trump) on Trump that might just be the scariest thinkpiece on Trump, I've seen. It has a really simple premise.

Quote
Trump is exactly as he appears: a hopeless narcissist with the attention span of a fruit fly, unable to maintain consistent beliefs or commitments from moment to moment, acting on base instinct, entirely situationally, to bolster his terrifyingly fragile ego...

That’s who he is: a disregulated bundle of impulses, being manipulated by a cast of crooks and incompetents.

Trump isn't Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Tricky Dick or a Mad King George for that matter because those guys had beliefs and plans. He certainly isn't a Machiavellian Littlefinger type character.

Trump is an id, a screaming reptile brain with the nuclear codes. He's a big kid who's never been told "no" with the most powerful nation state on the planet at his beck and call.

This describes pretty well why I haven't been as convinced as most seem to be that Comey's firing was a clumsy and panicked attempt to covering Trump's ties to Russia. Don't get me wrong, it still is a good possibility, but Trump with his insecurities and stupidity is so much of a wild card that it is very much conceivable that it was just a short sighted temper tantrum even if there was a reason for him to be worried about the investigation.

(IMO it seems obvious that he has conflicts of interest but how direct the influence of these conflicts is and if the Russians have any serious leverage on him is still unknown. In a sane world this would be enough to force him to be more open about his business ties.)

*Grabs some more popcorn and leans back*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 15, 2017, 07:39:26 pm
Something, something, something... grossly negligent, Hillary's emails. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.7abf938baba0)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 15, 2017, 07:43:06 pm
Something, something, something... grossly negligent, Hillary's emails. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.7abf938baba0)

But Russia is our friend. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-nationalist-leads-torch-bearing-protesters-against-removal-confederate-statue-n759266)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on May 15, 2017, 10:40:23 pm
NATO is trying to Trump proof their meetings so Donald won't get bored by treating him like a small child.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/05/15/theyre-preparing-to-deal-with-a-child-nato-frantically-tries-to-trump-proof-summit.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 16, 2017, 04:47:48 am
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/15/kansas-trump-style-tax-cuts-economic-disaster

Say it with me: TRICKLE DOWN DOES NOT WORK!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 16, 2017, 05:20:40 am
It really fucking doesn't.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on May 16, 2017, 06:02:01 am
I'm not sure ignorance is really the issue here.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 16, 2017, 08:17:46 am
I'm not sure ignorance is really the issue here.

Yeah. Trickle-down does the one thing they want to do very well: it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on May 16, 2017, 08:40:20 am
As a generalization the politicians and the rich might not buy into it but the poor right-wing voters who vote against their own interests do.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 16, 2017, 10:30:01 am
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/donald-trump-russia-right/index.html

So Dump openly admits he shared information with the Russians after Mcmasters said he didn't last night. And pretty much said that because he did it it's ok. Like fucking Richard Nixon. Its not revealed whether the info was classified. Knowing this dip shit it probably was. He needs to just fucking resign already.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 16, 2017, 10:41:51 am
The GOP has tolerated him because they want to take down ACA and cut taxes as much as possible, knowing that the longer this disaster goes on the less of a chance they have of keeping majority...

Now they have the option of taking down Trump and possibly saving face by blaming all of it on him but if they do it before ACA is gone this is a net loss for them.

If on the other hand they stall for too long and Trump does something that even the GOP does not tolerate (normally I would say something like what he just did but seeing the stuff they have already ignored I don't know if there is any treason or incompetence that is too much for them) and some of them join in with the Democrats they lose face and can't defend themselves by making a show of stopping Trump.

...Or if the Democrats/voters manage to impeach (or whatever they can do to him) Trump without help from GOP AND it happens before ACA -and whatever else they are after- have been destroyed they have lost it all for nothing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 16, 2017, 11:05:48 am
I think Trump read a biography of Nixon and thought it was a "How To" guide to the Presidency.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 16, 2017, 01:54:40 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/gop-lawmaker-demands-classified-briefings-so-that-congress-can-at-least-know-as-much-as-russians/

SHOTS FIRED! GET DOWN MISTER PRESIDENT!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 16, 2017, 02:58:05 pm
I was going to say it's weird how Imgur is being spammed with memes about how Seth Rich was supposedly asassinated on ther orders of Hillary (Snopes and actual evidence do not support this theory) soon after Trump has admitted that he leaked info to Russia.

Almost as if Trump-fans are trying to misdirect.

Then I went to take a stroll at their subreddit and the frontpage is filled with topics about Rich and at least one campaign to spam his name on Hillary's twitter just to draw attention away from the naked emperor.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 16, 2017, 03:34:42 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/donald-trump-russia-right/index.html

So Dump openly admits he shared information with the Russians after Mcmasters said he didn't last night. And pretty much said that because he did it it's ok. Like fucking Richard Nixon. Its not revealed whether the info was classified. Knowing this dip shit it probably was. He needs to just fucking resign already.

This info is not just classified, it's classified so hard that not even normal US allies get to see it.  That's how classified it is.  Like only a handful of people actually know about it that's how classified it is.  This is not something you share and the Orange Piss Pot just gave it to the Russians because he wanted to sound like a big boy to the man with his cock up his ass.  And would you like to know where the info came from?  Cause it's great.  This is truly great.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&mtrref=www.facebook.com&_r=0

Quote
WASHINGTON — The classified intelligence that President Trump disclosed in a meeting last week with Russian officials at the White House was provided by Israel, according to a current and a former American official familiar with how the United States obtained the information. The revelation adds a potential diplomatic complication to the episode.

Israel is one of the United States’ most important allies and a major intelligence collector in the Middle East. The revelation that Mr. Trump boasted about some of Israel’s most sensitive information to the Russians could damage the relationship between the two countries. It also raises the possibility that the information could be passed to Iran, Russia’s close ally and Israel’s main threat in the Middle East.

One of our best allies in the Middle East.  And wanna know who the Russians are buddy buddy with?  Iran, Israel's number one enemy in the region and the only country that can match them.

Ironbite-AND TRUMP BURNED THEM TO SOUND BIG TO FUCKING RUSSIA!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 16, 2017, 04:49:45 pm
Yet no one is calling for his impeachment.
Bill Clinton gets impeached because he lied about getting a blow job under oath.
Donald Trump gets to leak classified information to a country that is known to be sketchy and works with countries that counter our own and it's just the Donald being Donald.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 16, 2017, 06:35:51 pm
BECAUSE THE GOP HAS AND WILL ALWAYS PUT PARTY OVER COUNTRY!  THEY DON'T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE THIS MAN IS DOING!  BUT HER FUCKING EMAILS RIGHT!?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on May 16, 2017, 10:17:56 pm
BECAUSE THE GOP HAS AND WILL ALWAYS PUT PARTY OVER COUNTRY!
That's kind of the norm rather than the exception. Politicians, like pretty much everyone else, care only about themselves. Good governance matters only when its interests align with their own.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 17, 2017, 12:24:40 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/notes-made-by-former-fbi-director-comey-say-trump-pressured-him-to-end-flynn-probe/2017/05/16/52351a38-3a80-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.4347738b748f

What's that? Trump tried to make Comey end the Flynn/Russia investigation and fired him because he refused to do so? Just like anyone with a brain has said it happened?

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/864606878453706753
AND it's possible that Sessions knew about this when he said it is ok to fire Comey?

Gee, it's almost as if the president and some of the people in his government should lose their jobs over this.


EDIT: ...And the Trumpettes have received their new orders and are now pretending that this was all OK.

Also because the KILLARY meme doesn't seem to be working they have gone back to the "BUT HER EMAILS" meme. No, I am not joking, they are claiming that HER EMAILS were a worse security breach than Trump "sharing flight plans with our allies, why the hell would you cucks even think that there's something wrong in sharing intel to allies?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 17, 2017, 07:11:24 pm
Trump might be impeached, so let's get a reminder of how despicable Pence is.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAEEtz9W0AUM_Xu.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 17, 2017, 07:38:23 pm
Assuming Pence doesn't resign for being complicit in Trump's crimes. Of course, then we get Paul Ryan, so the same point stands.

Regardless, obviously the fight wouldn't end with Trump being removed from office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 17, 2017, 08:03:38 pm
Ryan really doesn't want the White House.  Hell, he barely wants the Speaker position.  But I think they might get Pence on this due to Flynn.

Ironbite-see how this works out for us.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 17, 2017, 08:18:11 pm
Whether Ryan wants to be President or not, I doubt his ego would let him turn down the position if it came down to him being next in line to fill the office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 17, 2017, 08:44:14 pm
Well, if they get Trump before they get Pence, Pence could get to choose his new VP, which Ryan and McConnell might rush through so that Ryan doesn't have to become President.

EDIT: Of course, the reverse also applies, but Trump's incompetent enough that he might just select someone who's only 99.9% odious.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 18, 2017, 12:07:33 am
I don't hold a lot of hope for an impeachment. Not with a Republican Congress, and the fact that corrupt politicians tend to get away with shit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 18, 2017, 12:13:18 am
I don't hold a lot of hope for an impeachment. Not with a Republican Congress, and the fact that corrupt politicians tend to get away with shit.

They might, if they think Trump is damaging their brand enough that it will cost them the House in 2018 (I'm not assuming the Dems will take the House in 2018 right now), and that it will cost them their chance of picking off vulnerable Democrats like Manchin and Heitkamp. (Which might be partially moot if they get picked off in primaries (https://www.paulajean2018.com/), though whether said primary opponents could then win is an open question.)

But the Dems are targeting a few Republican Senators in 2018 despite the overwhelming geographical disadvantage they're at: Heller for sure, maybe Corker, possibly even Cruz.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 18, 2017, 05:57:57 am
I am noticing a trend where people defend Trump quote about how he is being mistreated worse than any other president in history by claiming that it is out of context because it is missing part of the quote ...And then they add a part while carefully excluding one bit to make the quote seem better than it really was.

For example. Someone quotes “Look at the way I’ve been treated lately"
Then a random citizen who clearly is only defending the POTUS because he feels they are being treated unfairly says "at least use the full quote" and adds "by the media" as if that was the full quote.

In reality he said “Look at the way I’ve been treated lately, especially by the media,” ...Note "especially." He's not saying it's only the media he complains about. Also he said this:

Quote
"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”

People are grasping at straws to find something to defend him and when that fails they will mislead and lie.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on May 18, 2017, 08:29:11 am
Those I've seen defend Trump online seem to fall into two categories.

The first, more numerous (or at least vocal) one are the alt-righters and their sympathizers for whom Trump is just a tool to bash the SJWs. He must be defended with all means because they seem to be very tribal and think politics in game terms: Trump is one of them and his success means they win in the game. Despite many of these people not even being Americans they take attacks against him very personally.

The other one are the occasional obsessive moderates for whom argument to moderation is a fundamental part of their thinking pattern. For them. since Trump is attacked so ferociously compared to other politicians there must be an unfair element somewhere. These people often seem to feel intellectually superior because they are able to raise themselves above what they see as a sheep herd blindly following a narrative.

Edit: I guess the anti-immigration fanatics are a third group. They are a bit different from the first group in that they see media's treatment of Trump as a part of the fight around the refugee crisis and immigration but it's not as central an issue as it is for the Internet warriors of alt-right. It's just another symptom of left-wing press being politically correct and while they point this out they are more interested in the local issues.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 18, 2017, 09:49:24 am

Quote
"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”


To which I reply


"Kennedy. Lincoln. Garfield. McKinley. Reagan. Jackson. Taft. Roosevelt (both). Need I continue?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on May 18, 2017, 11:02:24 am

Quote
"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”


To which I reply


"Kennedy. Lincoln. Garfield. McKinley. Reagan. Jackson. Taft. Roosevelt (both). Need I continue?"

Gaius Julius Caesar.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 18, 2017, 11:34:24 am
Franz Ferdinand
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 18, 2017, 01:09:29 pm
Or how about Johan de Witt? The prime minister of Holland who was so hated that he was killed by an angry mob that went on to cook his liver (and that of his brother who was also assassinated) and eat it.

And that wasn't a mob going crazy either. Note that they specifially removed his liver and cooked it. Observers even noted that the mob did not just go crazy and start biting at him. His wikipedia article states that "a remarkable discipline was maintained by the mob, according to contemporary observers, making one doubt the spontaneity of the event."

Also the mob was made up from members of the "Orangist" movement so clearly it was time traveling Trump on one of his expeditions. ("Trump the time traveler" is currently one of my favourite crazy theories. How else can you explain that Trump claims to have invented the phrase "priming the pump" which has been used since 1920s? Clearly he invented it when he went back in time to crash the economy in USA. This theory also explains why he acts so erratic and disappears from the White house to "go golfing" and why he has such anachronistic racist views.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 18, 2017, 01:16:32 pm
I have never heard of that theory but it does explain why all of his tweets from before he was elected President now apply to him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on May 18, 2017, 01:38:27 pm

Quote
"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”


To which I reply


"Kennedy. Lincoln. Garfield. McKinley. Reagan. Jackson. Taft. Roosevelt (both). Need I continue?"

Just say "all of them." Being the "face" of a very powerful group basically make you the designated hate sink (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HateSink)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 18, 2017, 01:39:23 pm
I was listing ones who had been shot. Or at least shot at.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 18, 2017, 02:50:08 pm
McCainn noted that plenty of politicians have been treated worse. Him for example.

And the former Mexican president sent his weekly "FUCK YOU TRUMP" Tweet noting that if he can't take the heat he should quit his job.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 18, 2017, 05:21:14 pm
And the idiot wants Flynn back. (http://theweek.com/speedreads/699975/trump-wants-flynn-back)

Quote
Several sources close to Flynn and to the administration tell The Daily Beast that Trump has expressed his hopes that a resolution of the FBI's investigation in Flynn's favor might allow Flynn to rejoin the White House in some capacity — a scenario some of Trump’s closest advisers in and outside the West Wing have assured him absolutely should not happen.

Those sources said Trump didn't believe Flynn should be under investigation in the first place.

"Trump feels really, really, really, bad about firing him, and he genuinely thinks if the investigation is over Flynn can come back," said one White House official. [The Daily Beast]


Oh and apparently he keeps in touch with Flynn as well.  The man actually thinks he's king.

Ironbite-not an elected public servant.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 18, 2017, 05:30:08 pm
Let's not forget this shit.


https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/865031181875720197


To sum up: DeVos is defunding many education programs. Replacing with research into charter and religious schools
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 18, 2017, 06:03:15 pm
As bad as everyone is that Trump appointed to his cabinet. Devos is the worst.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 18, 2017, 06:16:14 pm
McCainn noted that plenty of politicians have been treated worse. Him for example.

So close, yet so goddamn far away.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 18, 2017, 06:34:43 pm
Meanwhile, Roger Ailes, serial sexual harasser and arguably the man responsible for winning at least four presidential elections (and stealing one of them), has passed away.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 18, 2017, 08:31:19 pm

Quote
"No politician in history – and I say this with great surety – has been treated worse or more unfairly.”


To which I reply


"Kennedy. Lincoln. Garfield. McKinley. Reagan. Jackson. Taft. Roosevelt (both). Need I continue?"

To be fair, Hinckley didn't shoot Reagan cause he thought Reagan was a dick, but instead because he thought it would woo Jodie Foster. So, it wasn't so much that he treated Reagan unfairly, as it was unfortunate that Reagan happened to be president at that time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 18, 2017, 09:27:28 pm
But you got my point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on May 18, 2017, 09:33:07 pm
Hey anyone remember the guy who was Bernie Sanders before Sanders, Dennis Kucinich?  Ever wondered what he's doing?

Answer he's on Sean Hannity's show lying that the Deep State is plotting to destroy Trump and "Our Country Is Under Attack from Within"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/18/kucinich_deep_state_trying_to_take_down_trump_our_country_is_under_attack_within.html

...I got nothing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 19, 2017, 09:40:51 pm
With the news about Trump's upcoming foreign trip and all the crap foreign leaders are having to do to "Trump-proof" the visits, I can't wait for him to visit India, since he can't be bothered to learn anything about the countries he's visiting and apparently he really likes well-done steak in ketchup.

So when he orders that in India...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 19, 2017, 10:02:20 pm
Well, if one of the Twitter accounts run by alleged White House staffers is true, he had Air Force 1 stocked with a shit load of frozen pizzas because he won't eat "foreign food."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 19, 2017, 10:04:54 pm
Well, if one of the Twitter accounts run by alleged White House staffers is true, he had Air Force 1 stocked with a shit load of frozen pizzas because he won't eat "foreign food."

I wonder if he'll try an Italian pizza.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 19, 2017, 10:44:52 pm
Well, if one of the Twitter accounts run by alleged White House staffers is true, he had Air Force 1 stocked with a shit load of frozen pizzas because he won't eat "foreign food."


*just beats my head into a wall*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 20, 2017, 12:22:00 am
Well, if one of the Twitter accounts run by alleged White House staffers is true, he had Air Force 1 stocked with a shit load of frozen pizzas because he won't eat "foreign food."

That one is probably false because several news organizations report that the White House staff has made sure that he can get steaks and ketchup on every meal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/saudi-arabia-offer-steak-ketchup-donald-trump-first-presidential/

(For the record, complaining about him using ketchup on a steak is just silly. It's no different than Jon Stewart raging that no one should eat pizza with a knife and fork because the NEW YORK way to eat a thin crust pizza is with bare hands.)

...Also NATO has been told that any presentations must include lots of visual material and people should talk no more than 3 minutes at a time because the most powerful man in the world has a short attention span and gets tired quickly. For the latter reason his daily schedule includes naps.

Disclaimer: If I had read that article a year ago I would have considered it a joke and one that is not only a low blow but also way too unbelievable. I mean, after calling someone "low energy Jeb" he now has to time his schedule with naps? He has clearly passed the parody horizon a long time ago. The credibility of USA is really suffering because of the POTUS.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 20, 2017, 12:30:29 am
If anything, the White House contacting foreign officials to make sure Trump can eat his overcooked steaks is even more pathetic than him packing a shit load of frozen pizzas.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 20, 2017, 01:08:35 am
If they don't kick him out, Drumpf could just die of a fucking coronary from all the bad shit he eats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 20, 2017, 01:12:32 am
yeah, the old bastard is 70 and Roger Ailes just died at 77...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 20, 2017, 01:29:47 am
And Trump is now reported to have bragged about firing James Comey to the Russians calling him a "nut job" and saying "I just fired the head of the FBI. ... I faced great pressure because of Russia; that's taken of." Sooooooooo...... yeah. In the same meeting where Trump released highly classified information to Russian diplomats, he also may have told them in confidence that he committed a crime.

This guy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 20, 2017, 12:28:24 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-probe-reaches-current-white-house-official-people-familiar-with-the-case-say/2017/05/19/7685adba-3c99-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.9f602caf6a3b

This is supposedly referring to Jared...

"There are no brakes on the Trump train." ...But apparently it can crash or stall easily.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 20, 2017, 03:30:41 pm
This just keeps getting better and better don't it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 20, 2017, 05:14:55 pm
And CNN reported a CIA intercept where Russian spies bragged about Flynn being a Russian patsy. This guy was the National Security Advisor for 24 days; so if this is true, then we had a Russian spy in the highest echelon of our executive branch.

This president.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 20, 2017, 08:17:53 pm
But her emails!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 20, 2017, 09:16:03 pm
But her emails!

His name was Seth Rogen!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on May 20, 2017, 10:11:03 pm
I thought his name was John Cena.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 20, 2017, 10:28:31 pm
I thought his name was John Cena.


Doo-Doo-Do-Dooooooooo. Doo-Doo-Do-Dooooooooo!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 21, 2017, 01:42:40 am
OK, remember when Obama visited SA? He bent down a bit so that he could shake hands with the (short) king. The usual suspects (and Trump) complained about how Obama "bowed" to the king and saw this as an act of treason and making USA seem weak.

Now...

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/20/politics/trump-saudi-bow-medal/

Trump was given an award and he bent down so that the same (still short) king could put it on his neck. Much of the media is making fun of Trump for bowing (or curtseying) to the king while the usual suspects are defending his actions.

Apart from how silly this thing is I am also amused that Trump is yet again the victim of a scandal just like the one that he complained Obama was causing...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 21, 2017, 02:23:29 am
The usual suspects (and Trump)

You repeat yourself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 21, 2017, 07:41:25 am
When I bend down it's because the king of the Saudi Arabia is a very short man. He was tiny. I mean come on. But Obama was pledging his loyalty to the Saudi King believe me. - Trump probably.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 22, 2017, 02:52:02 am
Meanwhile, it looks like Trump is thinking the FBI needs some Joementum to get past that whole fake Trump-Russia thing.

EDIT: Because clearly its Comentum wasn't good enough.

EDIT #2: Meanwhile, Notre Dame invited Mike Pence to give the commencement address... and a large chunk of the students walked out when he started.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 23, 2017, 04:34:10 am
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/wilbur-ross-saudi-protests/index.html

"Isn't it great how there are no protestors in the country where protesting means you get thrown in jail? Kinda like that North Korea too, everyone loves he leader there and there are absolutely no signs of anyone displeased. Maybe USA could learn a thing or two from them???????????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?" -Wilbur Ross basically.

...That or he had no idea that protests are illegal in SA and was talking out of his ass because he wanted to complain about the people in USA who voice their displeasure at the current regime.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on May 23, 2017, 05:11:45 am
As a general observation I have to confess I was wrong about a major thing: I thought Trump's idiocy would make him easier to control. I didn't understand how much his huge ego prevents him from listening to advice from people who know better. I'm starting to agree with the sentiment that him being in power is better than having a more efficient Pence as a president. I was previously worried that he would end up as a puppet for someone like Bannon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 23, 2017, 05:40:54 am
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/wilbur-ross-saudi-protests/index.html

"Isn't it great how there are no protestors in the country where protesting means you get thrown in jail? Kinda like that North Korea too, everyone loves he leader there and there are absolutely no signs of anyone displeased. Maybe USA could learn a thing or two from them???????????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?" -Wilbur Ross basically.

...That or he had no idea that protests are illegal in SA and was talking out of his ass because he wanted to complain about the people in USA who voice their displeasure at the current regime.

No, he continued to say that even after the interviewer told him that protests are illegal in Saudi Arabia.

He's just like any other authoritarian.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 23, 2017, 05:49:00 am
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/wilbur-ross-saudi-protests/index.html

"Isn't it great how there are no protestors in the country where protesting means you get thrown in jail? Kinda like that North Korea too, everyone loves he leader there and there are absolutely no signs of anyone displeased. Maybe USA could learn a thing or two from them???????????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?" -Wilbur Ross basically.

...That or he had no idea that protests are illegal in SA and was talking out of his ass because he wanted to complain about the people in USA who voice their displeasure at the current regime.

No, he continued to say that even after the interviewer told him that protests are illegal in Saudi Arabia.

He's just like any other authoritarian.


I have just learned that Saudi Arabia does not punish people who protest by jailing them. Instead it is punishable by ...What's the word? DECAPITATION.

Must not confuse those two.

Keep calm and carry on, be careful not to lose your head.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 23, 2017, 03:24:22 pm
I just don't get how you can miss that fact.

Ironbite-other then you being an authoritarian shitheel.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 23, 2017, 03:37:50 pm
I just don't get how you can miss that fact.

Ironbite-other then you being an authoritarian shitheel.

Yep, that's pretty much it. Ross really, really wishes they could stop those sorts of protests in the US.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 23, 2017, 04:08:21 pm
Now that I've watched that video again, Ross doesn't just "continue after being told that protests are illegal." He never acknowledges that.


What happens is that a WOMAN dares to politely suggest that something that an old man has is not correct. He reacts by dismissing her claim as a "theory" and then continues "But boy, there was certainly no sign of it, there wasn't a single effort of any incursion," as if the fact that there were no protests was enough proof that no one dislikes Trump. He didn't counter her "theory" because he didn't care about what she said. It's possible that he didn't even hear a word of it once he realized that the -lil gal- is trying to say that he isn't correct.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 23, 2017, 04:43:47 pm
Transcript of relevant part from CNBC interview:

Ross: There's no question that they're liberalizing their society, and I think the other thing that was fascinating to me, there was not a single hint of a protester anywhere there during the whole time we were there, not one guy with a bad placard. Instead, there was--

Interviewer: But, Secretary Ross, that may be not necessarily because they don't have those feelings there but because they, they control people and don't allow them to come and express their feelings quite the same as we do here.

Ross: In theory that could be true, but boy there was certainly no sign of it, there was not a single effort at any incursion, there wasn't anything. The--the mood was a genuinely good mood, and at the end of the trip, as I was getting back on the plane, the security guards from the Saudi side who'd been helping us over the weekend all wanted to pose for a big photo op, and then they gave me two gigantic bushels of dates as a present, a thank you for the trip that we had had. That was a pretty from-the-heart, very genuine gesture, and it really touched me.

"Well, yeah, there were no protests, and maybe it's because they don't let us protest"--and boy I wish we could do that here!--"but let's focus on the far more important fact that they gave me tons of dates!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 23, 2017, 08:21:31 pm
So buried under the whole Orange Piss Pot World Tour, Ex-CIA Director John Brennan stopped by the House Intel Committee for a quick chat with lawmakers.  It did not go the way the Republicans on the committee wanted. (http://www.npr.org/2017/05/23/529598301/former-cia-director-tells-lawmakers-about-very-aggressive-russian-election-meddl)

Quote
Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia "brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off. Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to interfere.
In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."


Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign." Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals," and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.

While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he said.
Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human rights if elected president.

But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely "husbanding it for another day."

During his testimony, Republicans tried, oh they tried and tried and tried, to get him to say something, anything about Clinton.  Because at this point, they're looking for a way out of this mess and to blame it all on Clinton.  Problem is, reality doesn't work that way.  At all.

Ironbite-Wonder how the Orange Piss Pot is gonna deal with it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 23, 2017, 08:47:08 pm
Ironbite-Wonder how the Orange Piss Pot is gonna deal with it.

What do you think he'll say? "John Brennan's testimony was weak! Not one mention of Crooked Hillary! He's not winning with his testimony! Sad! #MAGA"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 23, 2017, 10:49:10 pm
This does worry me for future elections.  If we allow Russia to easily tamper with information to get what they want. What's going to stop them from doing this again and again?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 23, 2017, 11:13:28 pm
It just struck me that Trump's nicknames for his electoral opponents were a massive case of projection: "Lyin'" (Cruz), "Little" (Rubio), "Crooked" (Clinton) and "Crazy" (Sanders) all describe Trump pretty well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 23, 2017, 11:34:52 pm
It just struck me that Trump's nicknames for his electoral opponents were a massive case of projection: "Lyin'" (Cruz), "Little" (Rubio), "Crooked" (Clinton) and "Crazy" (Sanders) all describe Trump pretty well.

And Pocahontas?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 23, 2017, 11:37:59 pm
It just struck me that Trump's nicknames for his electoral opponents were a massive case of projection: "Lyin'" (Cruz), "Little" (Rubio), "Crooked" (Clinton) and "Crazy" (Sanders) all describe Trump pretty well.

And Pocahontas?

Electoral opponents.

(Insert grumbling that Clinton didn't choose Warren as her running mate... though even then she wouldn't have been Trump's electoral opponent.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 24, 2017, 12:01:22 am
It just struck me that Trump's nicknames for his electoral opponents were a massive case of projection: "Lyin'" (Cruz), "Little" (Rubio), "Crooked" (Clinton) and "Crazy" (Sanders) all describe Trump pretty well.

And Pocahontas?

Electoral opponents.

(Insert grumbling that Clinton didn't choose Warren as her running mate... though even then she wouldn't have been Trump's electoral opponent.)

Yeah, grumble grumble grumble.

ETA: And technically, Bernie was never Trumps electoral opponent, as he didn't make it to the general to compete with Trump for votes. Looking at how Russia used Bernie, you could make a better argument that he was an electoral ally to Trump, dragging out the primary and fraying feelings, thus hurting Hillary's electability.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 24, 2017, 12:25:16 am
ETA: And technically, Bernie was never Trumps electoral opponent, as he didn't make it to the general to compete with Trump for votes. Looking at how Russia used Bernie, you could make a better argument that he was an electoral ally to Trump, dragging out the primary and fraying feelings, thus hurting Hillary's electability.

Except that, in a sense, Sanders was Trump's electoral opponent in some states, in that they were competing for voters if not votes. If you consider, say, South Carolina, which has an open primary, a voter looking for a populist candidate for whom to vote had, basically, Trump and Sanders, and so that voter would choose which party's primary to participate in based on whether they'd rather vote for Trump or for Sanders.

And anyway, "Crazy" fits Trump.

ETA:

Remind me: Who said that there was violence at the Nevada convention? Who denied Bernie "super-volunteers" credentials to the Democratic National Convention? Who gave away the floor seats of elected and credentialed Sanders delegates to Clinton volunteers? Who held voice votes at that convention when the room was packed with said volunteers?

Oh, and who had supporters called "PUMAs" in 2008?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SomeApe on May 24, 2017, 10:24:55 am
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-two-icecream-scoops-guests-get-one-time-magazine-diet-coke-thousand-island-dressing-a7732101.html

I know, the article is a bit old but there's also a gallery with trump cartoons in it which I wanted to share.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 24, 2017, 05:44:36 pm
So the CBO score for Trumpcare 2.0 is out.  There's progress being made.  Now only 23 million people will lose healthcare.

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529902300/cbo-republicans-ahca-would-leave-23-million-more-uninsured

Ironbite-that's a legacy to hang your hat on.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 24, 2017, 06:02:52 pm
So the CBO score for Trumpcare 2.0 is out.  There's progress being made.  Now only 23 million people will lose healthcare.

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529902300/cbo-republicans-ahca-would-leave-23-million-more-uninsured

Ironbite-that's a legacy to hang your hat on.

Trumpcare 2.0, as passed by the House, is DOA in the Senate. Collins, Murkowski and Portman won't vote for it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 24, 2017, 07:13:46 pm
Believe it when it happens.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 24, 2017, 07:24:26 pm
Believe it when it happens.

Oh, if it happens, it's a catastrophe.

But Collins and Murkowski won't vote to defund Planned Parenthood (which the House AHCA does). That leaves 50.

Portman won't vote for anything lowering Ohio's Medicaid expansion (which the House AHCA does). That leaves 49. So they can't even get it through via reconciliation.

Plus there are probably a few other Senators who will feel the heat from their states over the Medicaid cuts, and others who will be afraid of their re-election chances (Heller and Corker come to mind) if the subsidy structure changes.

Plus the Republican Senate leadership said, upon the House passing the AHCA, essentially, "Good job. Now we'll consider our own version (Cassidy-Collins) and get back to you in the conference committee."

EDIT:

In the category of "Things Trump may have normalized":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeaXDIsch_E

Greg Gianforte, Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in Montana's At-Large district in the special election taking place tomorrow (go vote!), has apparently body-slammed a reporter from the Guardian who was asking him for his thoughts on the AHCA now that the CBO report on it has come out. So far there is no video of the incident, only the audio played in the above clip.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 25, 2017, 02:15:34 am
Oh hey, look: https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/russia-planted-bad-intel-influenced-comeys-clinton-announcement-july-helping-trump-win/

So Russia did interefere in the elections. By duping FBI with fake intel that was planted to be stolen by them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 25, 2017, 02:29:22 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-oY7ijbf5E

Press conference on the Greg Gianforte-Ben Jacobs incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3v8EAKes2A

Commentary from another reporter covering the special election.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/867573719543296000

Quote
BREAKING: Fox News says crew saw Montana House candidate Greg Gianforte grab Guardian reporter by neck and slam him to the ground.

That's not any normal body slam; that's a chokeslam.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on May 25, 2017, 10:31:34 am
There is also an audio recording of the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhoH4v8xYlU
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 25, 2017, 11:17:44 am
He's probably going to win.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 25, 2017, 11:30:32 am
It's possible. Some people are just going to respect him more for beating up a reporter and someone said that most of the voting had already been done so the amount of people who might change their mind and are going to vote but haven't done it yet may not be large.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 25, 2017, 02:19:30 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcOutB3Y6ZM

Rep. Al Green, who called for the impeachment of Pres. Trump on the floor of the House on charges of obstruction of justice, on why he did it and on the death threats, which include racial slurs (some are played in the video), his office has since received.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 26, 2017, 03:08:45 am
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G17/MT#H00_

Greg Gianforte has defeated Rob Quist in the special election in Montana for its At-Large House of Representatives seat. Gianforte received about 50.8% of the vote to Quist's 43.4%. Libertarian candidate Mark Wicks received 5.8%.

Gianforte is still facing misdemeanor assault charges.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 26, 2017, 03:29:52 am
What happens if this goes to court and he gets convicted?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 26, 2017, 03:47:23 am
What happens if this goes to court and he gets convicted?

The maximum sentence for his crime is a $500 fine and/or six months in jail. And if you think a judge will jail a sitting Representative from his own state, and that a Republican-controlled House would kick him out over just the fine...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 26, 2017, 08:24:02 am
Still kind of a narrow victory in a state Trump carried by 21 points.  I have a feeling had not 2/3rd of the ballot had already been cast, that body slam might have cost him the victory.

Ironbite-ON TO GEORGIA!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 26, 2017, 09:32:52 am
Well, more and more of his voters have started to regret voting him:

Some because he broke his promise about fixing and expanding the healthcare, others because he isn't keeping jobs in USA like he promised and some...
(https://i.imgur.com/M9vL947.png)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 26, 2017, 12:07:48 pm
Still kind of a narrow victory in a state Trump carried by 21 points.  I have a feeling had not 2/3rd of the ballot had already been cast, that body slam might have cost him the victory.

Ironbite-ON TO GEORGIA!

And South Carolina.

Quote
The Gianforte/Quist results should add to the Republican panic about 2018, but, unfortunately, I think they'll just blame it on the whole assault thing and pretend there's no problem.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 26, 2017, 05:15:29 pm
https://twitter.com/pacelattin/status/867949635028959232/video/1

...If Clinton had acted like this how many seconds would it have taken before the GOP would have screamed that she must be removed from office due to medical reasons?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 26, 2017, 05:56:03 pm
One of our closest mid-east allies and he got bored with the event.  An event put on for his benefit.

Ironbite-25th should've been invoked long ago.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 26, 2017, 09:14:51 pm
So, big breaking story from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?pushid=5928b4602e12651d00000008&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.72232300d311).

Turns out, Jared Kushner met with Michael Flynn and Sergey Kislyak at Trump Tower on December 1st or 2nd of 2016 to discuss the possibility of creating a secure communications line between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin using the Russian embassy. If this sounds fucking stupid, that's because it is: the FBI and CIA would certainly have discovered such a communications line because a person of high-profile (Kushner) would repeatedly be at a place that is under intense scrutiny (the Russian embassy). The Russians, who nobody has accused of being idiots, realized that would be a terrible idea.

Not to be undone by his own stupidity, the wunderkind of the Trump family (who by no coincidence happens to be the only one that is not biologically related to the Donald) informed the Russians that some form of a secure channel was "necessary for the Trump team to be able to continue their communication with Russian government officials."

Flynn, being stupid in addition to treasonous, discussed the possibility of orchestrating a meeting between a Trump representative and a Russian contact in a third country to avoid detection. Less than six weeks later, this asshole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince), who happens to be an "informal adviser" to the president, met with a representative of Vladimir Putin in Seychelles.

In closing, this Washington Post subscription is putting in some work. Money well spent. Netflix, you need to up your game. I don't advertise products often, but I will risk a warning from the mods to say that a subscription to the Washington Post is important for any proud citizen of our democracy.  ;)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on May 27, 2017, 12:01:29 am
So basically, America is run by an egotistical incompetent and a bunch of Russian spies. Honestly, I'm amazed that Trump's government is as terrible as it is. I was expecting just another Bush or Reagan, not this utter caricature of terrible leadership.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 27, 2017, 12:51:06 am
...The authorities DID notice the connection. It was in the news. In fact, here's a story about it: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/

And another one: http://www.salon.com/2017/03/10/trumps-alleged-computer-server-connection-with-a-russian-bank-continues-to-be-investigated/

I mean, the investigation isn't complete yet but all of these connections that Trump and Trump accessories have with Russia look suspicious.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 27, 2017, 03:36:34 am
Well being Russian puppets is the new normal for our government so this should be swept under the rug with a war against North Korea.

Ironbite-or the upcoming healthcare townhalls
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 27, 2017, 08:47:14 am
Kind of ironic, when you think about it.  There we were, during the Cold War, worrying about how Russia was taking over various countries and installing puppets, and now we're the one with a Russian puppet likely at the helm.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on May 27, 2017, 08:05:42 pm
I am so incredibly pissed.




https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/868582312258269184
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 27, 2017, 08:18:28 pm
I am so incredibly pissed.




https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/868582312258269184

Reminds me of a cartoon from the mid-30s that showed Hitler kneeling before Mussolini's throne, asking to be taught.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 27, 2017, 11:30:31 pm
If I had say, the CIA would have popped that ignominious, overconfident pimple already.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on June 01, 2017, 03:26:08 am
https://nyti.ms/2soHWCh (https://nyti.ms/2soHWCh)

Quote
Trump Targets German Trade, and the South Grimaces

GREER, S.C. — No matter that this small Southern city sits squarely in the middle of Trump country: The president, with his criticism of German trade policy, was setting off alarm bells in the mind of Mayor Richard W. Danner.

Mr. Trump, on his recent trip to Europe, reportedly declared the Germans “bad, very bad” on trade; Greer’s City Hall sits mere miles from a BMW automobile plant that employs about 8,800 people. And so after Mr. Danner read the news here, he quickly organized a call with Chamber of Commerce officials, who on Tuesday brainstormed ways to reassure BMW executives that they in fact considered them to be good. Very good.

“There was a real sense of urgency that we need to be clear to BMW and to anyone else who would listen that we can’t take this kind of rhetoric lightly,” said Mr. Danner, who was elected to Greer’s nonpartisan mayor’s office in 1999. “For us, this isn’t a political issue. This is a matter of livelihoods and of a regional economy and a lot of other things that are going on here.”

...

To sum up the article in the URL, Trump voters in South Carolina, where BMW employs over 8,000 people, are suddenly concerned that Trumps' anti-trade rhetoric vis-à-vis Germany might negatively affect them. To which all I can say is "ahaha, serves you right, I hope they close the plant on your asses."

Gee, it's almost like free trade is actually a good thing for the nation's economy.

Besides, they'll have plenty of jobs with all the coal mines that'll be opening back up under Trump, right? Right?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 01, 2017, 08:12:17 am
Everything this man does damages his own supporters the most.  It's amazing.  Just amazing.

Ironbite-and they bought it, hook line and sinker.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 03, 2017, 02:44:47 am
Someone had to ask "what would have Trump done" if he had been the president when Asbestos was discovered to be dangerous?

https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6espsc/trump_misunderstood_mit_climate_research/dicsyr6/

AAAAAAGH!!

Quote

    I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special "dump sites" and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn't hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire.

The Art of the Comeback (1997)

Quote
If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down. [Twitter 17 Oct 2012]

EDIT:

I have come to the conclusion that declaring that USA will leave the Paris treaty is the sinlge most damaging thing that Trump has done to USA so far.

Like, the Muslim bans were unconstitutional, Sessions has been busy making USA worse for minorities and several of Trump's cabinet members may be involved in illegal activity and treason... But for people outside USA those are just things that make is feel intellectually superiour and possibly laugh at and/or feel pity for your people.

Trying to harm a treaty that is so far the best attempt at making nations fight against climate change (no matter how much the treaty needs improvement) is something that is going to actually make most countries on the planet angry at USA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 03, 2017, 03:20:10 pm
Considering before now the only countries who didn't sign on were a country that really couldn't due to being involved in a bloody civil war and a country who thinks the treaty didn't go far enough and is on track to being 90% dependent on renewable energies, there's no reason to leave the accords.  EXCEPT FOR ONE THING!

No money for the Orange Piss Pot.

Ironbite-so OUT IT GOES!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 03, 2017, 04:34:49 pm
There's two factors that I can see:

1. Trump thinks every deal has "winners" and "losers." Since other countries clearly see the Paris agreement as a "win" for them, that means that they must think it's a "loss" for the US. Hence, the US is pulling out so that they don't "lose."

2. Trump hates deals that he doesn't think of. There was one bankruptcy he was involved in where an arrangement was reached that was good for him, good for his creditors, and allowed the workers at the affected business to keep their jobs. He nixed it because it wasn't his idea.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 03, 2017, 05:28:10 pm
He also seems to think that he can negotiate a better deal.

...Except that by leaving (or announcing that USA will leave. Actually the treaty has rules and it will take 2 years before USA can legally be out. In the meantime violating the treaty will have consequences.) USA has lost any leverage it had. Why should others negotiate as USA is already going? The only way to start negotiations now is if USA comes crawling back and that is a sign of weakness that will not give the country a good negotiation position against THE REST OF THE FUCKING PLANET!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 03, 2017, 05:34:01 pm
It is debatable whether the US is bound even by the 2-year rule.

The treaty was never ratified as such by the Senate, as the Constitution requires. It was instead treated as an "executive agreement" which Obama hoped his successor would continue to hold to. (And, for all that she did shit like promote fracking, Clinton wouldn't have done what Trump did.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on June 05, 2017, 12:17:04 pm
https://twitter.com/eemanabbasi/status/871400917995839488




Fuck.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on June 05, 2017, 12:41:08 pm
That is fucked up on so many levels.

Internationally-banned chemical weapons? Why?! Are quick, painless deaths not evil enough for you?

A hospital? That's basically sacred ground in every society that has hospitals! If 9/11 had been a hospital, the resulting war would have been even less controversial, because fuck anyone who bombs a place of healing!

And then we wonder where the anti-US hate comes from.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 05, 2017, 01:00:07 pm
Who the heck uses White phosphorus on a civilian target?

...Apart from Israel of course.

...And Finland classifies it as thermal smoke ammo (it makes a really good white cloud that prevents visibility and even blocks thermal cameras. Also kills people in horrible ways.)

EDIT: And I must ask: What was the point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mosul_(2016%E2%80%93present)#/media/File:Battle_of_Mosul_(2016%E2%80%932017).svg

Mosul has basically been taken over already. This is like shooting a guy in the head after his head has been cut off. Except with civilian casualties, so the metaphor doesn't quite work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on June 05, 2017, 01:06:58 pm
I expect dire consequences for the US. Such as our own despicable tactics being used against us. I am afraid for my life.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 05, 2017, 01:08:25 pm
Going by the logic the US uses when they see other countries (except Israel) do this sort of despicable action, it's time for regime change in the US.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 05, 2017, 08:34:01 pm
I expect dire consequences for the US. Such as our own despicable tactics being used against us. I am afraid for my life.

Eh, one of the small benefits of having nuclear arsenal like ours is that we aren't usually attacked. If that wasn't enough of a deterrent, have you met our thin-skinned, luddite president?

So, really the only thing we lose from using white phosphorous is the moral high-ground (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7FMh3YtK_w).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on June 05, 2017, 09:26:13 pm
Let's be frank, we lost that around the Vietnam era.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 05, 2017, 09:49:05 pm
Let's be frank, we lost that around the Vietnam era.

True, Nixon is famous for saying "By God, we're going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss." It's really not that different from "Grab 'em by the pussy."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on June 06, 2017, 12:44:23 am
Doesn't "puss" (without the "y") mean "mouth"? As in "sour puss" for a pout?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on June 06, 2017, 12:49:40 am
That was my thought as well. ESPECIALLY considering that it was the 70s
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on June 06, 2017, 01:18:03 am
Not to mention, one's a metaphor and the other is not only literal but something he actually did. So even if Nixon was referring to punching marijuana in the vagina, it's not exactly equivalent to Trump's comment.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on June 06, 2017, 03:29:40 am
Given that you tend to smoke Marijuana or eat it - punching them in the mouth is much more likely. I mean even if you were going for a marijuana suppository you would probably stick it up your arse rather than your cunt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 06, 2017, 05:32:41 am
Also, the president who used the campaign slogan "they can't lick our Dick" does not seem like a man who intentionally makes double entendres.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on June 06, 2017, 07:38:42 am
Yeah, but he would start a drug war based on massive amounts of racism.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on June 06, 2017, 08:49:38 am
Also, the president who used the campaign slogan "they can't lick our Dick" does not seem like a man who intentionally makes double entendres.

That's... Actually funny. Licking dicks is something that, in both senses of the word, people actually do. It's sex (whatever Nixon might insist to the contrary); your partner is cooperating, and you've got the time to arrange yourselves on the bed to reach it.

Hitting people in the puss, however, is *way* more commonly used to refer to mouths. If you want to attack someone's gonads, it's a lot easier to kick them. Punching a pussy means punching very low, which is ackward unless you've been specifically trained in hand to hand combat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on June 06, 2017, 09:33:04 am
Or if you're very, very short.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 06, 2017, 10:13:01 am
Or if you're very, very short.

(click to show/hide)

That reminds me, Gnomish monks of the "Waist down fist" clan are recurring villains in a webcomic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 06, 2017, 04:56:53 pm
So the Trump Administration has given the go-ahead for Comny to testify in court on Thursday.  All well and good.  The Orange Piss Pot has also said he's not staying off twitter during the testimony.

Let me say that again.  He will be live tweeting the testimony.

Ironbite-I'm surprised he's got any lawyers left at this point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 06, 2017, 05:26:23 pm
Sigh the cynical part of me is saying that Comey will say nothing of substance or that Trump did not try to obstruct justice of any kind.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 06, 2017, 08:28:03 pm
Sigh the cynical part of me is saying that Comey will say nothing of substance or that Trump did not try to obstruct justice of any kind.

Have I mentioned my Washington Post subscription? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-intelligence-official-told-associates-trump-asked-him-if-he-could-intervene-with-comey-to-get-fbi-to-back-off-flynn/2017/06/06/cc879f14-4ace-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?pushid=593743cd2e12651d0000003c&sw_bypass=true&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.9057dd051c06)

Something tells me that this will be legened-wait for it-dary! Legendary. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqf1BmN4Dag)

Flippancy aside, there will be headlines.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 07, 2017, 01:01:28 am
So the Trump Administration has given the go-ahead for Comny to testify in court on Thursday.  All well and good.  The Orange Piss Pot has also said he's not staying off twitter during the testimony.

Let me say that again.  He will be live tweeting the testimony.

Ironbite-I'm surprised he's got any lawyers left at this point.

I follow Trump on FB out of horrified curiousity. He claimed that mainstream media is "trying to prevent him from using social media" but that he would continue personally delivering the truth to the American people through Twitter...

First of all,  it's his own staff that is begging him not to use Twitter. Second,  this is yet another shot to discredit the media because he doesn't want his fans to find out the truth.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 07, 2017, 01:14:42 am
Wow, Trump asked another intelligence official to obstruct the fbi investigation of possible collusion behind closed doors?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 07, 2017, 03:00:13 am
The world is a very strange place. Trump blocking people on Twitter might be unconstitutional...

https://qz.com/999912/columbia-universitys-free-speech-experts-argue-that-when-trump-blocks-twitter-followers-he-violates-the-constitution/?utm_source=qzfb

And in other Trump-News: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15751336/fbi-trump-russia-comey-trump-flynn

When the police discover a crime but aren't sure if they can report it the usual way because they are worried that the authorities are in on the crime or otherwise corrupt things are bad. When the FBI can't be sure if they can report a crime by the president because the attorney general might be in on it too things are really, REALLY bad.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 07, 2017, 05:01:47 pm
Quote from: Eric Trump
You know what, I-I-I've never seen hatred like this, and to me they're not even people. It's so, so sad, and I mean morality is just gone, um, morals have flown out the window, we deserve so much better than this as a country and, you know, it's so sad. You see the Democratic Party, they're imploding, they're imploding. They have no message, you see the head of the DNC who's a total whackjob, there's no leadership there, and so what do they do? They become obstructionist because they have no message of their own, they have no solid candidates of their own, they lost the election they should have won because they spent seven times the amount of money that my father spent. They have no message, so what do they try and do? They try and obstruct a great man, they try and obstruct his family, they come after us viciously, and it's truly, truly horrible.

From a debate between Jon Ossoff and Karen Handel:

Moderator: Does either candidate support a minimum wage increase? Mr. Ossoff, starts with you.

Ossoff: Yes, I do. The minimum wage should be a living wage. I think we should raise it indexed to the cost of living, because the cost of living varies widely in urban and rural areas, and different states across this country. I think that increase needs to be implemented at a pace that allows business owners to adapt their business plans so they're not shocked, their business plans are not shocked by a sudden increase in labor costs. But look, if someone's working a forty-hour work week, uh, they deserve the kind of standard of living that Americans expect. That's part of the American dream and there are too many folks who are having trouble making ends meet.

Moderator (gesturing to Handel): Minimum wage.

Handel: This is an example of the fundamental difference between a liberal (gesturing to Ossoff) and a conservative. I do not support a livable wage. What I support is making sure that we have an economy that is, is robust, with low taxes and less regulation so that those small businesses that would be dramatically hurt if you impose higher minimum wages on them are able to do what they do best: grow jobs and create good paying jobs for the people in the 6th District.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on June 07, 2017, 05:22:31 pm
Tl;dr version. Conservative says "fuck the poor. Give us all the money!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 07, 2017, 05:54:13 pm
Yeah she literally just said fuck the people, and create more low paying jobs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 07, 2017, 06:00:37 pm
I posted those same quotes on a forum with quite a few conservatives. Here's what one of them had to say in response to some comments from some people further left economically:

Quote
Quote
Quote
Most businessman will do everything possible to pay the least possible wage.
And I don't even call that shitty - that's *what business is*.

Business exists to make money. That's what it's purpose is. If they weren't trying to make money, they'd be a non-profit. A properly run business is going to do everything in it's power to make as much money as possible, because that's it's reason for existing. That's why regulation is good - it gives business an excuse not to do terrible things in the name of a buck.
You're both committing a basic fallacy: good business = cheap business.

While cost management is a necessary consideration for any business, so is revenue generation. A person who can generate $100k/year of revenue while getting a $50k/year
salary is more valuable than a person who can generate $40k/year in revenue while getting a $30k/year salary. Both employees in this basic scenario will increase profitability, but if for some reason one of them had to be let go, any manager with a modicum of business skill would keep the first one and lay off the second one despite the second worker 'costing' less.

And this basic example shows why minimum wages are a bad idea. Let's say a minimum wage of $45k/year is mandated. Now that same manager has to let employee number 2 go because he's costing the company more than the revenue he's earning for them. Meanwhile, employee number 1 couldn't care less about the minimum wage since he's already earning more anyway.

So now E2 gets laid off and everyone complains how greedy the company is. Nevermind that the company wouldn't have made that move absent the minimum wage (remember, E2 was still a profitable company asset at 30k/year).

The labor market works just like any other: price level is set by supply and demand. Start messing with that and the people who need the most help - the ones with the least market value - are going to be the ones left out in the cold.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 07, 2017, 07:35:09 pm
Yeah but a company like Mcdonalds or Walmart which make Billions of dollars in profit a year. Billions. Won't pay their employees living wages or provide basic healthcare, when they can clearly afford to do so. What the fuck do they need billions in profits for? To open more Mcdonalds and Walmarts where they pretty much have them everywhere anyways?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on June 07, 2017, 08:44:56 pm
Yeah but a company like Mcdonalds or Walmart which make Billions of dollars in profit a year. Billions. Won't pay their employees living wages or provide basic healthcare, when they can clearly afford to do so. What the fuck do they need billions in profits for? To open more Mcdonalds and Walmarts where they pretty much have them everywhere anyways?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 07, 2017, 10:43:31 pm
Exactly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 07, 2017, 11:28:36 pm
More conservative silliness:

Quote
You shouldn't expect to make a living wage as an entry level McDonald's employee.

Living wage screams complacency and lack of hustle. Learn a trade. Climb the ladder.

Quote
Quote
If your business cannot afford to pay your staff a living wage, then that business has failed. its really that simple.

That's an incredibly broad, untrue statement.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 08, 2017, 12:20:26 am
Learn a trade. Climb the ladder. Befriend fellow yuppies. Develop a six pack and pecs to DIE for. Slaughter hardbodies on your days off. Be the embodiment of the American Dream.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 08, 2017, 12:22:34 am
So, in other words "fuck bitches, make money."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 08, 2017, 12:34:13 am
Meanwhile, not a peep (from anyone) about the fact that Eric Trump just said that Democrats "aren't even people."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 08, 2017, 01:03:01 am
Eric Trump is Patrick Bateman's new favorite Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 08, 2017, 02:21:50 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/james-comey-statement-senate-intelligence-1.4150016

Full text of former FBI Director James Comey's prepared written statement for his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 08, 2017, 03:26:32 am
More conservative silliness:

Quote
You shouldn't expect to make a living wage as an entry level McDonald's employee.

Living wage screams complacency and lack of hustle. Learn a trade. Climb the ladder.

Quote
Quote
If your business cannot afford to pay your staff a living wage, then that business has failed. its really that simple.

That's an incredibly broad, untrue statement.

If I employ only myself  (perhaps as an old timey shoeshine boy) and can't make enough profits to support myself and my family those people will claim that it is my own damn fault for being bad at business.

...If I run a major showshining enterprise that makes me millions in profits but my employees don't earn a living wage then suddenly those same people think that I'm a great business man and that my employees should be happy not to be able to survive with the wages...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 08, 2017, 10:09:15 am
I hate how we've gone from "While progress is nice we must go slowly into the future for our children" type of conservatives to "FUCK YOU GOT MINE BOOTSTRAPS BABY PARTY BEFORE COUNTRY AND FUCK EVERYONE ELSE!" type of conservatives we've got now.

Ironbite-and I'm not sure when the switch began.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 08, 2017, 11:17:59 am
I'm pretty sure that mindset began back when Reagan took office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 08, 2017, 11:27:17 am
Hey look! More conservative crazy!

Quote
Quote
If your business cannot afford to pay your staff a living wage, then that business has failed. its really that simple.

Quote
I'd be interested to hear a situation where a company that cannot afford a living wage is a viable business.

I try to steer very clear from the politics thread but this has to be addressed.

Why should all jobs and businesses have to offer a "living wage"? Are there not people that want a job that do not need to earn a "living wage"? Would it be wrong that a business model focuses on attracting those employees? And if those that need a "living wage" take a job that does not offer one, how is that the business fault and why should the business increase wages because of that. People know what they will be paid when taking a job offer.

As an accountant that used to work with multiple small businesses offering a "living wage" is not always possible. That does not mean it is failed business or non-viable. It just means that this business adds jobs for those that do not require a "living wage". As it is still possible to offer a decent wage to those who do not need a full "living wage" (students, retired, people who want a second job, spouses who husband/wife earn enough, etc). and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is people taking jobs that were never meant to provide a living wage and then expecting them to.

Quote
To [that] point - he mentioned "students, retired, people who want a second job, spouses who husband/wife earn enough". Those are all part time jobs. I don't think anyone is claiming that a teen working 10 hours a week should be able to live on that wage. (Or even 20 hours/week). But if you're putting in your 35-40 hours (depending on how your jurisdiction does breaks)? You should be making enough to make ends meet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 08, 2017, 12:35:08 pm
...I don't have enough popcorn for this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jun/08/james-comey-testimony-senate-hearing-trump-russia-fbi
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 08, 2017, 12:47:46 pm
...I don't have enough popcorn for this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jun/08/james-comey-testimony-senate-hearing-trump-russia-fbi

Here, let me get you some more...

(https://media.giphy.com/media/GjYjLvGErsggg/giphy.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/DKJhx9l.gif)

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/07/8Aw7I.gif)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on June 08, 2017, 12:57:57 pm
Yeah but a company like Mcdonalds or Walmart which make Billions of dollars in profit a year. Billions. Won't pay their employees living wages or provide basic healthcare, when they can clearly afford to do so. What the fuck do they need billions in profits for? To open more Mcdonalds and Walmarts where they pretty much have them everywhere anyways?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker)

Quote
113 million pension

Quote
billions in profit

Where does the other order of magnitude go?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 08, 2017, 12:58:46 pm
Yeah but a company like Mcdonalds or Walmart which make Billions of dollars in profit a year. Billions. Won't pay their employees living wages or provide basic healthcare, when they can clearly afford to do so. What the fuck do they need billions in profits for? To open more Mcdonalds and Walmarts where they pretty much have them everywhere anyways?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/walmarts-now-ex-ceo-pocket-113-million-pension-6182-times-greater-average-wmt-worker)

Quote
113 million pension

Quote
billions in profit

Where does the other order of magnitude go?

Owners' pockets.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 08, 2017, 01:13:48 pm
McCain actually asked about HER EMAILS because of course Hillary is the real criminal here...

Quote
I think that the American people have a whole lot of questions... obviously, she was a candidate for president at the time, so she was clearly involved in this whole... fake news...


...And then he accidentally referred to Comey as "president Comey."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 08, 2017, 02:05:38 pm
I think dementia is starting to settle in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 08, 2017, 02:13:04 pm
I think dementia is starting to settle in.

I thought joining the Republican Party was the first sign of that.

(http://www.trekcc.org/forum/images/smilies/icon_shiftyeyes.gif) (http://www.trekcc.org/forum/images/smilies/icon_shiftyeyes.gif)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 08, 2017, 02:49:46 pm
McCain has released a statement where he said that his strange behaviour was due to staying up too late watching sports...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 08, 2017, 03:12:33 pm
Uh huh suuuuuuure.

Ironbite-and not that he's getting the dementia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 08, 2017, 05:44:20 pm
"'Hope' cannot be the basis for an obstruction of justice," said the GOP. "It's simply wishing and stating preferences," they said.

"Frig off, Ricky!" Says the law (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1434094.html).

Quote
In McDonald's case, the district court based the obstruction of justice enhancement on:  (1) Callahan's testimony that, when she visited McDonald while he was incarcerated, he showed her a note urging her not to say anything about the knife;  and (2) the letter McDonald wrote to Callahan which stated in part, “I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you even if they promised not to prosecute you[.]”  The district court did not err by finding Callahan's testimony “totally believable,” nor did it err by imposing a two-level increase for obstruction of justice based on McDonald's attempts to prevent Callahan from revealing McDonald carried a concealed knife during the bank robbery.

I need to watch the whole thing through. Hopefully I get a bingo or two.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 09, 2017, 05:57:09 pm
So the Orange Piss Pot is playing 12-D chess and we're all to stupid to counter his moves because he's so advanced?  He wants to testify. (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337165-trump-im-100-percent-willing-to-testify-under-oath)

Quote
President Trump said Friday he is "100 percent" willing to testify under oath about his interactions with James Comey in order to dispute the fired FBI director’s claims.

“One hundred percent,” Trump said when asked if he would give a sworn statement to Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into Russia’s election interference.

"I would be glad to tell him exactly what I told you,” the president said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.

In his first comments since Comey's dramatic testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Trump accused the ousted FBI chief of making false statements about their private conversations.

Trump said Comey’s statements vindicated his long-held claims that he did not collude with Russia to tip the election in his favor and that he did not interfere with the federal probe.
“Yesterday showed no collusion, no obstruction,” he said. “But we were very, very happy and, frankly, James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said. And some of the things that he said just weren't true.”

Trump again refused to say whether there are secret recordings of his conversations with Comey, a stunning suggestion he made on Twitter three days after he decided to ax him.

But he indicated the tapes might not exist, telling reporters, “you will be very disappointed when you hear the answer.”

Trump’s offer to sit for an interview with Mueller raises the stakes in the Russia probe.

Comey’s testimony gave the special counsel plenty of material to consider as he investigates whether the president or his associates acted illegally.

Trump said he did not pressure the FBI chief to drop an investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, reiterating a denial made by his personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz.

“I didn’t say that,” Trump said of his alleged request of Comey to “let go” of the Flynn probe.

Trump flatly denied that he demanded a pledge of personal loyalty from the former FBI director.

“No,” Trump said. “I hardly know the man, I’m gonna say, 'I want you to pledge allegiance.’ ”

Democrats and some legal experts have cited those actions to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice in the Russia probe.

The question of whether there are tapes of his conversations with Comey has also dogged Trump. 

"James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" Trump tweeted on May 12.

Ironbite-12-D CHESS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 09, 2017, 07:33:21 pm
Being that Trump lies about everything, he's either lying that he wants to testify, or he's going to lie when he does testify, and then lie about things he said when he did testify.
Can we just kick this clown out of office? He's damaging the position.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 09, 2017, 09:18:40 pm
It also doesn't help that Paul Ryan tried to excuse any obstruction of justice... by saying that Trump is new at being President.

To which I say: He's the fucking President. He doesn't get leeway for being new. When your cashier at the grocery store messes up, you lose maybe ten minutes. When the President messes up, people DIE.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 10, 2017, 05:39:52 am
To which I say: He's the fucking President. He doesn't get leeway for being new. When your cashier at the grocery store messes up, you lose maybe ten minutes. When the President messes up, people DIE.

This is why I facepalm whenever people call for a leader who is not a politician. In any other job you need to familiarize yourself with an institution through experience before you are allowed to lead one and representative democracy is a pretty complicated system to lead. No matter what your intentions are you can easily cause more harm than good if you don't have detailed understanding of how things actually work. In Trump's case, his lack of understanding is actually fortunate for the whole world since his intentions are so destructive.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on June 10, 2017, 10:52:31 am
The thing is, a non-politician president COULD work, if they had good counsel to whom they bothered to listen.  Alas, Drumpf lacks the former and refuses to do the latter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 10, 2017, 07:31:30 pm
Yeah, it could work but it still is a hindrance to a candidate. It's when people try to twist the lack of experience in politics into a positive aspect of a candidate for a high office when I get annoyed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 10, 2017, 07:33:10 pm
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll299.xml

This past week, the House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act to repeal much of Dodd-Frank.

No Democrats voted for the bill. One Republican voted against, Rep. Jones (NC 3rd). Eleven Representatives did not vote: Aguilar (D-CA 31st), Clyburn (D-SC 6th), Costa (D-CA 16th), Cummings (D-MD 7th), DeFazio (D-OR 4th), Engel (D-NY 16th), Johnson (R-TX 3rd), Maloney (D-NY 12th), Marino (R-PA 10th), Napolitano (D-CA 32nd), and Reichert (R-WA 8th).

Among other things, the act would effectively gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--something its progenitor, Elizabeth Warren, likes to say has given Republicans eleven billion reasons and counting to hate her.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 12, 2017, 03:44:18 pm
"Trump has never had any business or personal dealings with the Russian mafia, with some exceptions​..."

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6grvkp/my_lawyers_got_trump_to_admit_30_lies_under_oath/disodvu/?context=3

Quote

    Semion Mogilevich. He is considered a strategic threat to national security. He traffics in weapons of mass destruction, nuclear materials, drugs, prostitutes, precious gems, and stolen art.

    Vyacheslav “Yaponchik” Ivankov. He was Mogilevich’s lieutenant and resident of Trump Tower and Trump Taj Mahal. The FBI called him the "most dangerous Mobster in America" during a May 15, 1996 congressional hearing. He was gunned down by a sniper on a Moscow street after publicly discussing Mogilevich’s close ties to Putin.

    David Bogatin and Michael Markowitz. Identified by U.S. officials as a member of the Semion Mogilevich organized crime family in the 1990s. They owned five condos in Trump Tower.

    Dmitry Rybolovlev. He bought Donald Trump’s house for $100 million in 2008. Frequently flew halfway around the world to meet up with Trump in various cities during or after the election.

    Felix Komarov. Owned condo in Trump Plaza. Laundered money through a Rolls-Royce dealership with Mr. Ivankov.

    Boris Berezovsky. "Godfather of the Kremlin" owned a Trump condo from 2001 - 2008.

    Felix Sater. Russian Mobster turned FBI informant who's title is 'Senior advisor to Donald Trump.' He ran Bayrock Group, LLC with Donald Trump and Tevfik Arif.

    Tevfik Arif. A Kazakhstan-born former Soviet official. He was charged in 2010 by Turkey for the crime of smuggling underage girls into the country for prostitution purposes. He was also Trump's business partner.

    Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov Russian Mobster boss who had been a fugitive after James Comey indicted him for fixing figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was eventually found running a global gambling ring one floor below Trump's penthouse apartment. He escaped a second time only to be turn up 3 months later in Moscow as a VIP attendee for Donald Trump's Miss Universe 2013. Guess who was the federal prosecutor who busted up the global gambling ring? Preet Bharara

    Helly Nahmad. bought all the units on the 51st floor for more than $18.4 million. He went to prison for about five months in 2014 for leading a high-stakes gambling network.

    Vadim Trincher. Ran a connected ring for Russian oligarchs and high stakes gambling network. He “laundered approximately $100 million in proceeds from their gambling operation in Russia and Ukraine through shell companies and bank accounts in Cyprus.”

    Alexsander Ivanovich Lebed. National security advisor for Boris Yeltsin who visited met with Trump in 1997 to discuss development projects in Moscow.

    Viktor Vekselberg. Former KGB and oligarch who was the second largest shareholder in the Bank of Cyprus. Current Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, was Vice President of Bank of Cyprus.

    Oleg Deripaska. His ties go beyond the $10 million dollars he paid Paul Manafort​. He's been trying to form connections with powerful Republicans for many years Between 2003-2005, Deripaska paid $560,000 to Bob Dole's lobbying firm for assistance in obtaining a US Visa. During the 2008 Presidential Election, Paul Manafort and Rick Davis (Trump's foreign policy advisor) introduced Oleg to John McCain with hopes of forming a strong relationship.

    Rinat Akhmetov. Richest person in Ukraine who is suspected leader of Ukraine Mafia. Personally hired and paid Paul Manafort in 2005 to be advisor for Viktor Yanukovych election campaign.

    Dmytro Firtash. Pro-Russian Ukrainian billionaire who is one of Paul Manafort’s biggest clients. By his own admission, he maintains strong ties with a recurring figure on this scene, the reputed Ukrainian/Russian mob boss Semion Mogilevich.

    Roy Cohn. He was Trump's long time lawyer, friend, and go-to lawyer for the mob. Some of his clients included the Genovese Family, Gambino Family, and the Red Mafiya. Sometime in the 1980's Roy Cohn introduced Paul Manafort and Roger Stone to Donald Trump.

    Michael Cohen. He has been working for The Trump Organization since 2007 and is a member of the Trump World Tower Condominium Board and the Trump Park Avenue Condominium Board. He also has been a confidant of the Russian organized criminality since at least 1999 and has been laundering money for Russian citizens having connections with the Russian mafia.

    Ivana Trump. Ivana Trump went into business with two known Russian mobsters, Boris and Michael Vax.

Sources can be found from the link.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 12, 2017, 08:31:52 pm
Since I don't want to get bogged down in the morass that is Trump's Twitter account (or even the official POTUS one), has there been any acknowledgement from the administration that today's the 50th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia?

EDIT:

Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report

Mitt Romney.

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 13, 2017, 02:14:58 pm
Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report

Mitt Romney.

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin

Utah. Don't care.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 13, 2017, 02:21:38 pm
Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report

Mitt Romney.

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin

Utah. Don't care.

But why is Joe Biden encouraging Mitt Romney to run? I could see Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio pushing Romney to run, but Biden? Biden, you would think, should want Romney as far from any position of influence as he could get him; instead, he wants the guy in the US freakin' Senate!

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 13, 2017, 02:37:15 pm
Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report

Mitt Romney.

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin

Utah. Don't care.

But why is Joe Biden encouraging Mitt Romney to run? I could see Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio pushing Romney to run, but Biden? Biden, you would think, should want Romney as far from any position of influence as he could get him; instead, he wants the guy in the US freakin' Senate!

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin

UTAH! Mother fucking Utah! Did I mention UTAH? The most Mormon and Conservative state in the country. Even in a political climate like this, where there is a 15% swing to the left as per FiveThirtyEight, would still leave the leave a typical democrat losing to a standard Republican by almost 25%. Second, unlike Orrin Hatch, Romney is slightly more moderate and has a more extensive track-record of compromising across party lines. Third, Biden is saying it more as a statement about Romney as a person than Romney as a politician. Seriously, you've been on this "let's nit-pick everything about the democrats" for almost a year now and it is getting old.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 13, 2017, 02:38:21 pm
Yeah, Queen, it seems for Dpareja that purity is starting to take a paramount importance in terms of nitpicking.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 13, 2017, 03:23:04 pm
I think it's pretty obvious that if Biden is endorsing Romney, it's because Romney is a far more honorable and less horrible person than Hatch. I don't necessarily believe it, but we can't really go DOWN from where we are with him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 13, 2017, 03:33:20 pm
That's the type of reaching across the aisle I wanna see.

Ironbite-though Biden should've endorsed Hatch as the GOP voters will then run screaming from their tainted candidate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 13, 2017, 03:45:31 pm
It's like... You have gangrene in your foot and someone says that you should amputate it to save your life. But you complain that you want the foot healed and functional, not amputated and the gangrene keeps spreading further and further and soon you are going to have to lose the leg or die.

This is not the perfect metaphor for politics but my point is that you sometimes need to make tactical decisions and vote for someone with a chance of passing even if they are only slightly better than the other alternatives.

Doesn't do much good to say "I did not vote because Hillary wasn't any better than Trump" now does it? Similarly if Romney is at least better than the other guy vote for him rather than wasting your vote in the gerrymandered areas.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 13, 2017, 04:19:14 pm
It's like... You have gangrene in your foot and someone says that you should amputate it to save your life. But you complain that you want the foot healed and functional, not amputated and the gangrene keeps spreading further and further and soon you are going to have to lose the leg or die.

This is not the perfect metaphor for politics but my point is that you sometimes need to make tactical decisions and vote for someone with a chance of passing even if they are only slightly better than the other alternatives.

Doesn't do much good to say "I did not vote because Hillary wasn't any better than Trump" now does it? Similarly if Romney is at least better than the other guy vote for him rather than wasting your vote in the gerrymandered areas.

Romney would only be better than the other guy in the Republican primary.

As for why I rag on the Dems so much, it's because they've been offering the same sort of milquetoast, corporatist, neo-liberal centre-right candidates for decades now, and especially over the last eight years, it's cost them literally over a thousand seats--look at how many state houses and Governorships the Republicans now control, not to mention the Presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and let's not forget all those vacancies on the lower federal courts.

They have not, of late, tried running populist left candidates en masse, even though populist left policies almost universally have well over 50% support and the most popular politician in the country is a populist left one (by US standards, anyway; most anywhere else he'd be a centrist or centre-right). So why, when your strategy has so clearly failed, would you keep doing that and not try the one thing neither party has tried on a large scale, when you know that the most prominent figure who espouses precisely that is incredibly popular--who can get roomfuls of rural Trump voters in supposedly solidly-Republican states to cheer his agenda?

From a Narcotics Anonymous text in 1981: "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results." (Earliest known occurrence)

The Republicans keep doing it with trickle-down economics. The Democrats keep doing it with corporatist centre-right candidates.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on June 13, 2017, 04:56:48 pm
Meanwhile, guess who Joe Biden thinks should run for Senate if Orrin Hatch declines to run again in 2018?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337226-biden-encourages-romney-to-launch-senate-bid-report

Mitt Romney.

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin

Utah. Don't care.

But why is Joe Biden encouraging Mitt Romney to run? I could see Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio pushing Romney to run, but Biden? Biden, you would think, should want Romney as far from any position of influence as he could get him; instead, he wants the guy in the US freakin' Senate!

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin

UTAH! Mother fucking Utah! Did I mention UTAH? The most Mormon and Conservative state in the country. Even in a political climate like this, where there is a 15% swing to the left as per FiveThirtyEight, would still leave the leave a typical democrat losing to a standard Republican by almost 25%. Second, unlike Orrin Hatch, Romney is slightly more moderate and has a more extensive track-record of compromising across party lines. Third, Biden is saying it more as a statement about Romney as a person than Romney as a politician. Seriously, you've been on this "let's nit-pick everything about the democrats" for almost a year now and it is getting old.

I visited Utah recently. I was surprised by how nice a place it was, and particularly how good their local beer was when I thought they were basically dry.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on June 14, 2017, 01:28:54 am
I visited Utah recently. I was surprised by how nice a place it was, and particularly how good their local beer was when I thought they were basically dry.

Yeah as far as Mormon's go I have more respect for them then I do for southern baptists because they seem more likely to be Huckabee brand conservatives then Cruz brand conservatives who dominate the SBs and other white evangelical prodestants.

What I mean by that I'm talking about this chart from Vox based on polling supports of different 2016 presidential candidates on their moral priorities.

(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tw9-BpeZKNTgI2_65XTLePO_ahI=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5999963/Figure1Haidt.0.png)

Huckabee type conservatives/fundies I can respect at least sometimes as well meaning but misguided.  They have overly strict rules, but they still have a decent level of empathy and seem to apply the rules to themselves (hence their low liberty score).  Cruz fundies meanwhile only want punish people for being different but don't care about following their rules, that's for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on June 14, 2017, 01:37:15 am
I've often wondered why anyone would support Ted Cruz. He seems to be the worst of everything and completely lacking in charisma as a finishing touch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on June 14, 2017, 01:39:21 am
Jeb suddenly seems... fine?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 14, 2017, 01:48:17 am
Jeb suddenly seems... fine?

Jeb's a creature of the donor class. He's bad on a whole different axis.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on June 14, 2017, 01:52:59 am
I've often wondered why anyone would support Ted Cruz. He seems to be the worst of everything and completely lacking in charisma as a finishing touch.

It's because Ted Cruz says if elected he'll stone the adultress to death just like Jesus would.  This is very appealing to some because they also want to stone her to death.

Personally what I found most surprising was that Rubio's supporters were worse then Trumps.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 14, 2017, 01:21:09 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/14/house-majority-whip-steve-scalise-shot-congressional-baseball-practice

The House majority whip, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), is among those shot by a gunman at the Republican practice for the Congressional baseball game. He, along with the others shot, are expected to make a full recovery.

The gunman, who was shot by police and died of his wounds, is reportedly someone who volunteered Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) presidential campaign.

Sen. Sanders has condemned the shooter's actions.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYk6vsZLmDY

Speaker Ryan and Rep. Pelosi speak on the House floor regarding the shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAFwDY-IQQo

Sen. Sanders speaks on the Senate floor regarding the shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRa2966Gk9k

Speaker Gingrich on the shooting.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 14, 2017, 06:27:42 pm
Boom! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?pushid=5941b725658e691d00000050&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.ec5de09fddf1)


Quote
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/86/869bb3a819ab93f42da100ff6bfe66cd6cf6993e61e2fb31dc6985b59abf71cf.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 14, 2017, 06:30:48 pm
And apparently his aides are having to talk him out of firing said special investigator.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 14, 2017, 06:42:53 pm
If he tried to fire the special investigator, he'd look guiltier than Nixon...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 14, 2017, 06:43:38 pm
The special investigator that, if I remember correctly, he doesn't have the authority to fire in the first place. So yeah, if he tries to fire him, all it will do is add evidence to the obstruction of justice investigation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 14, 2017, 06:52:17 pm
He has no idea the optics on that.  No idea at all.

Ironbite-I think if Ossoff wins next week the GOP will start floating the idea of impeachment.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 14, 2017, 07:24:02 pm
The special investigator that, if I remember correctly, he doesn't have the authority to fire in the first place. So yeah, if he tries to fire him, all it will do is add evidence to the obstruction of justice investigation.

But I think the deputy AG can fire the special investigator, and Trump can fire the deputy AG...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 14, 2017, 08:20:31 pm
That would require someone in that job with a functioning brain.

Certainly what I'd do if I was stuck as an Intelligence / Managing Agent for the Administration - get the Deputy Attorney General to fire him, and then dig up / create a scandal on the DAG; maybe sneak incriminating photos such as child pornography on to his computer, and make it look like the Special Investigator was also on to the DAG via Fox News "Special Report".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 15, 2017, 02:46:28 am
"QATAR FUNDS AND ARMS ISIS! ...Also, we are selling guns to Qatar. So many guns. 12 Billions of dollards and very bigly amount of jobs created in USA."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sells-qatar-12-billion-arms-days-after-accusing-it-of-funding-terrorism/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 15, 2017, 07:51:18 am
https://apnews.com/b5383189b4dc4dea94890f13846c2639/AP-sources:-Trump-tells-senators-House-health-bill-'mean

Quote
One source said Trump called the House bill “mean, mean, mean” and said, “We need to be more generous, more kind.” The other source said Trump used a vulgarity to describe the House bill and told the senators, “We need to be more generous.”

Either he realizes that taking healthcare away from people will hurt his image and legacy (it will affect white people, too, after all) or there really is a tiny island of empathy in the sea of his egomania. I would be surprised if the republicans failed to convince him to sign any bill they put in front of him, though. It's not like he bothers to read through them so they can use lies if necessary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 15, 2017, 07:58:04 am
Then why the fuck did he come out in such strong support for out in the first place?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 15, 2017, 08:15:54 am
Because he is a fucking moron who thinks he can one-up Obama by destroying "Obamacare" and replacing it with "Trumpcare". I don't know what is bothering him in the Republican plan and the AP's sources didn't specify it either. It's possible that he genuinely thought that the Republican plan would be more popular than ACA and it's so bad that its horribleness got through his thick skull and limited understanding when it was described to him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 15, 2017, 09:07:21 am
Or he's tired of seeing his approval ratings in the 30s and never climbing out of there and wants to change that.

Ironbite-this is the same man who thought firing the FBI director would stop an investigation and look where we're at now
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 15, 2017, 09:28:33 am
He needs to show that he is better than Obama, this means wrecking or at least appearing to wreck Obamacare.

Afterwards he can say that he saved the country with Trumpcare/AHCA/ACA even if it is nothing but "literally just Obamacare except this time have the name Trump somehow attached to it."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 15, 2017, 09:59:02 am
Yeah except trumpcare will leave 24 million without health care.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 15, 2017, 10:01:24 am
Yeah. For the Republicans the main goal is to get rid of the taxes that fund the ACA so their proposal will not include the resources to provide actual insurance for people. If Trump was ignorant enough to think that the Republican proposal would be at least somewhat comparable to ACA and in a moment of clarity realized there is no way he can polish the turd the Republicans are producing it explains his dismay.

Edit: By chance, I just encountered this article. It seems there is an argument among the Republicans how much of the taxes they should cut. The Republicans who want the government to be an at least somewhat functional institution are not as eager to cut them all as are the ones for whom government is the source of all evil.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-taxes-idUSKBN19619M?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 15, 2017, 06:20:49 pm
Because he is a fucking moron who thinks he can one-up Obama by destroying "Obamacare" and replacing it with "Trumpcare". I don't know what is bothering him in the Republican plan and the AP's sources didn't specify it either. It's possible that he genuinely thought that the Republican plan would be more popular than ACA and it's so bad that its horribleness got through his thick skull and limited understanding when it was described to him.

My take is this: Trump is not smart. He lacks empathy, self-awareness, attention to detail, and work ethic. That makes for a clusterfuck of a perfect storm in which Trump really doesn't care about what is passed, as long as he can tell his base that it is "great" and that he did it. His call for making the bill "less mean" is only to dull criticism directed at the bill for leaving an estimated 23 million people without health insurance, and not for any empathy for the 23 million people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 15, 2017, 07:22:55 pm
It makes you wonder how he functioned as a CEO of a corporation. I'm willing to bet his corporation was run as chaotic as his white house is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 15, 2017, 07:32:03 pm
I don't think empathy has ever been or will ever be the main motivator for him but I don't think he is incapable of feeling it either. He probably does feel good if he does something that he thinks helps people but in these cases the main motivator is still his own or his family's material well-being and occasionally his own need for being popular. When the sense of empathy is in conflict with his own interests, it is something that is easy for him to suppress.

If Trump thought he could sell the bill to his supporters as a success he would undoubtedly stand behind it. I just think it might finally have dawned on him how bad the bill is when he was told what actually is in it and he realizes he is risking losing many of his fans whose adoration is a big motivation for him - that's why the rallies even after the election victory.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 16, 2017, 10:56:41 am
So trump went on tv today to cry that he is under investigation and blamed the attorney general for telling him to fire Comey. But I thought you were going to fire Comey no matter if it was recommended or not Donnie? It's everyone's fault but yours I suppose.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 16, 2017, 11:36:18 am
And he's blaming the Deputy AG on this.

Ironbite-I'm not sure he understands what his position in the country is now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 16, 2017, 11:44:56 am
Meanwhile inside Trump's head:

Quote
I hope you understand that the knowledge I bring,
Puts me in the position of a god or a king,
'Cause I'm blessed with the gift of the magic touch,
And I wouldn't say that I'm asking for too much.
All you have to do is get down on your knees and pray,
And I promise you the remedy is on its way,
But you can never be like me so don't waste your time,
Because I reign supreme and my position is divine.

What's wrong with being self-possessed?
Nobody satisfied with being second best.
I've got the gift and I know that I'm blessed,
And I've got to get it off my chest.
I'm the biggest,
The best,
Better than the rest,
Better than the rest.

EDIT: A friendly reminder... Now that Trump is talking about a metaphorical witch hunt that he is a victim of keep in mind that his followers went on a literal witch hunt during the campaign: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/nov/04/marina-abramovic-podesta-clinton-emails-satanism-accusations
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 16, 2017, 07:11:22 pm
And he's blaming the Deputy AG on this.

Ironbite-I'm not sure he understands what his position in the country is now.

"The buck stops with that other guy."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 18, 2017, 03:07:58 am
People are resigning from the government run group that was established to fight HIV/AIDS.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/trump-hiv-aids-pacha-resignations?utm_term=.tpVJemoMg#.pwEV031Kj

This may have something to do with VP Mike "Ride the lightning" Pence who is known for his homophobia and has previously campaigned with the promise to use government funding meant to combat HIV for "Gay conversion therapy."

http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pences-most-controversial-stances-on-gay-rights-abortion-and-smoking-2016-11?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 18, 2017, 05:45:01 am
Well, we know that it's only those damn fags who get AIDS, so if we can just get them all back on God's intended path, there'll be no more AIDS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 19, 2017, 10:53:08 pm
http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-ahca-health-care-senate-2017-6

Looks like Senate Dems are pulling out all the stops to get the Senate Republicans to bring their version of health-care reform into the light of day, and do things that you'd normally do with bills, like hold committee hearings and have debates on the Senate floor.

They're going to refuse unanimous consent to any motion that requires it and insist on roll call votes whenever they can--basically grinding the Senate to a screeching halt.

Right now, if I'm Trump, what I do is nominate a FEMA director, because there was just a horrific forest fire in Portugal and we need someone in charge at FEMA so that we can respond properly if that happens here! Then dare the Dems to block that nomination. (If the FEMA director requires Senate confirmation. I don't know if it does. Also, FEMA's probably better off now with a bunch of professionals at the highest non-political tier overseeing things than it would be with anybody Trump might appoint, but if I were in Trump's position, that would be my tactic.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 21, 2017, 09:15:52 pm
Continued from another thread (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=13.10485)

Seriously all these special elections have been in safe Republican strongholds.  It's disappointing that we lost but to come so close?  Dude that's amazing.

Ironbite-+20 districts almost falling does not bold good fortunes for the +6 districts they'll have to defend come 2018.

I point you to the recent special election for New York's State Assembly, where a district that went +23 for Trump and +37 for the Republican candidate in 2016 went to a Sanders delegate in said special election by 16. These districts could have been flipped.

(And note that New York Republicans these days are not the John Lindsay/Jacob Javits/Nelson Rockefeller-style Republicans of decades past; they are firmly Trump/Tea Party-brand Republicans.)

I'm about to drop some knowledge on this thread. Ossoff could have won GA-6, but not by being more BernieBro. The reason for this is multifaceted, and well, speculative (we are discussing counterfactuals, after all).

Let's break down why so much attention was put on Georgia-6. To understand what happened, one must understand a brief history. Georgia-6 was heavily gerrymandered following the 2010 Mid-Term election. The district was drawn to include a lot of white people with college degrees (56% of people in the district have a college degree). However, white people with a college degree are, on average, less conservative than white people without a college degree, so you need more of them to get the same reliably Republican district. Because of this, the district was drawn so as to include fewer racial minorities (13.4% black and 13.4% Hispanic).

Now, the reason people focused on GA-6 was because it was relatively favorable to Clinton for a Republican district. While the national popular vote was +2% for Clinton, GA-6 was only -6. So, by this measure, you could say that GA-6 was 8 percentage points more Republican than the nation as a whole. However, we all know that Trump lost white educated voters (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/) vis-a-vis Romney. While Hillary lost GA-6 by only 6% points, Tom Price (R) won the district by 23.5%, indicating that while the district had soured on Trump, generic Congressional Republicans still held considerable clout. Typically, when evaluating the sway of a district, pollsters rely on presidential results due to the fact that (1) the president is the only office which is nationally elected and (2) the president is a singular person, as opposed to 435 representatives who may be good candidates or terrible candidates.* While typically accurate, this district is a bit of an anomaly because while reliably republican, it really wasn't too keen on Trump due to its demographics. If one were to only look at the districts, the GOP won SC-5 by 20.5 (incumbent) and GA-6 by 23.5 (also incumbent). Incumbency typically adds about 3 percent, so reduce that to 17.5 and 20.5. Thus, both of yesterdays races continued the 15% democratic swing that we've seen in Congressional special elections this year.

Which brings me to how Ossoff could have won. Realistically, it would be very difficult no matter what he did being in such a red district. Nevertheless, based on opinion polling and the area, his best bet would probably be to tie Handel to Trump (remember, the district doesn't like him) and Trumpcare (22% favorability nationwide, as well as a bungled mess of incompetence). He would also benefit from a reduced turnout as that would leave dissatisfied and indifferent Republicans at home, while bringing out fired up democrats angry with Trump.** Essentially, the district has more Republicans than Democrats, so if more people vote, odds are that more of those people are Republicans. If Ossoff were more of a BernieBro, it would bring out the democratic base, but likely at the expense of Republican voters' indifference (which he needs to keep them at home). Additionally, GA-6 isn't swayed by populism: Trump's right-wing populism didn't convince the district, nor did Bernie's left-wing populism as it went to Hillary by 60-40%. A moderate democrat that is competent (in contrast to Trump) and flies under the radar was the best bet Democrats had, and Ossoff goofed by raising and spending so much money, which caused the GOP and Republican PACs to spend money, and all the attention fired up Republican voters and brought them out.

Which brings me to my conclusion:

So that bitch Handel won - repulsive Republican idiot running a little haven for inbreds and morons.

I'd rant about this, but it would just lead to another flaming contest between Queen and myself.


I don't pick on you cause Bernie. I pick on you because you obviously have pre-determined narratives that you push forward without critical thought, conveniently ignoring anomalies to your hypothesis. Very often, your position is "Bernie good, moderate dems bad, more Bernie-style dems would always win." I don't dispute that Bernie-style dems can win many districts, such as Wisconsin-1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zAyPRbels) (90% white, 25% of people with a college degree, voted for Bernie over Hillary by 55-45, and considerably less Republican than GA-6 or SC-5). I pick on you because very often your pre-determined narrative does not hold up to scrutiny (ex. New York's 9th State District below) or are unnecessarily vitriolic to non-Bernie-style-dems ("where no chairs were thrown"). By all means, be political. But when your pre-determined narrative is obvious, I cringe, roll my eyes, and make light of it.

*While Trump was a bad candidate, in the sense that he had no morals and enough scandals to keep Oliver Pope busy until retirement, he isn't the kind of "bad candidate" that is meant. Typically, a "bad candidate" refers to the vote share, and while Trump lost some groups (college educated whites and women), he gained others (uneducated whites and men). "Bad candidates" typically refer to vote share, and while Trump lost some groups vis-a-vis Romney (such as whites with a college degree), he made considerable gains among other groups (such as whites without a college degree).
**Reduced turnout also helped the democrats in the NY state race you mentioned. NY-9 (state) and GA-6 turned out 60,000 and 326,000 people in November 2016, respectively, while their special elections had 4,000 (6.66%) and 260,000 (80%) people, respectively. Demographically, the two are similar, with GA-6 being slightly more educated. Nevertheless, the difference maker for NY-9 was that demoralized and indifferent republicans stayed home, while fired up democrats voted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 22, 2017, 12:16:41 am
And when you constantly use the term "BernieBro," I have to wonder what your motivations are.

What I do know is that current Democratic Party model has seen them lose: the House (2010), the Senate (2014), the Presidency (2016), over 1000 state legislative seats (2009 to 2016), 69 of 99 state legislative bodies, and a net 13 governorships (2009 to 2016).

I'll let the opposite case be made by people who are more knowledgeable on the matter than I am:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTYpjU3MENc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJuzOqKjLVg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9hpLVq0Bg
EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8smqy7tBLaE
EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr1JStfBfM0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBxNcXrQRg
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 24, 2017, 01:02:32 am
https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/will-not-support-fifth-gop-senator-comes-obamacare-repeal-bill/

Some Republicans are breaking ranks and suggesting that they might vote against the Trumpcare. On the other hand I am sure that at least a few Democrats will support the GOP like they did during the Obama years...

EDIT:

Quote
Heller joins GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mike Lee (Utah) and Ted Cruz (Texas) in

...And actually I am calling bullshit on this list. There is no way in hell that Paul or Cruz will do anything that might suggest that they have a backbone.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 24, 2017, 01:08:01 am
Paul and Cruz want the bill to be harsher.

And I suspect the DNC and DSCC will refuse to support any sitting Democratic Senator who votes for this bill--their rhetoric has made it very clear that this is a core issue for them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 24, 2017, 03:17:29 pm
DNC has made it perfectly clear that any senator who votes for this thing risks getting primaried.  Might be enough to get a few of the Blue Dogs in line.

Ironbite-but the GOP breaking ranks?  Yeah not happening.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 24, 2017, 03:23:27 pm
DNC has made it perfectly clear that any senator who votes for this thing risks getting primaried.  Might be enough to get a few of the Blue Dogs in line.

Ironbite-but the GOP breaking ranks?  Yeah not happening.

Paul's already broken ranks once, on the vote to allow reconciliation to be used. (In protest that they hadn't presented their replacement plan, but nonetheless.)

Collins and Murkowski are well known to be opposed to cutting funding to Planned Parenthood.

Portman and Heller (and others, like Johnson) are from states which expanded Medicaid, and don't want to risk the electoral consequences of voting for a bill which cuts Medicaid--especially Heller, who's up for reelection in 2018 (while Portman and Johnson aren't) in a state Clinton carried (which Portman and Johnson also aren't), so they might be loath to jeopardize the Medicaid expansion.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 24, 2017, 11:57:04 pm
Oh, trust me, Ron Johnson's voting for this garbage. He's my senator and from day 1 of Trump, he's done nothing that wasn't in line with the Republican platform or Trump's fascism.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 25, 2017, 01:56:16 am
Oh, trust me, Ron Johnson's voting for this garbage. He's my senator and from day 1 of Trump, he's done nothing that wasn't in line with the Republican platform or Trump's fascism.

Which is why I mentioned Johnson only as a parenthetical. I know he's awful.

But Heller has to be scared, and Portman was on record saying that he wouldn't vote for anything that threatened Ohio's Medicaid expansion.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 26, 2017, 02:23:30 pm
(https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19420666_10159373168985725_9193384086832451050_n.png?oh=e64976d0e77cc17d65c86097809e1725&oe=59C79D84)

Trump tweet that was also put on his FB page. Plenty of loud fans there still support him even as others basically say "DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT HE JUST TWEETED?!?!?!?!?!?!"

Also, funny that they have to "work hard" even when they have majority.

So I suppose if the Trumpcare fails boths sides are going to say that Democrats are responsible. Democrats because they are going to brag about preventing Trumpcare from passing and Republicans because they are going to cry fake tears as they are finding new ways to sabotage Obamacare.

And when millions of people are suddenly without insurance Trump fans are not going to blame him, no either they praise the GOP for saving money and kicking out the moochers or they are going to put the blame on Democrats and Obamacare because someone one TV or Twitter said it was their fault.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 26, 2017, 03:48:09 pm
The problem is that ACA relies do heavily on active government support that it is amazingly easy to sabotage. Trump and the Republicans just have to keep insisting it's a failure and do nothing to fix it and eventually it will collapse on its own. Insurance companies are already pulling out at the drop of a hat because they aren't making all of the money immediately, so they pretty much just have to encourage them to pull out. It's a self fulfilling prophesy.

The problem is that both parties keep trying capitalist solutions and that's just not compatible with American capitalism where immediate gains are more important than all, including long term profit and stability, even when that long term profit is more than all of the short term gains ever. If they're not making all of the money right now, then they're failing and making none of the money. It's an amazingly broken system.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 30, 2017, 03:59:38 am
(http://)https://i.imgur.com/F1KXhQg.jpg

"By the time this hits shelves in the morning, there's a good chance that this will be old news as we'll have moved on to the latest way that Trump has massively humiliated us all."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 30, 2017, 06:02:36 pm
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/trump-administration-appoints-anti-transgender-activist-to?utm_term=.irm4Odk7O#.nwBqd0RAd

A top post about gender equality and women's rights in the US government has been filled... by an anti-trans activist.

Quote
Bethany Kozma is a lovely, sweet woman who just happens to believe that girls with penises just ought not to be showering next to girls without penises.

She wrote this some time ago:

Quote
To put it simply, a boy claiming gender confusion must now be allowed in the same shower, bathroom, or locker room with my daughter under the president’s transgender policies. When I learned that predators could abuse these new policies to hurt children in school lockers, shelters, pool showers, or other vulnerable public places like remote bathrooms in national parks, I realized I had to do something.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/10/im-a-mom-heres-what-im-doing-to-fight-obamas-transgender-agenda/

EDIT:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-voter-fraud-panel-personal-information_us_59555bbee4b0da2c732230c2

Meanwhile, Trump is trying to dox every voter in the US.

EDIT:

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

Ralph Nader on the decline of the Democratic Party.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 04, 2017, 01:17:38 pm
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-emoluments-law-suits-20170626-story.html

Trump's defence of his violations of the Emoluments Clause: the President is above the Constitution.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 04, 2017, 03:13:27 pm
........................oh good the Nixon Speed Run keeps going.

Ironbite-and going and going.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 04, 2017, 05:50:09 pm
Can someone explain this emoluments clause and what it means to Trump?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on July 04, 2017, 09:27:26 pm
You can't make money out of your office.  That includes running a business, or charging fees for accessing to the President.
It's one of the reasons Trump has so many diplomatic meetings at Mar-A-Lago - there's an entrance fee, which goes into the family's pockets.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 04, 2017, 10:03:23 pm
Can someone explain this emoluments clause and what it means to Trump?

The proper name for it is the Title of Nobility Clause. It states that no one holding government office in the United States can accept or grant titles of nobility (IE, duke, count, etc.) or monetary gifts to or from foreign representatives without the consent of congress. Ivanka Trump flat out, no question, violated this clause by accepting $100 million from Saudi Arabia and Donald Trump violated this clause AT LEAST when China granted him a trademark for his name. His insistence of using his properties for official business, the massive membership fee spike at Mar-A-Lago and that he has done nothing to sever his ties with his business are likely also violations of the Title of Nobility Clause.

The full text of the clause is as follows:

Quote from: the US Constitution
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 04, 2017, 11:53:16 pm
Yeah but is anyone actually going to do anything about it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 05, 2017, 12:34:41 am
Yeah but is anyone actually going to do anything about it?

Well, there are lawsuits, but as for something that will actually do what would be done had a Democrat done it (AKA, impeachment)? Paul Ryan responded to Trump committing obvious obstruction of justice by excusing his behavior as him being new to politics. So, no. No one will actually do anything about it, at least not while the Republicans have use for him and/or power.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on July 05, 2017, 09:50:06 pm
Paul Ryan responded to Trump committing obvious obstruction of justice by excusing his behavior as him being new to politics.

Remember when the previous President was accused of being new to politics, and therefore unfit to hold office?  :P
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 05, 2017, 10:35:36 pm
I actually forgot the Republicans tried to argue that Obama didn't have enough experience to be President. Is there anything that they're NOT hypocrites about?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 06, 2017, 02:09:03 am
HAH!

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/07/05/hitler-said-it-best-trump-ally-michael-savage-quotes-hitler-condemn-obama/217146

Quote
MICHAEL SAVAGE (HOST): This guy hates America! Hates us! Hates what we stand for, and you elected him, you morons, you. Well you know, Hitler said it best when he said the masses are stupid, only emotion and hatred can keep them controlled. Boy, did Obama know that. Hitler said that only emotion and hatred can keep the masses controlled. Obama sure played on it, almost from the beginning.

...Is it just me or does it seem like Trump is the one who is using hate to unite his supporters?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 06, 2017, 07:51:27 am
HAH!

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/07/05/hitler-said-it-best-trump-ally-michael-savage-quotes-hitler-condemn-obama/217146

Quote
MICHAEL SAVAGE (HOST): This guy hates America! Hates us! Hates what we stand for, and you elected him, you morons, you. Well you know, Hitler said it best when he said the masses are stupid, only emotion and hatred can keep them controlled. Boy, did Obama know that. Hitler said that only emotion and hatred can keep the masses controlled. Obama sure played on it, almost from the beginning.

...Is it just me or does it seem like Trump is the one who is using hate to unite his supporters?

But, but not all Nazis. They're just misunderstood  </Lana Reverse>
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on July 06, 2017, 08:56:34 am
HAH!

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/07/05/hitler-said-it-best-trump-ally-michael-savage-quotes-hitler-condemn-obama/217146

Quote
MICHAEL SAVAGE (HOST): This guy hates America! Hates us! Hates what we stand for, and you elected him, you morons, you. Well you know, Hitler said it best when he said the masses are stupid, only emotion and hatred can keep them controlled. Boy, did Obama know that. Hitler said that only emotion and hatred can keep the masses controlled. Obama sure played on it, almost from the beginning.

...Is it just me or does it seem like Trump is the one who is using hate to unite his supporters?

"I'm rubber; you're glue. It bounces off me and sticks to you!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 07, 2017, 02:39:51 pm
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Trump with Merkel:

(http://img.usmagazine.com/620-width/angela-merkel-trump-b52c2d8d-5579-4310-bc0f-3029217c95cb.jpg)

Trump with Putin:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7btRL2Et4Z3rGB0I/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 07, 2017, 02:41:38 pm
God could he be more blatant?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 07, 2017, 10:14:59 pm
Angela Merkel: the hero humanity deserves, but not the one it needs right now. (http://i.imgur.com/IfJMe7l.gifv)

The_Queen- Check that eyeroll on Putie. For a right-leaning centrist, I love me some Angela Merkel

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 09, 2017, 09:25:51 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT3gVZS6Eq0

Australian political observer Chris Uhlmann: The G20 became the G19.

(Hey Aussies, how do you regard Uhlmann generally?)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 09, 2017, 03:43:25 pm
Apparently he's a dick but hey, stopped clock and all that.

Ironbite-also as soon as The Orange Piss Pot got home, he went golfing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 09, 2017, 05:26:03 pm
The New York Times lights a fuse...

Pipe-bomb (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur)


Quote from: The New York Times
President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.

The meeting was also attended by his campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner only recently disclosed the meeting, though not its content, in confidential government documents described to The New York Times.

Now, to be fair, the Trump Team's account of the meeting is slightly different. Well, it's actually NOT different, they admit to most of it, but defend themselves by adding:

Quote from: The Only Human Being that our President can Legally put his Name on
After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.

* * *

It became clear to me that [repealing the Magnitsky Act] was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.

Nevertheless, this is big for three reasons:

1. This was not reported by anyone on applications for security clearance until recently (when Kushner updated his application a couple weeks ago).
2. This is the first time that we have a reported, detailed meeting between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin for purposes of collusion to influence the election.
3. While what was discussed at the meeting is in dispute, it is not in dispute that the meeting arose because the Trump Campaign wanted to obtain damaging information on Secretary Clinton (illegally hacked by the Russian Military apparatus) from a Kremlin agent. At the very least, high-ranking members of the Trump campaign were open to collusion with a foreign power to help elect Casino Mussolini.

ETA- Oh, and in other news, Trump discussed forming a cyber-security task force with Putin for purposes of ensuring our elections are safe. I don't know whether I should be flippant and add that it is akin to a fox guarding a hen-house or serious and point out Russia has a history of using apps, games, and other innocuous coding to trojan-horse malware and spyware into computers of unsuspecting users.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 09, 2017, 05:42:39 pm
He stood for election in the Australian Capital Territory for a.conservative party but bowed out when they got too anti abortion. Part of a general trend in the ABC where the government says "you can have your national.broadcaster so long as we can fill it with right wing trolls".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 09, 2017, 05:55:15 pm
....wrong topic?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 10, 2017, 09:13:42 am
....wrong topic?
Chris Uhlmann.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 10, 2017, 03:31:30 pm
You didn't specify.  We have moved on from that.

Ironbite-you're too late to drop that info.....I WILL EAT YOUR SOUL!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 11, 2017, 12:09:13 am
The New York Times lights a fuse...

Pipe-bomb (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur)


Quote from: The New York Times
President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.

The meeting was also attended by his campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner only recently disclosed the meeting, though not its content, in confidential government documents described to The New York Times.

Now, to be fair, the Trump Team's account of the meeting is slightly different. Well, it's actually NOT different, they admit to most of it, but defend themselves by adding:

Quote from: The Only Human Being that our President can Legally put his Name on
After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.

* * *

It became clear to me that [repealing the Magnitsky Act] was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.

Nevertheless, this is big for three reasons:

1. This was not reported by anyone on applications for security clearance until recently (when Kushner updated his application a couple weeks ago).
2. This is the first time that we have a reported, detailed meeting between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin for purposes of collusion to influence the election.
3. While what was discussed at the meeting is in dispute, it is not in dispute that the meeting arose because the Trump Campaign wanted to obtain damaging information on Secretary Clinton (illegally hacked by the Russian Military apparatus) from a Kremlin agent. At the very least, high-ranking members of the Trump campaign were open to collusion with a foreign power to help elect Casino Mussolini.

ETA- Oh, and in other news, Trump discussed forming a cyber-security task force with Putin for purposes of ensuring our elections are safe. I don't know whether I should be flippant and add that it is akin to a fox guarding a hen-house or serious and point out Russia has a history of using apps, games, and other innocuous coding to trojan-horse malware and spyware into computers of unsuspecting users.

The New York Times lights a fuse...

Pipe-bomb (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html)

Holy fucking donkey balls!

Quote
WASHINGTON — Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.

So, Not-Eric walked into the meeting with the Russian Agent with knowledge that the source of the information was the Russian government, and that the Russian government wanted to give him this information to help his daddy become president. To be fair, before the story broke, Not-Eric did the smart thing and lawyered up:

Quote
Alan Futerfas, the lawyer for the younger Mr. Trump, said his client had done nothing wrong but pledged to work with investigators if contacted.

And it gets a little bit more interesting. Mr. Goldstone set up the meeting on behalf of a client. His client just so happens to be a wannabe, big-spender pop-star from Russia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvHYWD29ZNY) named Emin Agalarov. Sorry, wrong video: easy mistake, Russia is in a deep recession, it could happen to anyone. Thanks Obama. Here's a video of Emin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFn6AzviiLY). If you made it past 1:14, you're stronger than I am.

Now, this pop-singer is the son of billionaire Russian real-estate developer, Aras Agalarov. Aras Agalarov is nicknamed the Donald Trump of Russia because he dabbles in real-estate, puts his name on things, ? ? ?, and gets money. The cozy connections to Putin don't hurt either. Turns out, having the state murder your business competition is a great way to corner the market.

Quote
Mr. Goldstone represents the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, whose father was President Trump’s business partner in bringing the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013. In an interview Monday, Mr. Goldstone said he was asked by Mr. Agalarov to set up the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.

* * *

In the interview, he said it was his understanding that Ms. Veselnitskaya was simply a “private citizen” for whom Mr. Agalarov wanted to do a favor. He also said he did not know whether Mr. Agalarov’s father, Aras Agalarov, a Moscow real estate tycoon known to be close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, was involved.

Anyways, the funny thing about this family is that Aras Agalarov co-sponsered the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow with Donny Boy. One of the little perks of doing so was that Miss Universe would appear in his talentless son's music video, seen here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-O8XRo60_E). They worked out the details for the music video at the Moscow Ritz Carlton in late 2013 (https://twitter.com/Emin_live/status/399145611481870336). The Moscow Ritz Carlton in late 2013 might sound familiar, because that is when and where Putin supposedly got the pee-pee tape on Donny.

The Queen- You think I got $4.50 up in quarters on me well I fucking don't!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 11, 2017, 12:35:50 am
The longer this goes on the more it seems that no evidence is enough for the GOP to turn on Trump. They want to take down Obamacare and they will tolerate treason and foreign powers meddling with US elections as long as it benefits them.

Maybe if they lose the Obamacare vote (if they ever get to it) then they will try to save face and take credit for taking down Trump.

...Which their voters will believe and as soon as it is over no one in USA is going to admit that they ever supported Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 11, 2017, 12:41:52 am
They don't need Trump to take down the ACA--Pence will sign it fine. Plus, it would be better for them to take down Trump now, rather than after the midterms, because any new VP must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate (simple majority threshold in the Senate) and they could get someone crazier in there now than if the Dems happen to retake part of Congress in 2018. (And if the Dems stonewall a new VP completely, that would leave the Speaker of the House as next in line, and I doubt the GOP would want Pelosi to be next in line, never mind whomever might replace her.)

I think even the GOP spin machine would find it hard to pin ACA repeal (and tax "reform") entirely on Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 11, 2017, 01:26:00 am
They don't need Trump to take down the ACA--Pence will sign it fine. Plus, it would be better for them to take down Trump now, rather than after the midterms, because any new VP must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate (simple majority threshold in the Senate) and they could get someone crazier in there now than if the Dems happen to retake part of Congress in 2018. (And if the Dems stonewall a new VP completely, that would leave the Speaker of the House as next in line, and I doubt the GOP would want Pelosi to be next in line, never mind whomever might replace her.)

I think even the GOP spin machine would find it hard to pin ACA repeal (and tax "reform") entirely on Trump.

This all assumes Pence isn't complicit to any collusion. He said numerous times that there was no contact between the campaign and Russia, including multiple times about disgraced Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Either Pence (1) lied about the involvement with intent to mislead or (2) spoke repeatedly on shit he knew nothing about nor cared to fact-check. As the evidence piles up like bricks in a wall, number 2 grows harder to believe.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 11, 2017, 01:28:14 am
They don't need Trump to take down the ACA--Pence will sign it fine. Plus, it would be better for them to take down Trump now, rather than after the midterms, because any new VP must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate (simple majority threshold in the Senate) and they could get someone crazier in there now than if the Dems happen to retake part of Congress in 2018. (And if the Dems stonewall a new VP completely, that would leave the Speaker of the House as next in line, and I doubt the GOP would want Pelosi to be next in line, never mind whomever might replace her.)

I think even the GOP spin machine would find it hard to pin ACA repeal (and tax "reform") entirely on Trump.

This all assumes Pence isn't complicit to any collusion. He said numerous times that there was no contact between the campaign and Russia, including multiple times about disgraced Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Either Pence (1) lied about the involvement with intent to mislead or (2) spoke repeatedly on shit he knew nothing about nor cared to fact-check. As the evidence piles up like bricks in a wall, number 2 grows harder to believe.

The GOP will gladly throw Trump under a bus since their establishment resents him for hijacking their party. But they like Pence. It doesn't matter how much evidence mounts that he was complicit; they're not going to get rid of him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 11, 2017, 06:33:38 am
They don't need Trump to take down the ACA--Pence will sign it fine. Plus, it would be better for them to take down Trump now, rather than after the midterms, because any new VP must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate (simple majority threshold in the Senate) and they could get someone crazier in there now than if the Dems happen to retake part of Congress in 2018. (And if the Dems stonewall a new VP completely, that would leave the Speaker of the House as next in line, and I doubt the GOP would want Pelosi to be next in line, never mind whomever might replace her.)

I think even the GOP spin machine would find it hard to pin ACA repeal (and tax "reform") entirely on Trump.

This all assumes Pence isn't complicit to any collusion. He said numerous times that there was no contact between the campaign and Russia, including multiple times about disgraced Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Either Pence (1) lied about the involvement with intent to mislead or (2) spoke repeatedly on shit he knew nothing about nor cared to fact-check. As the evidence piles up like bricks in a wall, number 2 grows harder to believe.

The GOP will gladly throw Trump under a bus since their establishment resents him for hijacking their party. But they like Pence. It doesn't matter how much evidence mounts that he was complicit; they're not going to get rid of him.
It'd be nice for them to be back in old-fashioned bible-thumping hypocrite territory as opposed to barking mad libertine land but Pence doesn't have clean hands with the Russia shenanigans. (http://billmoyers.com/story/timeline-pences-role-white-houses-russia-related-mess/) If the orange asshole goes down he might be able to drag Pence with him.

I WILL EAT YOUR SOUL!
You like chewing on old-man hippy feet? Ew!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on July 11, 2017, 08:14:03 am
The GOP will gladly throw Trump under a bus since their establishment resents him for hijacking their party. But they like Pence. It doesn't matter how much evidence mounts that he was complicit; they're not going to get rid of him.

The moment GOP calculates hiding / distracting from the skeletons in Pence's closet costs them more politically than throwing him under the bus does he will be gone.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 11, 2017, 03:28:48 pm
And we get President Paul Ryan who's already concluded that the position doesn't grant him as much power as Speaker.

Ironbite-and he didn't even want that role either.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 11, 2017, 04:28:09 pm
^ Lets be honest, Paul Ryan probably right now wishes he could just be "your personal trainer who high fives you way too hard".

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 11, 2017, 05:17:17 pm
And we get President Paul Ryan who's already concluded that the position doesn't grant him as much power as Speaker.

Ironbite-and he didn't even want that role either.

Keep in mind he played cover-up by saying that anything the GOP found linking Trump to the Kremlin should "be kept in the family." That doesn't even consider how unpopular he is. At best, he'd be a one-termed.

ETA- did anyone catch the pipe-bomb that junior dropped on himself?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 11, 2017, 08:29:51 pm
It's all anyone on my twitter feed can talk about.  Including one reporter who's so depressed that Jr. basically fucked him out of a huge story.

Ironbite-like he's been chasing this for a year and Jr. just....gave away the smoking gun.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 11, 2017, 10:01:30 pm
Well, Donald Trump Junior is now being investigated by Robert Mueller. I said about 6 weeks ago that the odds of Mueller making it to Labor day were 50/50. After today, I'd put those odds around 2%.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 12, 2017, 12:22:07 am
Trump tries to fire him, and he'd look guiltier than Nixon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 12, 2017, 12:34:41 am
Trump tries to fire him, and he'd look guiltier than Nixon.

I know. But, that is a red herring when one realizes that our president is recklessly impulsive, has little foresight, and cannot grasp the severity of negative consequences that result from his actions.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 12, 2017, 12:44:36 am
True - thus, when Trump tries to fire him, he'll be gone. No matter how rich he is, he'll become such an albatross to the Republicans, they have to remove him or be obliterated in the Midterm Elections.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on July 12, 2017, 12:45:27 am
Seriously how the hell is it legal for the president to fire someone who is investigating him?  Did nobody ever think this could be a problem before US politics went completely off the rails?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 12, 2017, 06:23:28 am
Just had a thought that lil' babby Donald might have been really stupid while trying to be clever. The song he's been singing is that yes, he did meet with the Russians and did seek dirt on Hillary but he got bupkis. At least that's his current version of the tale. He probably pictures himself having to pay a fine at worst but not being any the worse for wear after he fronts court with the sort of lawyers guys like him can afford.

He might think that this will keep the sharks off daddy thereby finally winning his 'orrible old father's approval-instead he's probably brought the whole house crashing down.

It's not so much a conspiracy theory so much as a "moron tries to conspire" theory, whaddaya think?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 12, 2017, 09:16:51 am
Donald Jr defence is currently on the level of "Sure I did make all kinds of suggestions to a 12-year old but when I finally went to her place to fuck her it turned out that there was just some 40-year old guy. So obviously I did nothing wrong or illegal."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 12, 2017, 04:41:52 pm
It is amazing the GOP leadership looks at these morons and thinks "yeah they'll keep power in four years".

Ironbite-amazingly short sighted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 12, 2017, 07:18:10 pm
It is amazing the GOP leadership looks at these morons and thinks "yeah they'll keep power in four years".

Ironbite-amazingly short sighted.

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on July 12, 2017, 09:50:04 pm
I'm personally waiting for the GOP's downward popularity trend to turn around when the president announces that he has successfully replaced Obamacare with the Affordable Care Act.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 12, 2017, 10:02:10 pm
To avoid a veto, it'll have to have the orangutan's name on it.  So, just write "Trump's Totally Brilliant Healthcare Plan" on the top in red (the most Presidential colour) crayon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 14, 2017, 06:53:42 am
This truly is the "Stupid Watergate." It's like a contest of whocan shoot themselves in the foot the most...

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-contradicts-himself-on-russian-lawyer-meeting-a73c7d9420b1

It's like beonly cares about being in the news and just says whatever he thinks will make the biggest headlines.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 15, 2017, 05:13:54 am
Joseph O'Neill says (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/15/trump-putin-democracy-midterm-elections-presidential-us-politics) what a lot of us have been fearing.

Quote
The problem is that political tenability is largely determined by the electoral victors; and the Republicans, if they are the beneficiaries of a rigged midterm vote, will have the authority to decide if their own power is tenable and if it isn’t. This is a win-at-all-costs party that ruthlessly suppresses votes and gerrymanders districts; has brazenly stolen a supreme court seat; has set up an election integrity commission to combat the nonexistent problem of massive voter fraud; and (as we’re seeing in the attempted passage of the American health care act) has abandoned the basic norms of truthfulness and good faith in congressional cooperation, on which the American political system depends. If Russia is ready and willing to alter vote tallies in favour of the GOP, does anyone really believe that Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence or Donald Trump would voluntarily stop it?

...

Were a de facto GOP-Moscow alliance once again to win a national US election, the incentive to repeat and, if necessary, strengthen the formula in 2020 would be even more powerful. It goes without saying that America’s old experiment with democracy will, by this point, have come to a complete halt.

The Russian interference issue isn't just team Hillary's sour grapes. It's not merely an attempt to distract away from the Democratic parties failings, though they are many. It could be a situation where two ruthless, anti democratic (with a small "d") factions team up to sweep aside the last vestiges of even the appearance of democracy in the United States of America.

There likely won't be an impeachment no matter what is uncovered about Russia's role in the election and what Trump knew about it. It might not even be possible to solve this clusterfuck by voting Republicans out whatever happens. To the Americans on this board I've never more sincerely hoped I was wrong. Please tell me that I am, I don't want to be right about this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 18, 2017, 07:23:22 am
The Trumpcare vote is such a close call that the Republicans don't dare to try it until John McCain is back from hospital...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jul/17/john-mccain-healthcare-trump-made-in-america-week?CMP=fb_gu
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2017, 10:28:34 am
The Trumpcare vote is such a close call that the Republicans don't dare to try it until John McCain is back from hospital...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jul/17/john-mccain-healthcare-trump-made-in-america-week?CMP=fb_gu

But after that vote, if you need to go to the hospital, well, fuck you!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2017, 03:55:12 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/health-care-trump-repeal-1.4210334

Quote
"Most Republicans were loyal, terrific & worked really hard," Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. "We were let down by all of the Democrats and a few Republicans."

I'm sorry, but how the FUCK is it Democrats' fault that a bill aimed at dismantling the previous (Democratic) President's signature accomplishment in favour of a system that would almost certainly have worse outcomes and was actually just a massive tax cut for the rich disguised as heath-care reform failed?

Dems have their own ideas: they already passed the ACA (which, as I will point out again, is a Republican idea in origin), many would vote to add a public option, and John Conyers' House bill to create a single-payer system has over half the Democratic caucus as co-sponsors, and Sanders will, unlike when he last attempted it, likely get quite a few Democratic Senators as co-sponsors for his own single-payer bill in the Senate that he has vowed to introduce.

The Dems are not lacking ideas for health-care reform, and already implemented one of them. Admittedly, that bill was a bandaid over a severed artery (hey, like other bills like Dodd-Frank!), but it was better than nothing. They'd come to the table to talk about things like public options (like they tried to do in Nevada before the Republican Governor vetoed it) or single-payer systems (like they tried to do in Vermont before medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies threatened to jack up their prices), but not to talk about bills that will strip millions of people of health insurance and lead to more deaths from lack of access to basic preventative care and more medical bankruptcies, the number-one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US and something virtually unknown in other modern nations.

Quote
"The core of this bill is unworkable," Schumer said in a statement. He said Republicans "should start from scratch and work with Democrats on a bill that lowers premiums, provides long-term stability to the markets and improves our health-care system."

Of course, a public option, or a single-payer system, would do those things...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 18, 2017, 05:12:54 pm
Yeah the Trumpcare bill is dead in the Senate after 4 GOP senators defected.  So McTurtle tried another approach.  Just repeal the damn thing but give a 2 year deadline to the Senate in order to craft a replacement. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-senators-obamacare-repeal_us_596e1f00e4b010d77673e8e1)

Quote
Less than a day after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the Senate will vote to repeal Obamacare without providing a replacement, his plan is dead.

Three Republicans announced Tuesday that they won’t vote for a procedural step to take up the bill ― and that’s all it takes to kill it. Those senators are Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.). Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) also raised concerns about a repeal-only plan increasing uncertainty in the marketplace and leading to higher premiums and deductibles.

McConnell has now failed three times in the last month to pass a bill to gut Obamacare, otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act, something Republicans have vowed to do for seven years. The crux of the problem: Moderate Republicans want to keep key pieces of the law in place and aren’t comfortable throwing millions of people off health care, while conservative Republicans want to throw out the whole law. There’s not a lot of middle ground. Democrats have been cut out of negotiations entirely.

That's one, two, three strikes you're out with this bullshit.  ACA remains law of the land until the GOP can figure out a bill cruel enough to appease 3 of those monsters.

Ironbite-yeah, three of the four Senators opposing the bill think it's not cruel enough.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2017, 05:15:30 pm
Lee and Moran announced their opposition simultaneously so that neither could be accused of being the Senator who killed the bill. Cowards.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 18, 2017, 05:52:32 pm
And Trump says he'll "let Obamacare fail".

That would be electoral suicide even with all the gerrymandering and voter suppression the Rethugs are putting in place.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2017, 06:19:50 pm
On another note, given how Trump's been treating the wives of foreign leaders (see: Brigitte Macron, Agata Kornhauser), I can't wait to see how he reacts to meeting Kathleen Wynne and her partner:

(https://o.aolcdn.com/images/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/1200x630/format/jpg/quality/85/http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1814545%2Fimages%2Fn-KATHLEEN-WYNNE-JANE-ROUNTHWAITE-628x314.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 18, 2017, 07:27:54 pm
On another note, given how Trump's been treating the wives of foreign leaders (see: Brigitte Macron, Agata Kornhauser), I can't wait to see how he reacts to meeting Kathleen Wynne and her partner:

Smart money's on him grabbing both of them by the pussy.

He thinks it's the equivalent to shaking hands with the boys.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2017, 08:34:44 pm
Apparently Steve Bannon called Paul Ryan "a limp-dicked motherfucker who was born in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 18, 2017, 08:49:41 pm
Apparently Steve Bannon called Paul Ryan "a limp-dicked motherfucker who was born in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation."

Didn't he also call Jared a "cuck" at one point.

The guy's a real piece of shit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 18, 2017, 08:58:19 pm
But he amuses the Orange Piss Pot so he's alright.

Ironbite-or should I say Alt-Right.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2017, 09:15:13 pm
Apparently Steve Bannon called Paul Ryan "a limp-dicked motherfucker who was born in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation."

Didn't he also call Jared a "cuck" at one point.

The guy's a real piece of shit.

In fairness, that's a pretty spot-on assessment of Paul Ryan.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 18, 2017, 11:33:06 pm
I love how the GOP is trying to blame their ineptitude on the Democrats. You're the idiots with all of the power. You don't need the democrats to pass your dumb legislation, yet you somehow fail.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 19, 2017, 07:57:06 pm
I love how the GOP is trying to blame their ineptitude on the Democrats. You're the idiots with all of the power. You don't need the democrats to pass your dumb legislation, yet you somehow fail.

Not even that, they tried to pass their stuff without democratic involvement, haphazardously believing they could just pass whatever they wanted and spin it as a win. At one point, McConnell was trying to rope his party to vote yes by saying that a no vote meant the GOP would have to negotiate with the democrats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 19, 2017, 07:59:00 pm
I love how the GOP is trying to blame their ineptitude on the Democrats. You're the idiots with all of the power. You don't need the democrats to pass your dumb legislation, yet you somehow fail.

Not even that, they tried to pass their stuff without democratic involvement, haphazardously believing they could just pass whatever they wanted and spin it as a win. At one point, McConnell was trying to rope his party to vote yes by saying that a no vote meant the GOP would have to negotiate with the democrats.

And Trump was trying to scare them into voting yes by saying that voting no would eventually lead to the implementation of single-payer.

EDIT: And he's been threatening Heller, which has McConnell incensed, because McConnell cares more about preserving his Senate majority than any particular legislative item, and Heller is his most vulnerable incumbent in 2018.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 19, 2017, 08:08:24 pm
Ain't it amazing how the monster is now threatening to tear them down?

Ironbite-WELCOME TO HELL!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 19, 2017, 08:26:50 pm
Breaking, McCain has been diagnosed with a brain tumor. I disagree with him politically, but him telling the woman at the rally that Obama was not a muslim terrorist, but a decent family man was one of the most noble things that a Republican has done in the last 10 years. I wish him a speedy recovery.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 19, 2017, 08:54:30 pm
Breaking, McCain has been diagnosed with a brain tumor. I disagree with him politically, but him telling the woman at the rally that Obama was not a muslim terrorist, but a decent family man was one of the most noble things that a Republican has done in the last 10 years. I wish him a speedy recovery.

I wish him a speedy and full recovery because I want to see him lose at the ballot box in 2022.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 19, 2017, 10:07:05 pm
Breaking, McCain has been diagnosed with a brain tumor. I disagree with him politically, but him telling the woman at the rally that Obama was not a muslim terrorist, but a decent family man was one of the most noble things that a Republican has done in the last 10 years. I wish him a speedy recovery.

I wish him a speedy and full recovery because I want to see him lose at the ballot box in 2022.

Not funny. Some reports indicate that this type is particularly malignant, and that the estimated life span following diagnosis is 15 months. I predict him resigning to spend time with his family and focus on fighting this (or being away a lot, while staying in for votes where he is necessary)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 19, 2017, 10:50:26 pm
I'm a sociopath and that...was cold blooded. I'm legit impressed, Dpareja. Did not know you had it in you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on July 19, 2017, 11:04:30 pm
I'm not a sociopath and I didn't find it the least bit shocking.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 19, 2017, 11:38:04 pm
I'm a budding alcoholic and I'm confused and a little bit tired.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 19, 2017, 11:48:31 pm
I'm a sociopath and that...was cold blooded. I'm legit impressed, Dpareja. Did not know you had it in you.

I never want politicians to die in office. Either because I like them and don't want to see them wither away as a shell of what they once were (so retire already!), or because I don't like them and want them to lose in an election as a rejection of what they stand for. (This is also one reason why I don't like term limits.)

That, and if you think the only way to get a given politician out of office is to wait for that person to die or retire, that can lead to dangerous places (either you're secretly admitting you wouldn't shed too many tears if he was assassinated, or you're admitting that you can't beat him in an election, and I don't think any politician is unbeatable, and especially not one as unpopular in his home state as John McCain (https://morningconsult.com/july-2017-senator-rankings/)).

tl;dr I'm being completely serious. I want McCain to make a full recovery, and then for him to run again and lose in 2022.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 19, 2017, 11:57:53 pm
So you want him to get better so as that our people can politically humiliate him and send him packing out of Washington, the sheer humiliation and stress from how ugly and personal American elections can be these days might just as well end his life too.

Well, at any rate, I've got a new appreciation for you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 20, 2017, 12:05:47 am
So you want him to get better so as that our people can politically humiliate him and send him packing out of Washington, the sheer humiliation and stress from how ugly and personal American elections can be these days might just as well end his life too.

Well, at any rate, I've got a new appreciation for you.

I want him to lose... but if he runs again in 2022 and wins, then that's what Arizonans want, and I'd respect that choice. They chose him in 2016, and I think they should be represented by the Senator of their choice for the full six years of the term for which they elected him.

And I think that, if you disagree with a politician, you should work to get that person out of office via the democratic process*. Death happens--but it's not something I'd wish on anyone.

EDIT: *And yes, that applies even to politicians I like. If you're in Vermont and think you'd make a better Senator for your state than Bernie Sanders, then run. If you're in Massachusetts and think you'd make a better Senator for your state than Elizabeth Warren, then run. I'd probably hope you lose at the ballot box, but I would never urge you not to run.

If I thought I'd make a better MP for my riding than my current MP, I'd run (or, rather, challenge him for his party's nomination, since I generally support his party)... except that I don't think I would.

EDIT #2:

On another issue, but contains a core principle with which I agree:

Quote
We should hold people who run for Senate to a higher standard. 6 years is a long time. Some people here arguing to take that away from the People and give it back to State houses. That's disturbing. If you trust them more then We The People, then you're probably a partisan minded individual.

I don't want decisions on who the people's representatives will be being made by anything or anyone other than the people, and that includes death.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 20, 2017, 02:41:19 am
Obama has class:

(http://i.imgur.com/TiuWmYI.png)


Something that certain current presidents lack.

On that note... Trump is complaining about 4 people stopping the GOP from passing their laws and how it is totally unfair that 4 people can stop nearly 50. ...Because the Democrats don't count? He is trying to shift the blame from GOP making a law that none of the Democrats can support and instead blame the few GOP members who can't support the law. What a loser.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 20, 2017, 02:44:27 am
Obama has class:

(http://i.imgur.com/TiuWmYI.png)


John McCain is a hero.

I disagree with him politically on most issues, and want to see him out of office (through democratic means), but he is a hero for his actions in captivity in Vietnam.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on July 20, 2017, 04:04:01 am
In lighter news, Donald Trump jr is completely miserable and "can't wait for these four years to be over."  Apparently making business deals when your dad is under heavy scrutiny and everyone spent the last two years learning what horrible assholes and incompetents you are is next to impossible.

Maybe he should have thought about that before breaking all those laws?

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/trump-jr-miserable-since-father-donald-president-family-business-a7849771.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 20, 2017, 04:19:57 am
The sad thing is that he and his brother could spill everything about all of their and their dad's shady/illegal business dealings during Congressional testimony and they probably still wouldn't get much more than a slap on the wrist.

Even though, y'know, they probably could give pretty solid proof of any number of impeachable offences their dad has committed since taking office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 20, 2017, 07:59:51 am
The GOP has made their bed party over country and don't give a shit about how much it hurts the world.  And sadly, they'll just keep getting away with it because they run the game.

Ironbite-I pity them because when the game changes, they'll be the first against the wall.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on July 20, 2017, 02:35:09 pm
So, according to the New Republic the Orange Clown has been in bed with Russian mobsters for decades (https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate). It's not only casual business ties that are a no surprise to anyone anymore; the mobsters laundering money through his businesses was a main factor in him building his fortune after going bankrupt in the 90's and the first connection goes all the way to 1984. Some of these same mobsters have close connections to Putin himself. While there is no smoking gun and the dyeface is in principle stupid enough to be a credible ignorant patsy not even he can be stupid enough to not to realize he is dealing with money that is dirty in some way. My guess is that he just doesn't care to find out details of where the money comes from as long as it keeps flowing to him and is too stupid and pampered to consider that he could face consequences of some kind.



Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 21, 2017, 01:03:54 pm
Aaaand Spicer is out: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/us/politics/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html

This seems important:

Quote
The appointment of Mr. Scaramucci, a favorite of Mr. Trump’s earliest campaign supporters, was backed by the president’s daughter Ivanka, his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the officials said.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 21, 2017, 03:08:54 pm
This is a guy owed favor and Spicy did not want him there.

Ironbite-tells me all I need to know.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 21, 2017, 03:45:08 pm
And his very first press briefing shows that he's the same bullshit with a fresh coat of paint. Shocker.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 21, 2017, 05:45:50 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nuPKylOZsU

Scaramucci on Trump in 2015.

Man these people are pathetic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 22, 2017, 10:56:44 am
(https://i.redditmedia.com/nFYuFVGgfG8gfyxmO7HFz7VQtW3SoIkJuZfAXt33FSw.png?w=411&s=4fc5780014498caa000206e7f8d3b68b)

BUTT. HER. E. MALES.

This stopped being fun a while ago but he keeps on going on about the elections and Clinton hoping that it is enough to distract from his own scandal.


Oh well, his new plan of changing the first amendment might work as a distraction though: https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/reince-priebus-admits-trump-administration-looked-into-changing-first-amendment
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 22, 2017, 11:33:12 am
(https://i.redditmedia.com/nFYuFVGgfG8gfyxmO7HFz7VQtW3SoIkJuZfAXt33FSw.png?w=411&s=4fc5780014498caa000206e7f8d3b68b)

BUTT. HER. E. MALES.

This stopped being fun a while ago but he keeps on going on about the elections and Clinton hoping that it is enough to distract from his own scandal.


Oh well, his new plan of changing the first amendment might work as a distraction though: https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/reince-priebus-admits-trump-administration-looked-into-changing-first-amendment

He's just as bad as Hillary, so why does it matter?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 22, 2017, 03:17:51 pm
If he wanted Sessions to investigate Clinton, why doesn't he just order the elf to do so?

Ironbite-OH WAIT HE'S NOT A KING AND IS WAKING UP TO THAT FACT!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 23, 2017, 10:06:25 am
These people (https://www.yahoo.com/news/sean-spicer-apos-spotted-stealing-184647503.html)

Tl;dr- Sean Spicer was caught stealing a mini-fridge from the West Wing before leaving the White House.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 23, 2017, 10:28:41 am
It had better be because he didn't want Trump getting his emergency stash of booze, otherwise I'm gonna be sad.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 23, 2017, 10:33:13 am
Yeah, just saying, I don't think Obama ever had ex-staff steal the office mini-fridge. If anything, the first six month's of Casino Mussolini's presidency has been excellent reality TV.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 23, 2017, 12:17:37 pm
Can we just have it where we say, ok Trump well give you your reality show where you get to be "president" and do what you want. You can have your own "staff" that follow you around and praise you and what ever you say is the "law" is the "law"well even let you use the white house as the setting and let you talk to Congress for what ever reason. But well have a real president behind the scenes actually controlling everything. You can even take claim or lay blame for all of his successes and failures.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 23, 2017, 12:56:39 pm
Clinton administration did steal every single W key on the keyboards that the White house had...

Not sure what pranks the Obama administration did on their way out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 23, 2017, 12:58:18 pm
I just know that if people bring up "Spicer stole a mini-fridge" too much, Republicans will eventually remember this (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/) and overblow it again.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 24, 2017, 01:16:25 pm
...Now I really need to know if Obama's did any pranks for Trump team.

I already know that they didn't steal a thing because the racists in USA would still be screaming about it loud enough to be heard in Europe if they took as much as a towel as a souvenir.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 24, 2017, 03:43:43 pm
Trump is looking to fire Sessions as AG and appoint Rudy Giuliani in his place.

Ironbite-*dies laughing*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 24, 2017, 04:25:28 pm
Trump wants people who will be absolutely loyal to him, and doesn't get that the AG is the country's top prosecutor, not his own personal lawyer. He sees Sessions' recusal over the Russia issue as a personal betrayal.

Now, I think Sessions is a terrible AG, since he's incredibly racist, but at least he seems to understand that it's not his role to protect the President at all costs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: lord gibbon on July 25, 2017, 12:37:27 am
It's not out of integrity. He's just decided that protecting his ass at all costs is his first priority.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 25, 2017, 12:57:42 am
Sessions values self preservation above loyalty to Der Fuhrer, which is a cardinal sin among Nazis.

He's going out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 25, 2017, 01:47:08 am
I think people are missing something: recess appointments. Specifically,

Quote from: Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of [Congress'] next Session.

And, Congress is set to go on its Summer Recess Monday, July 31 through September 4. If Congress goes on recess, Trump can appoint an AG without Congressional approval.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on July 25, 2017, 03:47:46 pm
AHAHAHAHAAH WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 25, 2017, 04:12:20 pm
With Paul Ryan having pointed out that Mueller is a solid Republican, I wouldn't be surprised if he straight up ordered the relevant committee chairs to appoint their own special investigator, one who's answerable to Congress and not the executive. That person could probably use Mueller's work, too; Mueller is using Preet Bharara's, after all. (Hell, Congress might decide to stick it to Trump and choose Mueller.)

Trump's alienating the only people standing between himself and impeachment (Ryan and McConnell) and it's hilarious to watch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 25, 2017, 04:24:32 pm
If Trump keeps alienating those two...

Given McConnell's similar look to Walder Frey, I wouldn't be surprised if he organized a marriage between a member of Trump's family / extended family and someone in his family, and then brought in some crossbows to the wedding...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on July 26, 2017, 11:23:07 am
WELP


(he didn't thread them together, so read from the bottom up.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 26, 2017, 11:41:31 am
I wonder if he is going to stop pretending to be pro-LGBT?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on July 26, 2017, 11:52:37 am
I think he just did.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 26, 2017, 11:57:35 am
No, just because he makes laws and policies that hurt LGBT people it doesn't mean that he wouldn't continue trying to make people believe that he is pro-LGBT, but will that end now or is this just another day ending in y when Trump lies and gets away with it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 26, 2017, 04:41:49 pm
Congrats to everyone who protest voted.

Ironbite-this is on you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 26, 2017, 09:53:36 pm
Congrats to everyone who protest voted.

Ironbite-this is on you.

Nope, both parties are just as bad
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 26, 2017, 10:18:16 pm
BUT NEOLIBERAL ECONERMICS!!!111! CLINTON IZ WARMUNGER!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 27, 2017, 03:18:06 am
BUT HE HELD A FLAG!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who didn't see this shit coming is a fucking moron.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 27, 2017, 04:18:37 am
...And the next step: https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/trump-pence-administration-argue-lgbt-people-arent-protected-discrimination-civil-rights-act/

EDIT:

Also note that when Trump tweeted:

Quote
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

...Assuming that you hadn't read the other tweets and heard the story. How do you think his declaration would continue? Because the brass in Pentagon assumed that Trump was going to threaten North Korea or possibly even declare a war.

It wasn't until 9 minutes later when he made the second tweet that they could stop holding their breaths as they saw that he was "just" talking about discriminating trans soldiers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-transgender-pentagon-fear-north-korea-declare-war-a7862091.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 27, 2017, 07:34:09 am
BUT HE HELD A FLAG!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who didn't see this shit coming is a fucking moron.

I saw this shit coming last year. "Fucking moron" is too kind to these people. But hey, they have their "morals," whatever that means.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 27, 2017, 07:56:39 pm
Anthony Scaramucci: "I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own cock."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 27, 2017, 10:48:32 pm
Did he actually say that?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on July 27, 2017, 11:08:09 pm
He did. That's just the tip of the iceberg in the interview.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56679/the-mooch-steve-bannon-suck-own-cock/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 27, 2017, 11:26:42 pm
And his response was to complain that he shouldn't have "trusted" a reporter. Even though anyone with half a brain could tell you that anything said to a reporter on the record is publishable, especially if you're a public official. This shit's on him, not on the reporter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 28, 2017, 08:01:22 am
Oh good we've got the best person possible as communications director.  A man who's basically a younger, less charismatic Orange Piss Pot.

Ironbite-I can see why Priebus didn't want this ass in the administration.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 28, 2017, 12:12:14 pm
(https://i.redditmedia.com/Tve9PkjA16hM8sSlV-trrGPoBE0ZBu1-HW3Tpb76l-k.jpg?w=528&s=ab99d19e144de48e80cc24ecd832b63e)

I mean, I would have thought that you can allow Islam to exist in your country and still support LGBT rights and, I dunno, coexist?

But TD have clearly made up their mind and now support Islam. It's either that or they are hypocrites but would they really do something like that? What would their rolemodel Trump think of his fanbase being liars?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 28, 2017, 12:53:37 pm
Seen in the Senate after repeal-and-replace, straight repeal, and skinny repeal (Collins, Murkowsi and McCain voted against that) all failed:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFnZMtBU0AAboXa.jpg)

(https://i.cbc.ca/1.4225496.1501216687!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/mitch-mcconnell-us-health-care.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 28, 2017, 02:52:38 pm
I didn't know I could be proud of John Mccain.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on July 28, 2017, 04:00:47 pm
So, he returns and has a grandstanding speech, votes for allowing the bill to proceed to a useless debate since nobody knows what the bill actually includes and then turns around and votes against it. This makes him a hero while the two other Republican senators who opposed the bill are pretty much forgotten now since the maverick narrative is so cool. While I appreciate the fact that in the end he voted against the repeal and he should get credit for that the other two Republican senators who stood their ground without this kind of political displays should get at least as much attention.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 28, 2017, 04:27:19 pm
Murkowski voted for repeal when Obama was in office, so that she could turn around in 2016 (when she was up for re-election) and say that she voted for repeal, even though she personally didn't want it--she just knew Obama would veto it, so it was a safe vote for her. Now that it's not (and she's not up again until 2022), she voted against it.

Collins, who was re-elected in 2014 and is up again in 2020, voted against the effort in the previous Congress, the only Republican to do so, even though she could have done the same thing to play up her chances in 2020. But I've heard she may decide to run for Governor instead, and would want the Medicaid expansion available (I'm not sure if Maine took it).

As for McCain... congratulations, you bucked Trump with your vote on one issue. Yes, it's an important issue, but he's going to have to do a lot more for me to think of him as a "maverick." (He's been far less of a maverick than he once was ever since he lost the 2000 nomination to Bush because the donors backed Bush... well, that and some racist push polling in South Carolina.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 28, 2017, 05:32:05 pm
McCain can suck a fat dick.  He's no maverick at all.

Also Reinis is out, Kelly is in.  Trump fired Priebus today and appointed his Homeland Secretary in his place.  So now he's gotta go through that process again.

Ironbite-running out of self-servering narcissists there Orange Piss Pot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 28, 2017, 06:06:21 pm
Has there ever been a presidency this chaotic before?
I can only imagine how terrible it must've been to work underneath him in his business.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 29, 2017, 12:35:23 am
Random thought.

Sanders has sworn to introduce single-payer legislation once the Senate health care bill was defeated.

With that appearing to be accomplished, we can probably expect to see Sanders' bill soon.

I would be so very, very amused if McConnell decided that he could sell single-payer as a "repeal and replace" of the ACA (since it would effectively render the ACA obsolete) to his base and signed onto Sanders' effort.

I know he won't, but it would be really funny.

EDIT:

I'm listening to Priebus' interview with Wolf Blitzer... it's really tough to hear (as Scaramucci might put it) Reince trying to suck Trump's cock.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 29, 2017, 01:49:04 am
Random thought

The Senate passed the Russian sanctions bill 98-2. The two votes that decided Putin wasn't so terrible a guy: Rand Paul (R-KY) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00147).

Now, Russia ran the mass propaganda campaign against Clinton well before the general election. The first public endorsement by Russia in the 2016 election was an endorsement by a close friend of Putin, Aleksandr Dugin (http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/03/alexander-dugin-america-is-righter-than.html). In a video released in March, he praised Trump for running as an outsider while disparaging Clinton. He also took time to argue that the democratic primaries were "rigged" against Bernie, and that while Bernie had more support, Hillary would win by nefarious means. These arguments of "rigged primaries" may sound familiar, as they were touted by another friend of Putin, Donald Trump (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/732893573365010432?lang=en), as well as Bernie Sanders (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/252227-sanders-dnc-using-debates-to-rig-primary).

We also know that Russian trolls and bots pushed mass-misinformation during the primaries to this end, having the effect of creating a feeling that crucial moments in the democratic primary were part of a rigged system for Clinton. Notably, the lack of debates, Super Tuesday having a lot of states with black people (who were also allowed to vote) (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?action=post;quote=292554;topic=7076.225), Arizona/Nevada controversies (including no chair being thrown), and crying about super delegates while ignoring primary outcomes. Bernie benefited a lot from these as they painted Hillary as a corrupt insider and himself as the moral, courageous victim.

Another candidate, Jill Stein, received aid from Russia by way of free publicity on RT and positive coverage. Jill Stein was critical of both candidates, but focused more of her vitriol toward Clinton (even saying Trump would be better because he would "bring about the 'revolution' sooner"). While Stein did not keep a list of campaign rallies, a google search shows most of them were in Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (if she were trying to maximize her votes, and not siphon Hillary's, she'd go to bluer states like California and Massachusetts). Jill Stein, even after Donald Jr. leaked communications he had with Russian agents, continues to call the collusion scandal "ludicrous." Stein is now being investigated in the Russian collusion scandal (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343292-jill-stein-looped-into-widening-investigation-of-russia-and-trump-jr), indicating that Putin's support of candidates expands from Trump to others that could hurt Hillary (and by proxy help Trump).

And yet, here we are. Putin employed his trolls to help Bernie because it would hurt Hillary, then Putin employed his trolls to benefit Donald, for among other reasons, to weaken Hillary should she win. After receiving this help from Putin, both Bernie and Trump oppose sanctions on Russia.

I sincerely believe Bernie was not in this collusion scandal, but against this backdrop, his recent vote on the sanctions bill is troubling.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 29, 2017, 02:00:02 am
Ha.

On a serious note, I imagine Sen. Sanders voted against the bill in question because it also put sanctions on Iran.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBBbdvUzbog

Sanders in 2003 discussing Republican electoral tactics.

EDIT #2: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/890657920991481856

Glenn Greenwald absolutely nails it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 31, 2017, 07:11:53 am
If we're going to have a yapping drama queen for a president why not televise him for our collective enjoydisgust?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwteRJTcR50
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 31, 2017, 02:17:29 pm
Related to GOP efforts to repeal the ACA, Tomi Lahren (essentially) said this at Politicon this weekend:

"The ACA sucks! Also, since I'm only 24, I'm still on my parents' plan!"

(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/The_2ef2a9_807264.jpg)

EDIT:

Lahren, in full:

Lahren: "I think that the, the free marketplace does better."

Interviewer: "Okay, so do you have a healthcare plan, or no?"

Lahren: "Well, luckily, I'm 24, so I'm, I am still on my parents', and so to say--"

*crowd erupts, drowning out Lahren*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 31, 2017, 03:00:43 pm
"The Mooch" got fired? *Vader screaming No gif*

He was such a gift to comedians already during his short term! Why must Trump ruin everything he touches?!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 31, 2017, 03:07:34 pm
This presidency seriously. It goes to show you that Trump is terrible at hiring people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 31, 2017, 03:11:38 pm
What it shows you is that Reince Priebus was probably marginally competent (in Scaramucci's words, Priebus "cockblocked" him).

But is eleven days some sort of record? (Yes, the Mooch lasted 11 days.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 31, 2017, 03:38:55 pm
"The Mooch" really had a career in White house like he did in Futurama:

From:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDu74eMv5ME

To:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3uk5bJcyM8
In less than two weeks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 31, 2017, 03:49:27 pm
Apparently this was at Kelly's request so the new guy is already bringing order to the White House.

Ironbite-see if it lasts the week.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 31, 2017, 04:10:41 pm
Apparently this was at Kelly's request so the new guy is already bringing order to the White House.

Ironbite-see if it lasts the week.

Over/under on Trump firing Kelly?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 31, 2017, 05:08:28 pm
I give Kelly a week or so.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 31, 2017, 06:18:57 pm
Another explanation I've heard for the firing of Scaramucci is that Trump thought he was getting too much media attention and overshadowing him.

Fucking hell the President is the thinnest-skinned snowflake ever.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 02, 2017, 07:01:58 pm
So after sitting on it for a few days, Trump finally signed the Russian sanctions bill. That he called "significantly flawed." And unconstitutional. So, I'm not in a position to comment on whether or not the sanctions bill is in fact flawed of unconstitutional, but I have to ask one question: If this bill is so bad and unconstitutional, why the FUCK did you sign it, you fucking idiot?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 02, 2017, 07:06:59 pm
Because he didn't want to be embarrassed when Congress overrode the veto.

Keep in mind that it was just a few Freedom Caucus types in the House, and Paul and Sanders in the Senate, who voted against it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 02, 2017, 07:48:50 pm
Gotta wonder why Sanders opposed the sanctions bill...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on August 02, 2017, 07:55:52 pm
Cause it imposes sanctions on Iran as well, IIRC
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 02, 2017, 08:00:37 pm
Cause it imposes sanctions on Iran as well, IIRC

He was very quick to put out a statement that he was only voting against the bill because it included sanctions against Iran.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions

Quote
I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism.

Paul's criticism was more wide-ranging.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 03, 2017, 08:03:38 am
Wow...

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/trump-threatened-to-shut-down-filming-of-sharknado-3-because-he-didnt-get-cast-as-the-president-report/

In retrospect, maybe it would have been better for the country if Trump candidacy would have been associated with something like Sharknado 3.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 03, 2017, 09:54:07 am
It already is.

Ironbite-oh and Rassmusin polls are below 50% now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 03, 2017, 10:04:25 am
Well, he's nothing if not consistent (ly egotistical).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 03, 2017, 05:43:26 pm
So Trump had a transcript of a past call with Mexican President Pena Nieto released to the public in which the Mexican president refused to pay for any border wall that Trump is going to try and put up. (As he should) Trump then went on to tell him that he can't make those claims because:

"You cannot say that to the press," Trump said on the phone call. "The press is going to go with that and I cannot live with that. You cannot say that to the press because I cannot negotiate under those circumstances."

No shit Trump he's telling you there are no negotiations because he doesn't want to pay for your stupid dick wall. You can't run a country like a fucking business. A lot of countries don't want to negotiate because you want something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 03, 2017, 08:16:43 pm
Because he didn't want to be embarrassed when Congress overrode the veto.

Keep in mind that it was just a few Freedom Caucus types in the House, and Paul and Sanders in the Senate, who voted against it.


Of course, if he wasn't talking out of his ass, he would have had the last laugh if the Supreme Court were to strike it down. He clearly doesn't know how to play the long game.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 04, 2017, 01:11:10 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jim-justice-west-virginia-democrat-republican-trump-1.4234938

Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia is switching parties from Democratic to Republican.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXWg3oPkWyY

Audio of the phone call in which Anthony Scaramucci insulted everyone else.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 04, 2017, 03:47:24 am
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1AJ1SW

Don't quote me on this but it is possible that this investigation is not just a witch hunt even though Trump said so...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 04, 2017, 10:17:43 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jim-justice-west-virginia-democrat-republican-trump-1.4234938

Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia is switching parties from Democratic to Republican.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXWg3oPkWyY

Audio of the phone call in which Anthony Scaramucci insulted everyone else.


Wanna know something about the West Virgina governor?  He was a Republican up to 2015 when he switched sides to run as a Dem in 2016.

Ironbite-FUN!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 04, 2017, 01:47:27 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jim-justice-west-virginia-democrat-republican-trump-1.4234938

Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia is switching parties from Democratic to Republican.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXWg3oPkWyY

Audio of the phone call in which Anthony Scaramucci insulted everyone else.


Wanna know something about the West Virgina governor?  He was a Republican up to 2015 when he switched sides to run as a Dem in 2016.

Ironbite-FUN!

Yep. Hooray for political opportunism!

EDIT: Also, if you criticise Gov. Justice for this but were A-OK with Sen. Specter's party switch, you're a partisan hack hypocrite. (And vice versa.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 05, 2017, 11:04:20 pm
Well, it looks like Putin's mouthpiece is putting in overtime this week. Maybe the extra pay will allow him to get an extra large diet-Cola at the embassy.

Quote from: Julian Assange
Astounding to see 'liberals' place their hopes in Bush appointee Mueller (who tried to frame me in 2011).
Know your history:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGeFeoaXUAEoqQ8.jpg) (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893831868562493447)

Quote from: Julian Assange
We warned you
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/890848860758839300/6bXCJ1av?format=jpg&name=600x314)
Opinion l If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893502762155216896)

Quote from: Julian Assange
Between Trump's directness & leaks the Trump admin is the most transparent in living memory--despite its policies. Good or bad?
68% Good
32% Bad (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893482088535539713)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Katsuro on August 06, 2017, 06:13:37 am


Quote from: Julian Assange
We warned you
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/890848860758839300/6bXCJ1av?format=jpg&name=600x314)
Opinion l If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893502762155216896)

[/quote]

What?? How is Trump targeting Journalists (which he's now doing with Sessions threatening to prosecute journalists over leaks) Obama's fault?  Is this a "thanks Obama" joke that's gone over my head or something?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 06, 2017, 11:35:29 am


Quote from: Julian Assange
We warned you
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/890848860758839300/6bXCJ1av?format=jpg&name=600x314)
Opinion l If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893502762155216896)

What?? How is Trump targeting Journalists (which he's now doing with Sessions threatening to prosecute journalists over leaks) Obama's fault?  Is this a "thanks Obama" joke that's gone over my head or something?

No, it is "just ignore these terrible things Trump might do and blame Obama because he persecuted journalists in the pass. Therefore, give Trump a free pass and blame the black man."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 06, 2017, 03:13:37 pm
Oh hey New York Times just published a piece about Pence getting cozy with major Republican donors.  Donors who don't exactly like Trump.  Of course Pence's camp has denied it in the tones of "Oh MY GOD HOW THE HELL DID YOU GET SO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH!?" and the Orange Piss Pot is probably gonna be looking at Pence sideways.

Ironbite-ain't it nice?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 06, 2017, 08:37:50 pm
What?? How is Trump targeting Journalists (which he's now doing with Sessions threatening to prosecute journalists over leaks) Obama's fault?  Is this a "thanks Obama" joke that's gone over my head or something?

Blaming Obama for his policy on whistleblowers, based on the picture.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 06, 2017, 09:02:08 pm
Trump does not deserve a free pass for any of his horrible policies.

Neither does Obama.

Nor Bush Jr.

Nor Clinton.

Nor Bush Sr.

Nor Reagan...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 06, 2017, 09:37:06 pm
Trump does not deserve a free pass for any of his horrible policies.

Neither does Obama.

Nor Bush Jr.

Nor Clinton.

Nor Bush Sr.

Nor Reagan...

But to blame Obama for Trump's major transgressions because of Obama's less serious transgressions is intellectually dishonest. What you say sounds good on paper, but it just provides defense for Assange's indefensible defense of Trump (but of course, Assange is just being kind to Trump...again).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 07, 2017, 07:00:54 pm
Trump does not deserve a free pass for any of his horrible policies.

Neither does Obama.

Nor Bush Jr.

Nor Clinton.

Nor Bush Sr.

Nor Reagan...

But to blame Obama for Trump's major transgressions because of Obama's less serious transgressions is intellectually dishonest. What you say sounds good on paper, but it just provides defense for Assange's indefensible defense of Trump (but of course, Assange is just being kind to Trump...again).

I'm not blaming Obama for Trump's transgressions. Trump's transgressions are on Trump and Trump alone. But I will say that Obama transgressed (for instance, suspending habeas corpus), and point out when Trump's transgressions are continuations or escalations of Obama's (for instance, the drone war). Trump could have insisted on a repeal of the 2013 NDAA (at least to the extent that it suspended habeas corpus), and stopped the drone war. But he hasn't done the former and has escalated the latter. It would be dishonest not to point out that what Trump is doing is not new policy, and further not to point out that it's not Bush-era policy that was suspended during the Obama years and reinstated by Trump, but rather policy followed during the Obama years (possibly continued from the Bush years, possibly new) and carried over into the Trump administration.

By contrast, Obama had repealed a rule preventing the US from giving funds to programs that discuss abortion in other countries; Trump reinstated it. That's on Trump and only Trump. Obama did the right thing, Trump did the wrong thing. (Granted, this has been the standard for decades: the ban is in place during Republican administrations and lifted during Democratic administrations, but Trump could have broken that precedent by refusing to reinstate the ban. That he didn't is a black mark against him.)

Meanwhile, Ken Starr warned Bob Mueller not to go on a fishing expedition.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XltWe4PZLN4/Td7A3YKsjlI/AAAAAAAALGk/JnDPKzu4eF8/s1600/tmp.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 07, 2017, 07:04:01 pm
I saw the Ken Starr thing here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFvWPC4lUSA
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 08, 2017, 04:34:34 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w7uEYcUcRw

"Don't kowtow to what centrist political pundits say. They live on their own planet and they're usually wrong."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 08, 2017, 06:01:56 pm
Oh fuck! (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/08/donald-trump-north-korea-missile-threats-fire-fury) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwVC9S9o5jc
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 08, 2017, 06:05:07 pm
Thank god we've got a State Department just bursting at the seams with people who are experienced with diplomacy and tact and can probably score huge points by defusing this situation.

Ironbite-..........right?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 08, 2017, 06:12:39 pm
I'm looking around the world at the countries that have nukes and their political leadership.

And as near as I can tell, the only stable, sane one is France (I'd include the UK except that the Tories have to navigate a minority government working with the DUP, and who knows if May will last as Conservative leader, or whether there'll be an election that might see Corbyn end up as PM, or...).

We're fucked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on August 08, 2017, 06:20:52 pm
I hope everybody here has a shelter and plenty of Brown Meat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 08, 2017, 09:02:36 pm
So Kim Jung Un is threatening to attack Guam. He can't be that stupid right?  They have a large army but with cold war technology they would be decimated. If they attack first I doubt China is going to aid them. Our idiot and chief can't keep his fucking mouth shut either. Can't we just put those two fat heads in a boxing ring together?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 08, 2017, 09:11:46 pm
So Kim Jung Un is threatening to attack Guam. He can't be that stupid right?  They have a large army but with cold war technology they would be decimated. If they attack first I doubt China is going to aid them. Our idiot and chief can't keep his fucking mouth shut either. Can't we just put those two fat heads in a boxing ring together?

Needs more Khal Drogo
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 08, 2017, 11:54:46 pm
Guam.

He's threatening Guam.

I doubt most Americans even know what Guam is, or somehow think he's threatening their guacamole.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 09, 2017, 12:19:34 am
So Kim Jung Un is threatening to attack Guam. He can't be that stupid right?  They have a large army but with cold war technology they would be decimated.
I'd say the US military will destroy far more than just 1/10th of their North Korean counterpart if given half a chance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 09, 2017, 05:42:14 am
https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/how-a-pro-trump-twitter-scheme-fell-apart-after-a-retweet?utm_term=.dgb4Xbr9l#.mp0ZPK9Ek

...Does Trump even have real supporters at this point? Is it just bots and trolls and GOPers who are waiting for the moment to turn against him and give the throne to Pence?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on August 09, 2017, 06:11:48 am
Don't forget, all of the black supporters proven to be bots? The pictures were brightened from the placeit photos they were taken from to make them appear lighter-skinned.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on August 09, 2017, 04:55:31 pm
Guam.

He's threatening Guam.

I doubt most Americans even know what Guam is, or somehow think he's threatening their guacamole.

As a regular on the main page, I always think of notorious Fundie pedophile David J. Stewart whenever Guam comes up--he's basically in exile there.  Thanks a lot, DJ Stupid, for making me think of you instead of Guam's people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 09, 2017, 05:02:12 pm
Apparently Guam is a popular exile spot for pedophile preachers.

David J. Stewart is far from alone down there as far as crazy, evil molesters go.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 09, 2017, 05:46:33 pm
https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/how-a-pro-trump-twitter-scheme-fell-apart-after-a-retweet?utm_term=.dgb4Xbr9l#.mp0ZPK9Ek

...Does Trump even have real supporters at this point? Is it just bots and trolls and GOPers who are waiting for the moment to turn against him and give the throne to Pence?

According to 538 he's at a 37 percent approval rating. Seeing that he's only half a year into his presidency that's pretty fucking awful. That's like Bush after Katrina levels and Trump has yet to have a disaster happen during his term.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 09, 2017, 06:42:29 pm
Well, of the natural variety, at any rate.  Political ones out the ass, though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 09, 2017, 08:02:38 pm
Yeah... I don't trust Trump to handle brinkmanship competently. How much do fallout shelters cost?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on August 10, 2017, 11:48:15 am
Samantha Bee has a good video on how Gamergate led to Trump

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_5vyDkZgU
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 10, 2017, 02:58:33 pm
Seen near the White House:

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/video_previews/8/2/82exg4yze6dcz-ms0xj6knrtgm9jqsxw-large.jpg)

EDIT:

Seen on another forum in response to this image:

Quote
Quote
Quote
That's horrible and pretty disrespectful to a sitting president.
The chicken's pretty hilarious... he disrespects huge parts of the country/world population, he can deal with an inflatable chicken. When you're a public figure, it happens.
Still mad Hilary lost huh? (Originally "Liberal raging still?")
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 10, 2017, 03:53:40 pm
"That's horrible and pretty disrespectful to a sitting President" says a person who most likely shouted freedom of speech when people would lynch dummies resembling Barack Obama.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 10, 2017, 03:55:41 pm
Freedom of Speech goes both ways, motherfuckers.  Can't handle it...

>.>
<.<

...Why don't you move to China?

Who the fuck am I kidding?  The Chinese want someone that's actually fucking useful.  All your worthless ass does is sit shirtless in your double-wide with a Budweiser resting on your ever-widening beer-gut.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on August 12, 2017, 04:14:29 pm
Trump just "both sides"-ed the fucking nazi rally in charlottesville
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 12, 2017, 05:11:40 pm
AIN'T IT GREAT!?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on August 12, 2017, 05:17:14 pm
and one of the 20 people hit by the nazi driving a car into the crowd is dead.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 12, 2017, 05:44:13 pm
And Trump's whole part of the speech about "we must come together" is bullshit.  He really means "WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL PROTESTING ME!  DON'T YOU KNOW I'M KING!  ACT LIKE IT!" and everything just goes his way.

Ironbite-spineless coward refuses to call terrorism terrorism because it's white.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 12, 2017, 11:09:58 pm
Here seen flat out refusing to answer questions about whether he'll denounce alt right supporters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OPOCgkz1H8

It's towards the end so you'll have to put up with a lot of orange bullwaffle before he scurries off in the face of the journos questions.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 12, 2017, 11:14:12 pm
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

That DNC hack?

Probably a leak, not a hack.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 12, 2017, 11:19:46 pm
..........oh my god.

Ironbite-the fuck are they on?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 13, 2017, 01:02:03 am
Yeah, there's the obvious fact that Donald Trump Jr tweeted about his attempt to gain intelligence from the Russians. That's a separate issue from the DNC leak though.

So you can be entirely consistent and say that that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and the DNC shot themselves repeatedly in the foot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 13, 2017, 01:33:20 am
So rather than a Russian spy hacking the DNC there was a Russian spy or USAian traitor in the DNC?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 13, 2017, 01:43:07 am
So rather than a Russian spy hacking the DNC there was a Russian spy or USAian traitor in the DNC?
Or just a plain old party operative with an axe to grind.

It's entirely possible that the leak had nothing to do with Russia but Russia was still looking for ways to undermine the Clinton campaign. Certainly the Trump campaign took up the Russian offer to get intelligence from them for this stated purpose.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 13, 2017, 02:16:27 am
So rather than a Russian spy hacking the DNC there was a Russian spy or USAian traitor in the DNC?
Or just a plain old party operative with an axe to grind.

It's entirely possible that the leak had nothing to do with Russia but Russia was still looking for ways to undermine the Clinton campaign. Certainly the Trump campaign took up the Russian offer to get intelligence from them for this stated purpose.

Except that we already know that Russian agents altered the files. That has been proven. When it was released by a Russia based hacker the files had been edited and the "digital fingerprints" (I'm a luddite and this is way above what I know about computers) showed that the files had been modified by a user with a program that was in Russian language.

EDIT: "...plain old party operative with an axe to grind." That's spelled "traitor." If I get angry at my employer and leak secrets to a rival company that is espionage, if I get angry at my country or political party and leak information from them to a foreign agent that is also espionage and I have committed treason.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 13, 2017, 02:25:18 am
The reason I'm bringing up Trump Jr's meeting with the Russians is that it's very clear that even if the articles claims are true, the Trump campaign was still in very deep with the Russians in a partisan attempt to derail the Clinton campaign by any and all means.

And that's a big "if"...

The article lays the blame of the deterioration of Russia/US relation entirely on the DNC leak. I'm saying that even if the articles claims re: the leak are true, that it was an inside job, it wouldn't make any difference because of the established fact that the Russians were trying to aid Trump. This fact doesn't rest on Russian involvement in the DNC leak. It's independently established.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 14, 2017, 07:34:12 pm
Speaking of Trump waffling on denouncing white supremacists, remember when Republicans were mildly respectable on the matter?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/transcripts/0815/dole.fdch.shtml

Quote
Let me speak about immigration. Yes. Let me speak about immigration. The right and obligation of a sovereign nation to control its borders is beyond debate. We should not have here a single illegal immigrant.

But the question of immigration is broader than that, and let me specific. A family from Mexico arrives this morning legally has as much right to the American Dream as the direct descents of the Founding Fathers.

The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents -- The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view.

But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.

...

The Constitution of the United States mandates equal protection under the law. This is not code language for racism. It is plain speaking against it.

And the guiding light in my administration will be that in this country, we have no rank order by birth, no claim to favoritism by race, no expectation of judgment other than it be even-handed. And we cannot guarantee the outcome, but we shall guarantee the opportunity in America.

I disagree with most of the rest of what Sen. Dole said in that speech, but he was spot on there.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 14, 2017, 09:04:20 pm
He finally decided to condemn white supremacists:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/14/trump-denounces-kkk-neo-nazis-as-justice-department-launches-civil-rights-probe-into-charlottesville-death/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/14/trump-denounces-kkk-neo-nazis-as-justice-department-launches-civil-rights-probe-into-charlottesville-death/)

Will he stop pandering to them? Or is this just paying lip service to lower the pressure? I'm leaning towards the latter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 14, 2017, 09:34:58 pm
I'm sure he doesn't mean it and his white supremacists followers don't believe it either.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 14, 2017, 09:41:55 pm
it took less time for the Tiki Company to condemn this modern-day lynch mob than our president.

Tiki. Fucking, Tiki condemned this before our president.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 14, 2017, 10:10:31 pm
And then he was right back on blaming the media for not giving him enough credit.

Ironbite-no clue and this man supposedly has amazing charisma.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 14, 2017, 11:13:42 pm
And then he was right back on blaming the media for not giving him enough credit.

Ironbite-no clue and this man supposedly has amazing charisma.

He's a fascist pandering to know-nothing's and whataboutists like Lana
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 15, 2017, 04:23:18 pm
https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/we-fight-for-the-users/

The Trump DoJ is seeking the IP addresses of people who used a website central to organizing the Inauguration Day protests.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 15, 2017, 05:22:04 pm
This shit is getting scary, and it's only beginning.
Now there's 9 more White Nationalist Rallies being held this weekend, and Trump is refusing to condemn this hate group. Instead still placing blame on both sides.
Now the term Alt Left is being thrown around as if that's a thing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Katsuro on August 15, 2017, 06:00:08 pm
So Trump just gave a press conference in which, talking about Charlottesville, he said, "there are very fine people on both sides..."
In other words, the President of the US just said on live international TV that there are very fine Nazis.

I have a question for you, America: WTF??!!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 15, 2017, 06:09:23 pm
This shit is getting scary, and it's only beginning.
Now there's 9 more White Nationalist Rallies being held this weekend, and Trump is refusing to condemn this hate group. Instead still placing blame on both sides.
Now the term Alt Left is being thrown around as if that's a thing.

Sometimes, condemning both sides is appropriate, but not here. Unless the counterprotestors killed somebody too, the alt-rightists were definitely in the wrong here.

So Trump just gave a press conference in which, talking about Charlottesville, he said, "there are very fine people on both sides..."
In other words, the President of the US just said on live international TV that there are very fine Nazis.

I have a question for you, America: WTF??!!

I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on August 15, 2017, 08:14:32 pm
I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).

They overestimated the decency of a near-majority of the population. The professional politicians were insufficiently jaded.

Where can I find stats on their employment? I'm curious how many Dems turned in their six-week notice when they realized this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 15, 2017, 08:18:21 pm
I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).

Just like

1. Republicans elevated Hillary in 2008 to hurt Obama in the general. (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/limbaugh-operation-chaos/2008/04/24/id/323517/http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/limbaugh-operation-chaos/2008/04/24/id/323517/)
2. Republicans elevated Bernie in 2016 to hurt Hillary in the general. (http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article55403865.html)
3. Russia elevated Bernie in 2016 to hurt Hillary in the general. (http://www.npr.org/2017/07/17/537323120/timeline-of-trump-and-russia-in-mid-2016-a-series-of-coincidences-or-something-m)

Both sides have a long history of doing what they could in the primaries to help themselves in the general. And, your criticism outright ignores that Trump was the favorite long before the Dems attempted to elevate Trump to help themselves.

The_Queen-All and all it's just another brick in the wall.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 16, 2017, 12:24:18 am
All in all, putting more blame on DNC than Trump for Trump not condemning White-power groups is a weird thing to do.

EDIT: Oh wow... http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-emails-devastating-legal-papadopoulos-paul-manafort-2017-8/?r=US&IR=T

It's not like Trump campaign colluding with Russia hadn't been already proven sufficiently but more evidence keeps popping up again and again...

Quote
Papadopolous sent the first email to seven campaign advisers in March 2016 with the subject line "Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin." His requests were reportedly met with hesitancy from multiple campaign officials, including retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who voiced concerns about violating both US sanctions on Russia and the Logan Act, a law forbidding US citizens from negotiating with foreign governments without authorization.

Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman and a current subject in the Russia investigation, also expressed concerns about the proposal and rejected Papadopoulos' request for a meeting between Trump and Russian officials in May 2016, according to The Post.

This is proof that the campaign leaders knew that meeting with Russian's to gain something for the campaign would be illegal. ...But these emails, (seen by Manafort who took part in the conversation.) were sent before the meeting with Russian's that took place in the Trump tower. ...Even though Trump team members were told that the lawyer present was representing Russia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 16, 2017, 01:07:42 am
I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).

They overestimated the decency of a near-majority of the population. The professional politicians were insufficiently jaded.

Where can I find stats on their employment? I'm curious how many Dems turned in their six-week notice when they realized this.

Can we please stop with this "Trump voters are bad people" nonsense? It's about as helpful as a hole in the head.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 16, 2017, 01:25:46 am
I think reminding Trump voters that they are the reason for this is more helpful than telling DNC that it is their fault that Trump won't condemn Nazis who kill people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on August 16, 2017, 01:55:00 am
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil.  Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others.  He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).

But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that.  You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil. 
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 16, 2017, 02:02:48 am
It's not a matter of "THEY ARE ALL EEEEEEVIL!" it is a matter of "Trump wasn't keeping a lid on his racism or sexism and was actually quite proud of his poor financial skills as evidenced by his plan to get rid of the NAFTA and to build "The Wall." Anyone who voted for him can't claim that they had no idea that this would happen. Trump is behaving as the president the way he has always been behaving. Like David Duke said, the KKK and other racist groups are just doing what Trump implicitly promised would happen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 16, 2017, 06:45:23 am
I blame the DNC (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/).

They overestimated the decency of a near-majority of the population. The professional politicians were insufficiently jaded.

Where can I find stats on their employment? I'm curious how many Dems turned in their six-week notice when they realized this.

Can we please stop with this "Trump voters are bad people" nonsense? It's about as helpful as a hole in the head.

Lana: I blame the DNC for Trump
Pyro: I blame the people who voted for him
Me: The DNC acted in a manner consistent with past elections
Lana: STOP BLAMING TRUMP VOTERS!

The_Queen: It also isn't like Hillary warned us of Trump's white supremacy problem in August during her Alt-Right speech. Also, I am being facetious, she totally did, and people ignored her because democrat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 16, 2017, 09:06:50 am
Queenie, surely you don't vote for someone whose main appeal was to haters of Mexicans and/or Muslims because you're bad!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 16, 2017, 02:35:39 pm
Heard on a Youtube livestream:

When Paul Ryan goes into his kitchen to make himself a sandwich, he comes out with a bill to cut taxes on the rich.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 16, 2017, 07:31:17 pm
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil.  Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others.  He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).

But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that.  You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.

Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".

A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.

How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 16, 2017, 07:56:46 pm
God that's a lot of nothing to post.

Ironbite-like honestly a lot of nothing to post.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on August 16, 2017, 07:58:33 pm
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 16, 2017, 08:41:02 pm
Your link about how you've looked deeply is a dead link. But given how deeply you've looked into the matter why not elucidate us with your views. Personally I don't see how anyone could ever equate Trump as being the lesser of two evils. I mean people will say they were duped but it was pretty fucking obvious.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 16, 2017, 08:53:50 pm
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil.  Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others.  He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).

But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that.  You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.

Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".

A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.

How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)

Hey, Paragon, didn't we have this conversation (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7463.msg304940#msg304940) like 80 pages and six months ago. Didn't we already shut you up on the point, Paragon. Now, 80 pages later, you renew this argument, Paragon, thinking that we all forgot.

Fuck off.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 16, 2017, 09:27:41 pm
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil.  Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others.  He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).

But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that.  You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.

Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".

A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.

How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)

Nazi apologia is completely revolting.

The right choice is never the Nazi. I'll vote lizard over wizard any day, and those that don't cannot be held to be unaccountable for their choices. We do not need to understand the motivations of these people. Voting Trump, heiling him in Nazi style, and supporting white supremacy makes abjectly unremarkable people feel better. That is it. All there is to understand.

They're afraid of the world leaving them behind, and indeed. The world should leave these walking slime molds behind.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on August 16, 2017, 11:27:12 pm
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil.  Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others.  He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).

But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that.  You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.

Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".

A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.

How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)

I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.

Democrats maybe rigging the primary for Hillary doesn't have anything to do with why people supported Trump, that didn't come into it until well after Trump had the republican nomination.  There were 16 other republican candidates to choose from, all of whom, even Ted Cruz, would have been better then Donald.  But Donald made howling Racism central to his campaign and that pulled him to the front of the race.

In fact you know what Direct Question:  Do you agree or disagree that the grievances and motivations of many Trump voters were racist? 

And for the record I take that "Hillary was corrupt" about as seriously as I take the bit from Radiation that she voted Trump because Hillary said something racist.  Donald has a long and well documented history of staggering financial corruption from stealing money from his charities to running a fraudulent "university" if corruption was the problem Hillary was obviously the lesser evil.


Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 17, 2017, 12:35:00 am
I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil.  Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others.  He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).

But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that.  You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.

Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".

A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.

How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)

I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.

Democrats maybe rigging the primary for Hillary doesn't have anything to do with why people supported Trump, that didn't come into it until well after Trump had the republican nomination.  There were 16 other republican candidates to choose from, all of whom, even Ted Cruz, would have been better then Donald.  But Donald made howling Racism central to his campaign and that pulled him to the front of the race.

In fact you know what Direct Question:  Do you agree or disagree that the grievances and motivations of many Trump voters were racist? 

And for the record I take that "Hillary was corrupt" about as seriously as I take the bit from Radiation that she voted Trump because Hillary said something racist.  Donald has a long and well documented history of staggering financial corruption from stealing money from his charities to running a fraudulent "university" if corruption was the problem Hillary was obviously the lesser evil.

Yes, I agree. But "many" is not the same as "all", or even "most" for that matter.

And I wasn't claiming that Hillary was corrupt, I was pointing out the established fact that the DNC rigged the game in her favor. Condemning people for not voting for her after that little revelation... how is that possibly justifiable?

I believe it is false and unhelpful to declare that every single person who voted for Trump to be completely, utterly, irredeemably evil.  Most humans are morally complicated and posses a mixture of good and bad traits (ie my dad was a loving father who dedicated his life to help others as a parole officer because he truly wanted to help others.  He was also a homophobe who told me when I first asked what a gay person was that they were selfish people who didn't follow God's plan).

But to say that Trump voters did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it does not amount to that.  You can say that someone has done wrong without claiming them to be 100% evil.

Is it morally right to vote for a candidate for whose favor the game was rigged (http://observer.com/2017/05/ro-khanna-admits-democratic-primares-rigged-for-hillary-clinton/)? Maybe I should go around telling off Hillary voters for "supporting corruption".

A lot of Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place. There were many who either stayed home or . And I don't blame them. After the revelations that the DNC rigged the game in Hillary's favor, I don't think we have any right to judge people who didn't vote for her.

How many of you understand why so many people voted for Trump? How many of you have looked more deeply into the matter? I've looked, and if I'm honest? For a lot of these people, I can understand, even sympathize with why they did it, even if I don't like the result. Instead of looking down on people for exercising their democratic rights in a way we didn't like, I think we should try to understand their grievances and motivations.
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-third-party-candidates-did-in-2016/[/url)

Nazi apologia is completely revolting.

The right choice is never the Nazi. I'll vote lizard over wizard any day, and those that don't cannot be held to be unaccountable for their choices. We do not need to understand the motivations of these people. Voting Trump, heiling him in Nazi style, and supporting white supremacy makes abjectly unremarkable people feel better. That is it. All there is to understand.

They're afraid of the world leaving them behind, and indeed. The world should leave these walking slime molds behind.

I want to comment on this, but I'm not sure I could do it justice. So at least for now, I'm just going to let it stand and remember it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on August 17, 2017, 12:43:09 am
Is saying "You did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it" the same thing as condemning someone?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 17, 2017, 12:55:26 am
Is saying "You did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it" the same thing as condemning someone?

Not quite, but there are some people (not you, from what I can tell) who cross that line. Such as our resident sociopath.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on August 17, 2017, 12:55:34 am
If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 17, 2017, 12:56:27 am
If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.

Thank you for proving my point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 17, 2017, 01:31:03 am
Is saying "You did something morally wrong and bare responsibility for it" the same thing as condemning someone?

Not quite, but there are some people (not you, from what I can tell) who cross that line. Such as our resident sociopath.

Yes. I will happily condemn the people who voted for a man who wants to make America white again. They could see what his rhetoric was. They were there for his remark equating Somalians with animals, they were there when he asked them to swear an oath of loyalty to him in the Roman Salute style, and they were there for him when he pledged to throw his political adversary in jail.

It is people like you, Lana, that make me glad, downright glad, I will never in a million years experience empathy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 17, 2017, 04:14:16 am
Lana, can you explain to me how can someone look at Trump during the campaign and not see the racism, sexism and incompetence? I mean really, his own words, his own actions are all the proof one needs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 17, 2017, 04:50:39 am
Lana, can you explain to me how can someone look at Trump during the campaign and not see the racism, sexism and incompetence? I mean really, his own words, his own actions are all the proof one needs.

You can see it, but decide that it doesn't matter, because you are not ever, in a million years, going to vote for Hillary Clinton, the near-literal embodiment of the system you know has been fucking you for decades--and who campaigned on "everything's fine, we just need to tinker around the edges" when your own life has been going to shit.

But then you look at Donald Trump and see this incompetent, racist, sexist baboon. And you either decide that a) that doesn't matter because he's promising some sort of change, b) you can't bring yourself to vote for either of these assholes so you vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or write in Bernie Sanders or something, or c) you just stay home because there's no point, you're fucked either way (or you go, but leave the Presidential line blank). (Or d) you're a victim of voter suppression tactics.)

Look at Wisconsin. In 2012, Barack Obama got 1,620,985 votes, and Mitt Romney got 1,407,966 votes. In 2016, Donald Trump got 1,405,284 votes, and Hillary Clinton got 1,382,536 votes. People didn't want to vote for Trump--more people voted for Romney when he lost than for Trump when he won!--but they even more didn't want to vote for Clinton.

It's funny--I see people blaming the voters for Clinton's loss, as if they somehow owed her their vote. It's not that Clinton failed the voters, the voters failed Clinton, according to this analysis. Here's the thing: nobody owes anyone their vote. It's on the candidate to earn each and every vote. Hillary Clinton wasn't talking about what she would do for people (25% of her ads were about policy, by far the lowest proportion of any modern presidential campaign); she campaigned on "TRUMP BAD." And that's not a winning message. If you don't tell people how electing you will make their lives better, you can't be surprised when they don't bother to vote for you.

Trump, whatever his other faults, told people how he was going to make their lives better (even though he hasn't done much of any of it): he would kill NAFTA, which people blame (rightly or wrongly) for sending their jobs away; he would kill the TPP, which people feared would send even more jobs away; he would bring coal jobs back (even though coal is a dying industry). And, yes, he would kick out all the immigrants who are stealing your jobs (that you won't do anyway) and the Muslims who are going to kill you (even though you're far more likely to be killed by a right-wing terrorist). Trump told people that with him there was at least a chance their lives could be better; Clinton made it pretty clear that things were going to stay largely the same under her Presidency.

And when your income has been stagnant for a decade, you're living paycheque-to-paycheque, your health insurance premiums are flying up (even though they're lower than they would have been had the ACA never been passed--if you could even get insurance without the ACA)... you will take even the faintest glimmer of hope of something better than you will a promise that things will stay the same.

Would I have voted for Trump? Hell fucking no. But does that mean I can't understand what sort of pressures would drive someone to vote for him in spite of his misogyny and bigotry?

I saw it noted that since 1992, the winners of the Presidential elections have been whichever of the major party candidates managed to portray themselves as more the outsider. Tell me--which portrayed themselves better as an outsider, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

Keep in mind that a lot of these Trump voters will cheer, unprompted, when Bernie Sanders outlines his economic agenda for them. Yes, there are Trump voters who cannot be won over--the "deplorables" to whom Clinton accurately referred. But the others can be--but not by someone they see as inextricably linked to the machine that's been screwing them over. Populist sentiment will attach itself to populist candidates sometimes regardless of political ideology--we saw it here in BC where the federal populist vote went from the left-wing NDP in 1988 to the right-wing Reform in 1993 (in part because the BC NDP won power in 1991 provincially and were rather unpopular by 1993). And when that populist sentiment is running sufficiently high, as it was in 2016, and only one candidate actively tries to harness it, that candidate suddenly has a much better chance of winning.

But right now, populist and anti-establishment sentiment is running high. We saw it with Rodrigo Duterte. We saw it with Brexit. We saw it with Donald Trump. We almost saw it with Marine Le Pen. We saw it with Theresa May's crash and burn (or, rather, Jeremy Corbyn's outperforming expectations). We see it with Bernie Sanders being the most popular politician in the US.

Politicial populism is currently a force to be reckoned with. Ignore it at your peril; harness it properly and you will win.

Donald Trump saw that wave and rode it. Hillary Clinton was drowned.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 17, 2017, 07:47:47 am
If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.

Thank you for proving my point.
Oh FFS why is it so bloody important to protect the fee fees of people who voted for someone knowing them to be a racist, rapey, sexist, unstable, chronically stupid douchebag?

Stop it Lana, it's political correctness gone mad!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 17, 2017, 04:01:13 pm
If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.

Thank you for proving my point.
Oh FFS why is it so bloody important to protect the fee fees of people who voted for someone knowing them to be a racist, rapey, sexist, unstable, chronically stupid douchebag?

Stop it Lana, it's political correctness gone mad!

Haven't you ever considered why so many people voted for Trump? Have you wondered why rural America won Trump the election?

People like to talk about "red states" and "blue states", but looking at the county level gives a more complete picture.

(https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/120/671/shared_link/265d59e5da54c57026d8b4c8e1532e10.jpg?1479396240)

Trump overwhelmingly won rural communities. This is because they're in awful straits, and the country doesn't seem to care about them. To a lot of these people, a vote for Trump was a means to be heard. Everyone lashes out when they don't have a voice. And you want to continue dumping on these people? When you find yourself in a hole, maybe you should stop digging.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 17, 2017, 04:12:26 pm
That map is misleading, since a lot of those red counties have far lower populations than the blue counties.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 17, 2017, 04:27:21 pm
The reason why the President isn't elected by county is quite simple: It would give a county with 4,000 people the same amount of power as a city with 4,000,000 people. That's not to say that the current electoral system is great. It's actually pretty garbage that gives more power to smaller states and gives no power to people voting blue in red states and vice versa. However, it's a hell of a lot better than electing by county would be.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 17, 2017, 04:46:19 pm
(https://i1.wp.com/leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/04/electoral-college-1200.png)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 17, 2017, 05:12:26 pm
Well, regardless of why small states are given more power, the point stands.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 17, 2017, 05:30:17 pm
If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.

Thank you for proving my point.
Oh FFS why is it so bloody important to protect the fee fees of people who voted for someone knowing them to be a racist, rapey, sexist, unstable, chronically stupid douchebag?

Stop it Lana, it's political correctness gone mad!

Haven't you ever considered why so many people voted for Trump? Have you wondered why rural America won Trump the election?

People like to talk about "red states" and "blue states", but looking at the county level gives a more complete picture.

(https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/120/671/shared_link/265d59e5da54c57026d8b4c8e1532e10.jpg?1479396240)

Trump overwhelmingly won rural communities. This is because they're in awful straits, and the country doesn't seem to care about them. To a lot of these people, a vote for Trump was a means to be heard. Everyone lashes out when they don't have a voice. And you want to continue dumping on these people? When you find yourself in a hole, maybe you should stop digging.
You mean:

America's rural areas are gerrymandered favoring conservatives.
Rural people vote for people who'll withold government welfare from city slickers, particularly if they have funny names and skin tones or worship places not found in one pub towns.

Yeah. Righto.

I don't give a flying fuck if you have a cornfield in your backyard, if you vote for a con man, sex offender, bigot and headcase whose not shy about any of that then you're morally culpable!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 17, 2017, 11:03:32 pm
If you thought Trump was a better option for President of the United States than Hilary Clinton, you are an idiot, and/or evil.

Thank you for proving my point.
Oh FFS why is it so bloody important to protect the fee fees of people who voted for someone knowing them to be a racist, rapey, sexist, unstable, chronically stupid douchebag?

Stop it Lana, it's political correctness gone mad!

Haven't you ever considered why so many people voted for Trump? Have you wondered why rural America won Trump the election?

People like to talk about "red states" and "blue states", but looking at the county level gives a more complete picture.

(https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/120/671/shared_link/265d59e5da54c57026d8b4c8e1532e10.jpg?1479396240)

Trump overwhelmingly won rural communities. This is because they're in awful straits, and the country doesn't seem to care about them. To a lot of these people, a vote for Trump was a means to be heard. Everyone lashes out when they don't have a voice. And you want to continue dumping on these people? When you find yourself in a hole, maybe you should stop digging.

Awful straits they completely and totally deserve for being so stupid, so abysmally and horrifically dull as to continue voting for people who promise only to make their lives worse and "promote Christian moral values"; translation: put bizarre and archaic religious laws to the book that are manifestly unconstitutional and serve only to waste time and let Republican Congressmen continue to drink and party - why care about people who are slaying themselves so efficiently? For all that they squawk about white genocide, it seems they're doing the job admirably well with no outside assistance or phantasmal deep state needed.

They bring these things on THEMSELVES, and then go on and on about self reliance without a care for the sheer irony in this statement.

The rural voter is so pathetically stupid and uninformed they do not recognize coal is a dying industry, and immediately believe any and all fear-mongering about renewable energy.

These are people so poorly educated they vote for less and less sexual education and then wonder why so many of their youth turn to drugs, to trailer homes, and to younger and younger families.

Dpareja says these people were hungry for populism, and if they were so incapable as to leap for the first leader promising to make their miserable existences better, then that is all the more a stirring indictment of populist politics as a whole and populist politics in America in particular. Demagoguery will NEVER lead anywhere but the dustbin.

They could very well inform themselves about their vote, but instead they chose Trump, they chose a headcase, a demented and perverted imbecile who managed to bankrupt a casino. They CHOSE. And they chose poorly - and thus are morally culpable when they continue to support him and run to support any Republican in office simply because he has an R in between parentheses at the end of his name. They cannot discern cause and effect!

I'll just drop a trope here; It Is Beyond Saving. That is my opinion on these people - ever like the painted gold idol in a grand temple; demanding so much respect from gobsmacked visitors yet capable of nothing truly of note.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 18, 2017, 02:25:10 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/donald-trump-on-charlottesville-1.4250236

Quote
Hypocrisy oozes from [Trump] like pus from a septic infection.

And you're right, niam. Demagoguery will never lead anywhere but the dustbin. But not all populists are demagogues.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 18, 2017, 02:28:01 am
Republicans have become the masters of the sound bite. If Democrats want to win more with rural voters they really need to dumb down their messages. Sure Hillary Clinton could go to west Virginia and explain that she's going to create more jobs by investing in renewable energy blah blah blah. But they don't want to hear that stuff. That sounds too elitist. The way Donald Trump speaks is perfect for the sound bite. He talks in really dumbed down sentences with the skill level of a 5th grader. But with enough confidence to make himself not sound stupid, and he throws in simplified messages that don't mean anything like make America great again. Or were going to bring your jobs back. Never mind the fact that trump doesn't give a shit about them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 18, 2017, 02:41:07 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rC3FjRZzEM

Please explain how Bernie gets a room full of Trump voters cheering him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 18, 2017, 02:56:52 am
Because as you yourself said, it doesn't matter to these goldfish which populist it is they're cheering on so long as they feel someone is pandering to them in some way. They are just so utterly desperate to have someone to give them a solution that doesn't require them to change who and what they truly are.

For all that they cry about not liking government handouts being given, that is what would be required and what they are asking for to preserve their outdated, ramshackle state of existence, of a 1950s they or their parents remember, but which did not exist for people they don't know or see in their plain little moldy whitebread world.

Anyone with eyes to see it can see these fools for what they truly are - an albatross rather than an award bringing show-bird.

It would be funny if it wasn't so...well, I'll let the testament to rural stupidity Mr. Trump fill in that last word.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 18, 2017, 03:25:32 am
They are just so utterly desperate to have someone to give them a solution that doesn't require them to change who and what they truly are.
And what exactly is it that they could change about themselves that would give them prosperity? Honestly, I'd love to hear what you think will bring back a functional economy to the American countryside.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 18, 2017, 03:46:21 am
1) Actually look into a proper and functional education. There is a conscious and notable trend toward detest and distrust of college in these people, viewing it as a "liberal institution" or some such. They simply cannot acquire functionality without going to a reputable college.

2) Have some idea of a job beyond slaughtering their lungs in a coal mine or whatever other factory job they think they remember. So many of them are neurotically fixated on these ideas. They're not coming back. They can't come back.

3) Nobody is going to want to do business in the Ozarks or whatever part of Rural America you're from if its best known for its Confederate Generals and / or Klansmen / Neo-Nazis. Abandon the prejudice and idiotic theories about George Soros and Jewish conspiracies. Just see the backlash from the business communities to the Religious "Freedom" bills.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 18, 2017, 04:04:07 am
1) Actually look into a proper and functional education. There is a conscious and notable trend toward detest and distrust of college in these people, viewing it as a "liberal institution" or some such. They simply cannot acquire functionality without going to a reputable college.
Well, that and they simply can't afford it. Education in the states isn't exactly cheap. Not to mention, a degree is pretty useless out in the sticks, simply because there's no one hiring.
2) Have some idea of a job beyond slaughtering their lungs in a coal mine or whatever other factory job they think they remember. So many of them are neurotically fixated on these ideas. They're not coming back. They can't come back.
What other jobs, exactly? There's literally nothing out there besides the odd KFC or McDonalds. That's really the main issue. All of the service based jobs that the US economy is based on nowadays are in the cities, simply because it's far more cost effective for the employer. If it were that simple, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
3) Nobody is going to want to do business in the Ozarks or whatever part of Rural America you're from if its best known for its Confederate Generals and / or Klansmen / Neo-Nazis. Abandon the prejudice and idiotic theories about George Soros and Jewish conspiracies. Just see the backlash from the business communities to the Religious "Freedom" bills.
That's objectively bullshit. No one's doing business because, due to economic circumstance, it's not profitable. Simple as that. They could be a bunch of the most open-mind intellectuals the world has ever seen and it still wouldn't change that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 18, 2017, 04:39:26 am
Because as you yourself said, it doesn't matter to these goldfish which populist it is they're cheering on so long as they feel someone is pandering to them in some way. They are just so utterly desperate to have someone to give them a solution that doesn't require them to change who and what they truly are.

Except that he is telling them that they've got to change.

He doesn't denigrate them--as he says, "You guys are heroes." But he doesn't hide that coal is a dying industry and that there are more jobs in green energy technology (just in installing the infrastructure, even if you're not a researcher or engineer). He points out that you can create jobs by installing high-speed internet infrastructure... which will create even more jobs because businesses will be able to go there because they'll have the internet speeds they need. And (though I can't recall if he points this out) there's always jobs in maintaining all that infrastructure.

Does he also talk about access to health care and education and such? Sure. And if you want to call those handouts, you can do that--though I might not do it in front of a former coal miner with black lung who absolutely needs health insurance to survive (health insurance that, as one such miner points out, Sanders does more to protect than Mitch McConnell, a Senator from the coal country state of Kentucky). But the jobs he talks about aren't handouts--they're necessary work that's absolutely vital to a functioning society.

Pandering is saying, "We're going to bring coal back." Yes, coal mining is what they know... but coal is a dying industry and modern methods (mountaintop removal) have very few jobs in them, in addition to creating tons of pollution (on top of what coal already generates) and permanently altering the landscape. (Never mind exacerbating already-existing health problems.) Being honest in offering your solutions is not pandering.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 18, 2017, 04:58:30 am
@Art;

I suppose the lack of education and the lack of good paying jobs tie right around into a cycle of sorts.

As for the third point, I would point to Marvel and numerous other companies backing away from whole states that tried to enact Religious Freedom Laws unless they went back and got rid of those, but the point I suppose is that jobs just don't exist there any more.

I'll grant you that.

So I suppose the question is; what to do about this? Well, I personally am not that concerned with it though I'll let there be people who are. As I said, I don't personally think these people can be saved. They dug this hole for themselves through years upon years of incredibly unwise voting, and it will take ascertainment (read, not voting for the person who offers the quickest, easiest and most Christian sounding fix for the situation) to get them out of it. Whether they're capable of that...well, we'll see what happens in 2018. I've made my position clear.

The problem still rests overwhelmingly with those who decided any populist would do, and chose a senile, narcissistic Nazi.

---------------

@ Dpareja:

The question therein is do the rural people WANT these different jobs - will they ultimately go for these ideas, vote for them, and support a comprehensive infrastructure plan that might undo their history of poor decisions. The most staunchly Republican ones can very well applaud such an idea in front of Sanders and then go and support Republican plans. The idea of Renewable Energy for many of them invokes a certain kneejerk response.

I've no problem with what the Republicans deem government handouts, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the rural voter in wanting to deny someone else these things, and then claim it for themselves with no sense of irony.

If the solutions are feasible and can attain the support necessary to go forward, then they can go ahead.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 18, 2017, 05:05:30 am
Finland has seen a lot of people move to cities to get education and jobs. The rural areas are dying off. Rather than ignore this countries should accept the trend and either fight it by help bring more jobs to the rural regions (for example by going full communism and forcibly moving  companies) or embracing it and focusing on mitigating problems in areas that lose people and helping the growing areas deal with the influx of new residents.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 18, 2017, 05:27:13 am
The question therein is do the rural people WANT these different jobs - will they ultimately go for these ideas, vote for them, and support a comprehensive infrastructure plan that might undo their history of poor decisions. The most staunchly Republican ones can very well applaud such an idea in front of Sanders and then go and support Republican plans. The idea of Renewable Energy for many of them invokes a certain kneejerk response.

I've no problem with what the Republicans deem government handouts, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the rural voter in wanting to deny someone else these things, and then claim it for themselves with no sense of irony.

If the solutions are feasible and can attain the support necessary to go forward, then they can go ahead.

Okay, then let's put candidates in front of them who will make that pitch and see who wins.

For instance, incumbent Senator Joe Manchin is facing a primary challenge from a Sandersesque candidate (https://brandnewcongress.org/paulajean). Keep in mind that Sanders won the West Virginia primary pretty handily, with 51.41% of the statewide vote to Clinton's 35.84%, which means that Manchin is going to be in very tough to win the nomination. (I'll admit I don't know the eligibility rules for the Senate primary. The Presidential primary was open to registered Democrats and anyone not registered with another political party; since other primaries coincided with the Presidential contest, I imagine the eligibility rules were the same, but I don't know.) Can Swearingen win the general? I don't know. I don't think Manchin can, and I do think Swearingen can... but then I'm biased, because of my own political views vis-à-vis those of the candidates. But from what I can see, Swearingen will run on the sort of platform Sanders did, while Manchin won't. (Plus there's someone I'm debating with about the WV Senate race. He claims that WV is a cinch for the GOP because Trump won by 40; I'm pointing out that Trump ran on populist conservatism--faux populism, of course, but nonetheless--and that WV didn't necessarily go to Trump because of the conservatism but because of the populism, and that a populist left candidate could well win the Senate seat in 2018. So I'm even more biased because I really want him to be wrong.)

EDIT:

http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=6496.msg302452#msg302452

I'm going to link back to that excerpt from a speech by Premier Rachel Notley of Alberta eviscerating modern conservatism.

Quote
Once every once in a while, the mask slips and we see their real face, like Donald Trump, for instance, the real face of North American populist conservatism with the mask off, along with the little failed Donald Trump mini-mes who pop up in Canada every now and then.

(This was from early 2016.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 18, 2017, 07:45:27 am
Personally, I think trying to create jobs in general is a dead end long term, be it for city or country folk. I don't think it's a stretch at this point to say automation is the way of the future. At this point, we really need to get serious about addressing how society is going to function with a fully automated economy, or the entire 1st world is going to go the way of the US countryside within the next couple of decades. Doesn't matter how enlightened and morally grounded you are, you can't compete with bots.

Honestly, it kind of scares me that this issue almost never comes up in politics.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 18, 2017, 08:33:34 am
There will still be jobs, though.  People, at some point, are going to be required to maintain both hardware and software.  A repair driod might be able to fix a broken hydraulic press, but how's it going to know when to intervene?  Who's going to ensure it doesn't glitch out and end up doing more harm than good?  Hell, who's gonna repair the repair driod?

We'll still have an economy, just one based on keeping things working and making new things.  We'll still need software engineers, scientists, mechanical engineers, doctors, support staff, and more.  There are some things only human intuition can adequately handle; I very seriously doubt we'll have that particular API for several more generations.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 18, 2017, 08:47:33 am
Any jobs based on physical labour will see loss of jobs due to automation, with less workers around you see service jobs reducing due to less customers. Unless you get brand new companies moving to rural regions the migration will continue.

And that's not bad. People have always migrated due to changes in their area or living conditions.

The issue with USA is that you should accept this rather than trying to put specific towns on life support. Even if a kid moves to the big city they are still in the same country. This is true even if they cross a state line. Voting power should be based on voters rather than the regions and the artificial lines drawn on maps.

But with the parties clinging on to power you see a shift where metropolitans lose power because you insist on using the old electoral system that is outdated...

When climate change turns fertile lands into deserts rather than trying to eat sand we must accept that people migrate to life supporting regions and try to get along.

What I fear is that we still see the same old "fuck you I got mine" attitudes and consequent wars.

...but I went off topic long ago.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 18, 2017, 09:53:03 am
There will still be jobs, though.  People, at some point, are going to be required to maintain both hardware and software.  A repair driod might be able to fix a broken hydraulic press, but how's it going to know when to intervene?  Who's going to ensure it doesn't glitch out and end up doing more harm than good?  Hell, who's gonna repair the repair driod?

We'll still have an economy, just one based on keeping things working and making new things.  We'll still need software engineers, scientists, mechanical engineers, doctors, support staff, and more.  There are some things only human intuition can adequately handle; I very seriously doubt we'll have that particular API for several more generations.

According to an Oxford study, 47% of all jobs could be fully automated within the next couple of decades. (http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf) Sure, human labour will still have some niche in the future, but not anywhere near enough to keep the entire working age population employed like we've come to expect.

Hell, it's kind of been happening for the past couple of decades already. Between 1998 and 2013, the population of the US rose by 40 million and GDP rose by around 40%, yet the total number of hours worked was 194 billion hours in both years. Demand for labour has stagnated while both the economy and population has grown. Won't be long now before it starts to drop (assuming it hasn't already). Another fun fact, transport and logistics accounts for around 10% of total employment in the US. Self driving vehicles are already and thing and even these first generation machines are better than human drivers in every objective measure. How long before truckers and bus drivers go the way of factory workers? Here in my glorious motherland, Sydney and Melbourne are already testing self driving buses, so I dare say it won't be long.

So yeah, I don't think I'm wrong to be concerned that this issue is almost never even brought up, much less talked about, in politics.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 18, 2017, 10:06:58 am
Yeah, that's true.  Either we curb the population, or we find a way to adapt our economic strategies to accommodate reality.  As for American logistics, they're woefully outdated, anyway.  We're still stuck on trucks like a bunch of savages, instead of using more efficient trains because our rails have been undercut at almost every opportunity since the invention of the automobile.

Ya know, its almost like there should be something to catch people, economically, that fall thru the cracks of time like this...like some kind of net, perhaps one of safety.  Nah, that'll never work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 18, 2017, 10:29:14 am
One problem is that the economy is becoming more global. Back in the day you could be born into a town grow up, get married, work and die in that town. Now people have to travel to other states to find and start careers and do that a few times before they can actually settle down comfortably. It's why couples are having kids later now or not having kids at all. I forsee in the future people having to travel to other countries to find work, especially if a country becomes well known for a particular set of jobs. That's why its dangerous to take on this nationalist isolationist approach from the rest of the world. Because the rest of the world will move on with out you and you'll be left to suffer economically. That's why it's dangerous for these old coal mining and factory mill towns. People want to cling onto the jobs that aren't there and what made their towns great in the past just aren't there anymore. These towns are very conservative and tend to be very stubborn about trying something new. Until someone can figure out how to convince these people to either A) Move to where jobs are, B) Let people invest in new kinds of jobs in your town. It's not going to change and Donald Trump creating 1800 coal mining jobs isn't going to cut it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 18, 2017, 11:01:11 am
Hopefully, those kinds of people will be in the dirt before we're faced with the penalties of their idiotic pride.

See, this is one of the big reasons I went into fuckin' software.  Y'all motherfuckers are always gonna need us.  Combine that with companies switching over to distributed development, and thus eliminating travel (to a central office) as a necessity for doing your job, and we're right in the sweet spot.  WHO'S LAUGHING NOW, JOCKS?!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 18, 2017, 01:03:54 pm
And Bannon is out.

http://abc7ny.com/politics/steve-bannon-resigns-from-trump-administration-abc-news-reports/2322093/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 18, 2017, 01:32:36 pm
lol can Trump keep anyone working for him?
Now is Breitbart going to turn on Trump?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 18, 2017, 01:37:00 pm
If Breitbart turns on Trump and causes the racist groups to start hating him... Will there be any supporters left?

GOP is clearly just using him reluctantly, those who voted for him because he promised to "bring back coal" have already seen that he will not help them or save other jobs and now it seems to me like the only people who really like him are the racists who enjoy a president who openly hates Muslims and uses racist dogwhistle codes when talking about minorities.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 18, 2017, 01:40:42 pm
^And die hard Republicans who if you put a German Shepard down as your republican candidate they would vote for him as president.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 18, 2017, 02:00:26 pm
Kelly cleaning house it seems.  But the one person he really wants to fire he can't.  At least not yet.

Ironbite-might be coming.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 18, 2017, 02:01:00 pm
Do you mean Trump?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 18, 2017, 02:01:25 pm
Jah.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 18, 2017, 02:50:48 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/missouri-senator-trump-assassination-posts-1.4252610

Missouri Democratic state Sen. Marie Chappelle-Nadal posted a comment on Facebook expressing her hope that Pres. Trump would be assassinated.

Numerous other Missouri politicians, including Gov. Eric Greitens (R) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) have called for her to resign.

Chappelle-Nadal has refused, claiming she was exercising her right to free speech.

The Secret Service is looking into the matter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 18, 2017, 03:31:11 pm
Ugh why would you say that on the record and knowing what kind of position you're in?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 18, 2017, 03:31:53 pm
Well, that was stupid of her.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on August 18, 2017, 03:41:13 pm
I mean, I understand the sentiment.

Waking up to news that Donald Trump is unexpectedly dead, whether due to assassination or natural causes, would make that day the best ever for me.

It's not something you say on the record, though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on August 18, 2017, 03:46:01 pm
Trump dying would bring in Pence, who is just as bad, but actually COMPETENT.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on August 18, 2017, 03:53:34 pm
Trump dying would bring in Pence, who is just as bad, but actually COMPETENT.

Let's be real here. He's not just as bad. Yes, he's just as far to the right, but Pence isn't going to run around seeing how many dictators he can be friendly friends with. Pence isn't going to rip up everything Obama ever did just because Obama did it. And most importantly of all, Pence isn't going to embarrass the entire country on a daily basis. Pence is not just as bad, not in the least.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 18, 2017, 04:00:31 pm
Every US President makes friendly friends with some dictators. *cough*Saudi Arabia*cough*

Trump is a white supremacist, but Pence is a Christian fundamentalist.

Pence would revive things like the TPP, but then Trump, by contrast, is trying to sneak TPP provisions into a renegotiated NAFTA.

But what Pence wouldn't do is get into Twitter wars with Kim Jong-Un.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 18, 2017, 04:05:11 pm
Trump dying would bring in Pence, who is just as bad, but actually COMPETENT.

I would like to point out one thing about this "WHATAABOUT PENCE!?!?!?!?!?!" thingy... If Pence becomes a horrible dictator then getting him off the throne is no harder than it would be to dethrone Trump.

And besides, this complaint makes little sense because the reason to get Trump impeached is not that he is mean, it's that he has done something illegal and allowing illegal and possibly treasonous president to remain in office just because you don't like the next person in line is not only stupid it is also an act of abandoning your duties.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 18, 2017, 04:46:23 pm
Pence ain't clean at all and will probably find himself out with Trump if the GOP really wanted to clean house.

Ironbite-Pence also doesn't win elections.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 18, 2017, 05:13:14 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iStZNZnW0Hc

Apparently, Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler have more in common than Robert E. Lee and Adolf Hitler.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 19, 2017, 12:08:31 am
Oh, come on. Adolph Hitler was nothing like Adolph Hitler.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 19, 2017, 03:12:13 am
Also, he was only at Charlotsville to protest in favor of states rights.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 19, 2017, 03:54:12 am
People claim that Hitler was a Nazi, but they also claim that was killed by a Nazi. Does that sound like something the Nazis would have done if he was one of them?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 19, 2017, 04:15:46 am
Looks like many of Trump's supporters were more into Bannon than him and are now upset:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/OpPjHiOr0iZ1E0_8AJkZfdQVaatTVRDvdRNfGUnh9qs.png?w=1024&s=e4c309d9215df30e957f95656ae659cb)

So many jokes I could do about this, so much hypocricy that I could highlight.

My personal favourite is the bit in the lower right. They think it is bad that Trump and his government will be influenced by his daughter and son-in-law, because they weren't elected. ...But had no problem with Bannon influencing things despite the fact that he wasn't elected either.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 19, 2017, 04:48:32 am
And all this sparked by an event called "Unite the Right". Oh irony, a harsh mistress.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 19, 2017, 06:20:48 am
Meanwhile Trump's favorite governor, Paul LePage, thinks that tearing down confederate statues is akin to trashing 9/11 memorials.

Quote
“Listen, whether we like it or not, this is what our history is,” he added, ignoring that the Confederacy was a different country altogether. “It’s just like going to New York City and taking down the monument to those who perished in 9/11 — it will come to that.” (https://thinkprogress.org/maine-governor-claims-removing-confederate-statutes-is-just-like-destroying-911-memorial-b0371ac380aa/)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 19, 2017, 07:05:28 am
General Lee would be disgusted.  Mostly because his honky ass didn't want any fucking statuary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on August 19, 2017, 07:57:32 am
People claim that Hitler was a Nazi, but they also claim that was killed by a Nazi. Does that sound like something the Nazis would have done if he was one of them?


I mean, give Hitler some credit. He killed Hitler, after all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 19, 2017, 07:04:19 pm
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346680-post-election-chaos-leaves-dnc-far-behind-in-fundraising

Trump is ridiculously unpopular.

And the RNC is blowing the DNC out of the water on fundraising.

Why?

Because the big money donors went all in on Hillary Clinton and now feel like they flushed money down the drain, and the small money donors are pissed off at the DNC for screwing over Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 20, 2017, 12:38:07 pm
There are two snippets in the story that confuse me:

Quote
That’s why one longtime Democratic fundraiser told The Hill that he was “shocked” the party managed to raise even as much as it has — more than it had at this point in each of the past two cycles — with such a shoestring staff.

Quote
With Trump’s help, the RNC continues to pull big money from small donors, raising $33 million in donations under $200. Through the first six months of 2017, the RNC has raised more online than it has in an entire year, with the exception of 2008.

The article mostly focuses on how the DNC is effing things up, but based on the numbers implied here the real story appears to be that they are doing about as usual, and the cause of the disparity is the RNC fundraising exceptionally well.

So why focus on divisions in the democratic party rather than asking the far more interesting questions of why the republicans are doing better than before?

(also, Trump's approval rating is a bit less than 40%. I would not describe that as 'ridiculously unpopular')
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 20, 2017, 01:05:25 pm
So why focus on divisions in the democratic party rather than asking the far more interesting questions of why the republicans are doing better than before?

(also, Trump's approval rating is a bit less than 40%. I would not describe that as 'ridiculously unpopular')

1. Trump's unpopularity should be driving down RNC fundraising and driving up DNC fundraising... but it's not doing either.

2. Compared to other Presidents at this point in their terms, yes, 40% is ridiculously low. (Ford might have been this low, but then he'd just pardoned Nixon.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 20, 2017, 04:13:48 pm
Yeah but the massive amount of democrats running for Congress is staggering. Currently democrats have 209 people registered to run for congressional positions. While Republicans only have 28. Which is very high compared to on my 44 dems who ran in 2014. Which shows mass excitement amongst dems to make a change.  Also dems have been winning across the board at state level elections. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-sheer-number-of-democrats-running-for-congress-is-a-good-sign-for-the-party/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 20, 2017, 05:42:07 pm
Yeah but the massive amount of democrats running for Congress is staggering. Currently democrats have 209 people registered to run for congressional positions. While Republicans only have 28. Which is very high compared to on my 44 dems who ran in 2014. Which shows mass excitement amongst dems to make a change.  Also dems have been winning across the board at state level elections. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-sheer-number-of-democrats-running-for-congress-is-a-good-sign-for-the-party/

Well, I think a lot of that is a desire to get corporatist Dems out in primaries to put in more progressive candidates who will enthusiastically sign on to things like single-payer health care and getting money out of politics, rather than only reluctantly (if they sign on at all).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 21, 2017, 02:10:56 pm
Meanwhile, the Secret Service is literally out of money for the year (absent a Congressional resolution to increase their budget, which will probably happen) because of all the trips Trump's taking to his properties, the rooms and equipment the Secret Service has to rent (much of the money for which goes back into Trump's pocket), and the trips his kids are taking that have nothing to do with advancing US interests (like opening Trump hotels around the world).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 21, 2017, 02:36:27 pm
But he's donating his salary! How can he personally profit when he's donating an amount that he thinks of as pocket change?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on August 21, 2017, 02:53:51 pm
I mean, he makes more every time he takes a trip to his private property, which he pays himself to stay at. Also he charged the Secret Service rent. Which is scummy as fuck.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 21, 2017, 04:29:11 pm
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-thats-too-bad-after-crash-uss-john-mccain-652584

The USS John S. McCain (named after Sen. McCain's father and grandfather) collided with a merchant ship near Singapore. A number of personnel were airlifted to Singapore for treatment for non-life-threatening injuries.

However, 10 sailors are still missing.

Trump's response when asked? "That's too bad."

Now, he was asked this about half an hour before the news was officially announced by the military, so it's entirely believable that this is literally the first time he's heard about it.

But here's what he could have said (and what any other President would have said):

"I haven't been fully briefed on the situation, and I will have more to say once I have been. But for now my thoughts and prayers are with the sailors and their families, and we will perform a thorough investigation into the accident and put every effort into our search-and-rescue operations. Thank you."

Diplomatic, presidential, and nowhere contains the phrase "That's too bad."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 21, 2017, 07:07:32 pm
That's too bad.  Bout sums it up don't it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 21, 2017, 07:52:31 pm
That's too bad.  Bout sums it up don't it?

My other theory is that he heard about it before he was asked, and his aides managed to talk him out of saying, "I prefer ships that don't crash" or "I prefer sailors who aren't lost."

EDIT:

Meanwhile:

(https://i.elitestatic.com/content/uploads/2017/08/21153534/Donald-Trump-sun-solar-eclipse.jpg)

Trump was Blinded by the Light (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcWVL4B-4pI).

Melania and Barron experienced a Total Eclipse of the Heart (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOxhH8N3Bo).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on August 21, 2017, 09:25:05 pm
Of course he looks straight up at the Eclipse without using glasses.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 21, 2017, 10:02:04 pm
Well, at least he'll be able to claim the title of the country's first ever blind President.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 21, 2017, 11:36:51 pm
Of course he looks straight up at the Eclipse without using glasses.

He was told not to look into the eyes of the sun, but he knew that that's where the fun is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 22, 2017, 12:18:37 am
Barron: Dad...dad PLEASE...

Donald: MY EYES! (he runs indoors)

Melania: Your father is an embarrassment, honey, you should know this by now.

Barron: Knowing it doesn't make it any easier to deal with.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 12:35:27 am
Barron: Dad...dad PLEASE...

Donald: MY EYES! (he runs indoors)

Melania: Your father is an embarrassment, honey, you should know this by now.

Barron: Knowing it doesn't make it any easier to deal with.

Well, it's just the latest in a string of embarrassments...

(click to show/hide)

Like when the head of state didn't know you're supposed to put your hand over your left breast when the national anthem is being played?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 22, 2017, 12:48:44 am
Barron: Dad...dad...

Melania: (whispering) it is best to give up, honey. He doesn't remember which hand to use.

Barron: Didn't you tell him an hour ago?

Melania: I know.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 01:25:51 am
Barron: Dad...dad...

Melania: (whispering) it is best to give up, honey. He doesn't remember which hand to use.

Barron: Didn't you tell him an hour ago?

Melania: I know.

Then she smacked his hand, and he got mad at her because she broke a bone in his wanking hand.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 22, 2017, 02:00:17 am
Let the records show that Fox News said that Trump looking straight at the sun without protection was, and I quote: "perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done."

No, really.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-trump-looking-directly-into-the-sun-was-perhaps-the-impressive-thing-any-presidents-ever-done

Feel free to list all the "less impressive" things that other presidents have done.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 22, 2017, 03:17:54 am
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 22, 2017, 03:21:47 am
Tucker Carlson is impressively capable for a man without a brain.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 03:48:31 am
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.

You mean, "Selling weapons to other people so they could stop Hitler's regime."

WWII was won on the Eastern Front in Europe. Everything else was a distraction--not necessarily unimportant, but a distraction.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 22, 2017, 04:10:08 am
Did a Fox News presenter seriously suggest that the sacred "founding fathers" don't in fact measure up to a current president? Huh, I thought such a thing amounts to high treason amongst American conservatives.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 04:12:35 am
Did a Fox News presenter seriously suggest that the sacred "founding fathers" don't in fact measure up to a current president? Huh, I thought such a thing amounts to high treason amongst American conservatives.

Don't you know? Jesus was the only real founding father. And, as awesome as he was, he was never President.

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01498/jesus_1498126c.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on August 22, 2017, 07:29:37 am
Did a Fox News presenter seriously suggest that the sacred "founding fathers" don't in fact measure up to a current president? Huh, I thought such a thing amounts to high treason amongst American conservatives.

Don't you know? Jesus was the only real founding father. And, as awesome as he was, he was never President.

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01498/jesus_1498126c.jpg)
Naw, here's the real founding father.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4maXypJFPNY/hqdefault.jpg)

Hey, Lovecraft was a shoe-in for the alt right and he's surrounded by froggy dudes!

And look, the sky's orange.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 22, 2017, 07:44:49 am
Well then, I guess Trump is better than both Jesus and/or Cthulhu, according to Fox News. Fair enough, I say.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 22, 2017, 08:07:49 am
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.

You mean, "Selling weapons to other people so they could stop Hitler's regime."

WWII was won on the Eastern Front in Europe. Everything else was a distraction--not necessarily unimportant, but a distraction.

I wasn't being technical.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on August 22, 2017, 10:12:56 am
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.

4. Getting the Constitution ratified by all the States.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 10:31:37 am
Duh it goes:
1. Staring at a solar eclipse without sun glasses.
2. Banning slavery.
3. Stopping Hitler's regime.

You mean, "Selling weapons to other people so they could stop Hitler's regime."

WWII was won on the Eastern Front in Europe. Everything else was a distraction--not necessarily unimportant, but a distraction.

I wasn't being technical.

I see enough Americans saying, "We stopped the Nazis!" that at this point it's a reflex for me to say, "No, the Russians stopped the Nazis. You distracted the Nazis."

Again, important distractions. And Lend-Lease was an important program (and set the US on the path to being the arms dealer it is today). But put everything in its proper context.

EDIT:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/destoyer-collision-singapore-john-mccain-1.4256857

Some of the sailors missing after the USS John S. McCain crashed into an oil tanker have been found dead in a flooded compartment.

Further remains have been found by search-and-rescue personnel from the Malaysian Navy, but have not yet been identified.

There is no word on whether President Trump prefers sailors who weren't in flooded compartments.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on August 22, 2017, 12:16:43 pm
"Donald Trump got blackout drunk last night and crashed air force one into the Washington monument.  This is the most impressive thing a president has ever done, even more the blinding himself."

EDIT: Okay reading the link it sounds like Tucker was just making a bad joke.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 04:34:14 pm
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/21/its-high-time-barron-trump-starts-dressing-like-hes-in-the-white-house/

A writer for the Daily Caller is criticising the 11-year-old boy Barron Trump for dressing like... a 11-year-old boy.

FFS, leave the kid out of it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 22, 2017, 05:53:02 pm
As much as I say "yeah leave the kid alone," the right goes after Presidential children with a vigor only matched by it's hatred for their parents.  They went after Chelsie, they went after the Obamas.  It's what happens when your the offspring of the highest couple in the land.

Ironbite-just the reality we live in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 22, 2017, 06:03:38 pm
Well that may be true Ibbles but it is pretty disgusting when they went after the Obama's kids and just as disgusting to go after Bazza. Ivankakaka, Jr and Special Eric are fair game though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 06:08:49 pm
Everyone forgets about Tiffany...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHyiH3CVYAA5qUf.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 22, 2017, 06:09:11 pm
Never thought about this til just now, but Barron looks like someone I used to know in high school.  An alright guy, if I'm remembering correctly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 22, 2017, 06:26:05 pm
I put Tiffany in the same class as Barron. She doesn't seem to be making money from or assisting in the administration.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 06:28:53 pm
I put Tiffany in the same class as Barron. She doesn't seem to be making money from or assisting in the administration.

I'd put Tiffany even further than Barron. Barron's been appearing in public with Donald. Tiffany's in school in Pennsylvania and I think I saw her once during the whole campaign (after a debate, where she looked really really uncomfortable around her dad--remember that she was pretty much raised entirely by Marla).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 22, 2017, 07:36:19 pm
Special Eric

Don't say his name lest you want him to appear behind you in the mirror when you close your medicine cabinet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 22, 2017, 07:42:49 pm
Don't you have to say it three times. I suppose we could just call him SpEric
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 22, 2017, 07:53:38 pm
Ivankakaka

I wonder if places like Stormfront call her "Ivankike."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 22, 2017, 10:56:14 pm
more likely Ivanakike (I- wanna - kike)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 22, 2017, 11:36:17 pm
Don't you have to say it three times. I suppose we could just call him SpEric
I suppose you could shorten it even further to SpIc. Purely for efficiency's sake, you understand.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 23, 2017, 12:06:04 am
Daily Caller, leave the adorable little dude alone.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 23, 2017, 12:21:14 am
Who the fuck is Daily Caller?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 23, 2017, 12:24:09 am
Daily Caller is the name of the Tabloid. I saw on rationalwiki it is apparently styled after the Daily Heil...sorry, the Daily Mail.

They heckled Obama a while back, shouting at him, "Why do you prefer foreigners over Americans?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 24, 2017, 06:05:53 pm
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2017/PPP_Release_National_82317.pdf

I'll just put two things from this poll here:

When asked who they would prefer to have as President, Barack Obama or Jefferson Davis, 56% of respondents replied Obama and 21% replied Davis, with 23% unsure. But among the 39% of respondents who voted for Donald Trump, 45% replied Davis and 20% replied Obama, with 35% unsure.

Also, if you look through the results, you'll find some interesting stuff about how favourably Jill Stein voters view Russia and Vladimir Putin. I would remind you that there were almost no Jill Stein voters who responded.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 25, 2017, 08:27:18 pm
Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe.  He actually did it.  He just declared war on the Justice Department.

Ironbite-holy fuck.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 25, 2017, 08:58:59 pm
Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe.  He actually did it.  He just declared war on the Justice Department.

Ironbite-holy fuck.

How'd he declare war on the Justice Department? Art. 2, Sec. 2 makes it pretty clear (to me, anyway) that the President has a near-plenary pardon power.

"...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

And I'm pretty sure Joe Arpaio wasn't being impeached.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 25, 2017, 09:07:42 pm
He just gave a big middle finger to any federal prosecutor.  So yeah, just declared war.

Ironbite-this is amazing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 25, 2017, 11:12:34 pm
He just gave a big middle finger to any federal prosecutor.  So yeah, just declared war.

Ironbite-this is amazing.

Well, I don't know if he can give anyone a big middle finger. But apparently there's nothing wrong down there, so...

Anyway, it's only to the extent that they go after his friends, but you're right, this was a slap to the face to any federal prosecutor, and to the Latino community.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 25, 2017, 11:14:47 pm
Not only that but it further cements Trump in the racist camp. By setting free a man who was a big spokesperson for the birther movement and someone who was big on racial profiling. I expect to see Arpaio given a position in Trump's cabinet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 25, 2017, 11:19:51 pm
Reminder: There is an imminent natural disaster in Texas at the moment. And we still have no FEMA director.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 25, 2017, 11:23:28 pm
Reminder: There is an imminent natural disaster in Texas at the moment. And we still have no FEMA director.

Don't you know? The storm's only going to hit all the Hispanics and blacks and sinners there. All the good God-fearin' 'Muricans will be fine! It's God's wrath on all the others for trying to swing the state to the Demoncrats!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 25, 2017, 11:24:36 pm
Prediction: Trump's going to make Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina look competent.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 25, 2017, 11:27:06 pm
Prediction: Trump's going to make Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina look competent.

Prediction: Trump's approval rating won't drop as much due to this as Bush's did due to Katrina.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 26, 2017, 12:03:57 am
Well, Trump's already pretty close to rock bottom, so I think that's a fair prediction, just because it really CAN'T drop that much more.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 26, 2017, 12:42:28 am
It would be rather hilarious if he botched it and his approval rating went to like 12% or something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 26, 2017, 12:44:02 am
It would be rather hilarious if he botched it and his approval rating went to like 12% or something.

That would only happen if he botched it badly enough that it killed two-thirds of his hardcore supporters or something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 26, 2017, 01:16:52 am
Note that the pardon says Arpaio has done "more than 50 years of admirable service to our Nation, he is a worthy candidate for a presidential pardon."

Isn't the entire reason why he was in court that it WASN'T admirable service?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 26, 2017, 01:54:03 am
In Trumpland, making sure Hispanics and blacks and all those others know their place is admirable.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 26, 2017, 05:53:59 am
So... Accepting pardon counts as admitting your guilt... Does this mean that Arpaio can now be sued for things related to the things he was pardoned of? I know of the "double jeopardy" rule but can the victims of the racial profiling sue for damages?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 26, 2017, 08:24:04 am
Perhaps.  I am not a lawyer, but I think Arpaio was sentenced by the state, meaning that the state can't try him for the same crime again.  However, individuals (or a group) can still seek restitution for damages incurred, in the form of money.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 26, 2017, 12:36:38 pm
Well, Arpaio could decline the pardon (old Supreme Court ruling--the President can't force someone to accept a pardon), which would mean he's not admitting his guilt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 26, 2017, 03:18:28 pm
Unless of course, he calls it a witch hunt by Obama holdovers in the Department of Justice. Which he did. Nevermind that he was tried by a Bush appointee judge and that Trump is in charge of the Department of Justice. Nope, it was just a witch hunt against an innocent man.

God I hope he can be sued for damages.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 26, 2017, 03:27:05 pm
He was convicted.  Yeah he pretty much can be sued out of existence.

Ironbite-you think this man has money?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 26, 2017, 03:32:46 pm
He was convicted, but hasn't admitted guilt and is appealing. So the civil suits aren't quite there yet.

If he accepts the pardon, that is an admission of guilt (probably why the President can't force someone to accept a pardon). Then he's open to civil suits for sure.

If, on the other hand, he declines the pardon and manages to get acquitted on appeal, those civil suits become a little dicier.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 26, 2017, 05:40:31 pm
Even if he's pardoned it's not like he has a job to go back to.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 26, 2017, 05:53:55 pm
Even if he's pardoned it's not like he has a job to go back to.

I still think Trump will try to make him Secretary of Homeland Security at some point.

Well, either him or David Clarke.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 26, 2017, 06:40:23 pm
Sheriff Joe was always his first pick for some big seat in Washington.  Homeland nomination is pretty much on the way after this cause if I recall, it was the sure fire criminal conviction that was preventing the GOP for voting for nomination.  Now....who knows what they'll do.

Ironbite-it's amazing how dumb this is from any angel.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 27, 2017, 07:54:01 pm
Stealing something from the Allspark.

Quote
Master Fwiffo, on 27 Aug 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:
So the fourth largest city in the US is completely under water.  You're the President of the United States.  What is your first tweet of the day?

"Buy the Second-worst SHerrif in the US's book."

Someone promptly takes the phone away and tells you you have to talk about the flooding.  So... you marvel at how it's the greatest flood ever, but don't worry, everything is fine.
And then you start going on about the Wall and Nafta.



Will he ever NOT be an embarrassment?

Ironbite-a very good question.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 27, 2017, 08:14:04 pm
Then he loses the evangelicals because everyone knows the greatest flood ever was the one that wiped out everyone but Noah and his family.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 03, 2017, 11:45:54 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7odLz_dCh8

Barack Obama left a handwritten letter for Donald Trump shortly before Trump took the oath of office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 04, 2017, 08:01:32 am
Well that's tradition, a lot of presidents have left letters of advice to their successor. I can only imagine what Trumps will be. Maybe he'll just tweet it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 04, 2017, 10:29:11 am
Well that's tradition, a lot of presidents have left letters of advice to their successor. I can only imagine what Trumps will be. Maybe he'll just tweet it.

Yes, but I think this is the first time the general public has known what Obama wrote for Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 04, 2017, 02:51:43 pm
 No you can go read the letters past presidents have left. It's up to the incoming presidents discretion whether he wants it released
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 05, 2017, 10:21:11 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-could-gain-from-daca-move-1.4276201

Trump's ending DACA, and I agree with Sen. Omidvar: Canada should accept dreamers (though I think we should take more than just 30,000). They're hard workers, law-abiding and well-trained. If the US wants to shoot its economy in the foot, let's give ours a shot in the arm.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 05, 2017, 11:02:18 pm
The only word history should have for Trump is cruel. And I can't wait for the "moderate" Trump voters to whine about how they had "no idea" that he'd be so horrible. As if they couldn't have listened to the experts or their peers who saw him for what he is or even the man himself when his entire fucking campaign was built on racism.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 05, 2017, 11:48:44 pm
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canada-demands-us-end-right-to-work-laws-as-part-of-nafta-talks/article36160015/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Meanwhile, Trump wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. So Canada's big demand?

Stop killing unions.

Quote
One group of negotiators spent all day Sunday working on the labour file, according to a schedule of the talks obtained by The Globe and Mail. One source familiar with the discussions said Canada wants the United States to pass a federal law stopping state governments from enacting right-to-work legislation; the source said the United States has not agreed to such a request. Canada believes that lower labour standards in the United States and Mexico, including right to work, give those countries an unfair advantage in attracting jobs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on September 05, 2017, 11:59:30 pm
Hell. Yes. I live in a right-to-work state, and FUCK THAT SHIT.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 06, 2017, 12:22:04 am
Trump complained about NAFTA being such a horrible deal while in a press conference with the president of Finland. Trump said a lot of things that were just plain wrong and one of those was that Finland would never make a deal as bad as NAFTA with Russia. ...We used to have a deal called "Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance" with USSR... It meant a lot of things but one of those was that if Germany or their allies moved to attack Finland USSR would have the right to occupy help Finland.

Also, it amuses me that if Trump does get a new NAFTA it is going to be worse than the original one because USA has been so hostile to their neighbours that they have no incentive to take a bad deal.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 06, 2017, 12:26:49 am
Hell. Yes. I live in a right-to-work state, and FUCK THAT SHIT.

I'm just waiting to hear a conservative tell me that the federal government has no right to preempt states' right-to-work laws.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on September 06, 2017, 12:36:08 am
"That's not how negotiating works.  Negotiating means I yell alot until you do as I say!"

To be fair ending right to work would be good for Trump's base so if he does this he would be giving them an improvement on what they had before.  So I imagine he'll fight tooth and nail against it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 06, 2017, 01:15:38 am
"That's not how negotiating works.  Negotiating means I yell alot until you do as I say!"

To be fair ending right to work would be good for Trump's base so if he does this he would be giving them an improvement on what they had before.  So I imagine he'll fight tooth and nail against it.

Yeah, but they don't think it'd be good for them. They think "unions evil and support EBIL DEMONCRATS."

GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT GET THE MONEY OUT
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 06, 2017, 02:12:44 am
Trump said dreamers should rest easy.

Apparently, what he meant is that they should rest easy knowing that they will soon be in a country where everyone looks like them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 06, 2017, 03:53:56 am
Hell. Yes. I live in a right-to-work state, and FUCK THAT SHIT.

I'm just waiting to hear a conservative tell me that the federal government has no right to preempt states' right-to-work laws.


I used to work with a guy who insisted that right to work only "keeps people from being forced to join a union if they don't want to." I'm fairly certain that's not an issue in the first place. Of course, this guy is an anarcho-capitalist and also thinks that society wouldn't change if the government were to completely collapse, so....
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 06, 2017, 04:37:27 am
What right-to-work does, essentially, is allow people to enjoy the benefits of a union without having to pay union dues. The union is required to advocate on behalf of all employees at the workplace, not just those who have joined the union, but this means that people can freeload on what the union does... which means more and more people won't bother to join the union... which means the union collapses... which means that all the workers get a shittier deal because there's no union to negotiate on their behalf.

But, again, I'm not sure if, constitutionally, the federal government can pass a law to preempt state-level right-to-work laws.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 06, 2017, 07:46:37 am
I wouldn't be surprised if they could; federal will always trump state.  We tried the other way around, it ended rather...messily.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 06, 2017, 07:50:19 am
Maybe there'll be another revolution over the "states rights?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 06, 2017, 08:00:23 am
Hey, maybe they can prove it by having Oklahoma execute Texas.  Then, you'd make me a believer.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 06, 2017, 02:20:41 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if they could; federal will always trump state.  We tried the other way around, it ended rather...messily.

Except that if it doesn't fall under one of the enumerated powers, they can't do it, period.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on September 06, 2017, 02:57:52 pm
Interstate commerce clause.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 06, 2017, 03:02:49 pm
Interstate commerce clause.

As expansively as that has been interpreted, it might still not be broad enough to keep states from enacting right-to-work laws affecting businesses operating only in that state, which would still mean the US has, as a whole, lower labour standards than Canada.

What I could see working is Congress's using its spending power to penalize states that have enacted right-to-work laws.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 07, 2017, 08:50:44 am
Fucking...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3D6yvXhMsE...hell!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 13, 2017, 10:59:38 pm
While Trump and the Republicans fuck up trying to fuck over Americans, Bernie and 16 other Democratic Senators are introducing Medicare For All. (Notable by his absence: Sherrod Brown.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ps6lBATVoI (1h)

EDIT: Considering that among the co-sponsors are Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand, it seems that 2020 Democratic Presidential hopefuls are understanding that they either must at least pay lip service to supporting single-payer or they will not win the nomination.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 14, 2017, 07:52:37 pm
The world may run out of popcorn after this. (http://crooksandliars.com/2017/09/trump-confirms-hes-working-daca-deal-dems)

Quote
Trump, in his series of tweets Thursday, did not deny reports that he would support a deal on DACA that didn't include the wall.

And, in brief comments to reporters later Thursday, Trump said "the wall will come later."

Best tweet in response?

Quote
Caroline O.
I think Breitbart is having a cardiac event....

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 14, 2017, 07:54:42 pm
Breitbart is calling him "Amnesty Don."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 14, 2017, 08:53:43 pm
God the amount of play this is getting is amazing.  And he has no idea what he just did with that tweet or series of tweets.

Ironbite-the man will not like what's coming cause the Right is insane.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 15, 2017, 12:29:14 am
Do I see contenders for the Republican presidency in 2020.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 15, 2017, 02:11:44 am
Irony alert: https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/908285561194078208
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 15, 2017, 02:27:40 am
Well, in "In Trump We Trust" Coulter did say that the one thing that could turn her against Trump was for him to backpedal on immigration reform.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 15, 2017, 03:18:09 am
So, who's he got left if he burns the racist vote?

Toupée aficionados with terrible taste?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on September 15, 2017, 03:30:04 am
There is always this guy!

https://www.tumblr.com/search/kai+anderson
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 15, 2017, 08:29:07 am
Former Trump fans are burning their red trucker hats (http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/you-will-never-make-america-great-again-watch-angry-trump-fans-burn-their-maga-hats-over-daca-deal/) over fear he'll be nice to (some) immigrants.

I don't know what's funnier, the fact that those things are so cheap and nasty or how much the tanty throwing trumpkins suck at setting them on fire.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 18, 2017, 01:48:44 pm
https://thinkprogress.org/trumpcares-back-and-now-it-will-let-insurers-jack-up-premiums-as-soon-as-you-get-sick-38fff5001bf9/

Under this version of Trumpcare, as soon as you get sick, the insurance companies can raise your rates!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 18, 2017, 03:13:37 pm
This is the version McCain supports.

Ironbite-remind me why he was the savior of America again?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 18, 2017, 03:40:59 pm
Because he was in the military or some shit and, as we all know, military people are the best possible examples of humanity any country can ever produce.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 18, 2017, 03:58:15 pm
How can these assholes stand there and be like yes our plan to have health insurance companies drain you of more money is going to help all of you struggling people out there. I really hope the medicare for all movement becomes increasingly more and more popular.

In other news I'm looking forward to my Canadian Healthcare kicking in next Monday.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 18, 2017, 04:04:46 pm
How can these assholes stand there and be like yes our plan to have health insurance companies drain you of more money is going to help all of you struggling people out there. I really hope the medicare for all movement becomes increasingly more and more popular.

In other news I'm looking forward to my Canadian Healthcare kicking in next Monday.

Okay, I see this all the damn time, so fact check time...

THERE IS NO CANADIAN HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM.

Health is exclusively a provincial matter. All the federal government can do is say, "If you set up a program that meets such-and-such conditions, we'll give you money to help pay for it."

There are definite differences between the provinces; the one thing that makes it sort-of national is that the provinces (except Quebec, because Quebec) coordinate between themselves so that people with coverage from one province can use it in other provinces without seeing any of the ugly details themselves (nor does their doctor see it).

EDIT: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/17/obamacare-senate-republicans-repeal-242821

Politico on the same zombie.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 18, 2017, 04:28:47 pm
Alright geez Mr. Technical. I'm sorry my OHIP insurance is going to kick in in a week.
Are you going to be technical about that as well since I "technically" included insurance twice in that sentence?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 18, 2017, 04:31:26 pm
Alright geez Mr. Technical. I'm sorry my OHIP insurance is going to kick in in a week.
Are you going to be technical about that as well since I "technically" included insurance twice in that sentence?

Nope, not going to get technical on that one.

But it's one of the many misrepresentations of how health insurance works in Canada that I see, so I look to correct it when I do so that people know what's actually going on (provincially-managed programs with federal transfers) rather than how people who want to say it's bad (or perhaps worse than it is--I'm not going to say it's perfect) want to represent it (big federal government!).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on September 18, 2017, 08:14:25 pm
Quote
How can these assholes stand there and be like yes our plan to have health insurance companies drain you of more money is going to help all of you struggling people out there.

Because it's what almost half of America wants.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 18, 2017, 08:29:08 pm
Quote
How can these assholes stand there and be like yes our plan to have health insurance companies drain you of more money is going to help all of you struggling people out there.

Because it's what almost half of America wants.

Correction: it's what the people with almost half the money in America want.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 20, 2017, 08:24:00 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAnWYLTdvfY
Agent Orange threatened to destroy North Korea.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/Kh296M49Zr1Sg/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on September 20, 2017, 10:36:11 am
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on September 20, 2017, 12:31:17 pm
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?

You're surprised that people are basically having Pavlovian reactions to these speeches? I don't think it actually matters what President Trump says: everybody is just going to respond the same way anyhow.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 20, 2017, 04:45:59 pm
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 20, 2017, 05:02:22 pm
http://americablog.com/2017/09/graham-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-get-2-minutes-debate.html

So, Graham-Cassidy, which will pretty much destroy the US health care system (or rather take it from the pile of rubble it currently is and turn it into little specks), might get 2 minutes of debate. If necessary. It's slated for all of 90 seconds.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on September 20, 2017, 05:43:26 pm
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.

Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".

Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 20, 2017, 06:02:09 pm
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.

Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".

Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
I'm just going to point out that even a war isn't a binary choice where one nation must be eradicated.

If USA or any NATO country is attacked NATO can just beat back the attacker and force them to accept peace (and probably some heavy sanctions starting with reducing their military.)

Granted that USA seems to think otherwise. Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed back to stone age. Afghan specifically tried to surrender but US military went with "LOL nope, we want more blood" and continued fighting the war long after one side was waving the white flag.

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/22/afghanistan-donald-trump-taliban-surrender-here-we-are/

Now, had the surrended been accepted would that have somehow been worse for USA? I mean it would have meant less deaths all around. Less dead US military personnel, less dead Taliban and a lot less dead civilians. They could have kept on hunting Osama even without a war going on. Less money would have been needed for the rebuilding phase for certain.

This is not some video game where the war isn't over until every enemy unit has been shot. In fact, if USA showing up on their doorstep is enough to stop someone from invading a US ally isn't that a good thing? "Oh wait, you were serious about that NATO stuff? Ooopsy daisy, we'll just go back home, ok?" Huzzah! Medals for everyone! Let the diplomats handle the remaining issues.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 20, 2017, 06:27:06 pm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/09/20/6-big-lies-about-graham-cassidy-and-healthcare-reform-and-1-truth/#6104ad62a640

Bonus, Graham-Cassidy says FUCK YOU to states' rights!

Quote
Massachusetts was the state that prototyped the originally-Republican-developed ideas that became the basis for the ACA. And there's lots of talk that states need to experiment. But that's not really what the Republicans want. As John Kennedy of Louisiana said, "I want to get us to give guardrails to the states to say, 'You cannot use these moneys to set up a state-run single-payer system.'” I don’t believe in it. I think it’s a mistake."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 20, 2017, 07:01:58 pm
I really hope there are some sensible republicans that will oppose this bill, or things are going to become a lot worse in the states for healthcare. The United states has slowly been becoming a country for the rich ever since the 80s. Somethings gotta change.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 20, 2017, 07:07:43 pm
I really hope there are some sensible republicans that will oppose this bill, or things are going to become a lot worse in the states for healthcare. The United states has slowly been becoming a country for the rich ever since the 80s. Somethings gotta change.

I think Collins is (but then she voted against ACA repeal when Obama was still in office and would veto it anyway).

Paul is apparently against it because it doesn't cut enough.

Murkowski's waiting to find out what it would do to Alaska.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on September 20, 2017, 08:11:06 pm
I'm just going to point out that even a war isn't a binary choice where one nation must be eradicated.

If USA or any NATO country is attacked NATO can just beat back the attacker and force them to accept peace (and probably some heavy sanctions starting with reducing their military.)

Granted that USA seems to think otherwise. Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed back to stone age. Afghan specifically tried to surrender but US military went with "LOL nope, we want more blood" and continued fighting the war long after one side was waving the white flag.

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/22/afghanistan-donald-trump-taliban-surrender-here-we-are/

Now, had the surrender been accepted would that have somehow been worse for USA? I mean it would have meant less deaths all around. Less dead US military personnel, less dead Taliban and a lot less dead civilians. They could have kept on hunting Osama even without a war going on. Less money would have been needed for the rebuilding phase for certain.

This is not some video game where the war isn't over until every enemy unit has been shot. In fact, if USA showing up on their doorstep is enough to stop someone from invading a US ally isn't that a good thing? "Oh wait, you were serious about that NATO stuff? Ooopsy daisy, we'll just go back home, ok?" Huzzah! Medals for everyone! Let the diplomats handle the remaining issues.

With all due respect, while true, all of this is really only tangential to the main argument here. First of all, if North Korea does attack the United States or its allies (and for the record, I don't think they would*), it's not going to be with a conventional strike. It's not going to be with a land invasion. I would say by far the two most likely scenarios that do involve North Korea initiating aggressive war would both be nuclear strikes, either on Japan or on US territory in the Pacific Islands (or god forbid, the West Coast.) In either of those two scenarios, there is no turning back. There is no trying to find a peace deal, and I would expect our nation to react to a nuclear strike in kind - especially since living in a prominent state capitol on the West Coast of the US, I'm a potential target (if a low probability one).

The other big factor here is deterrence. The principle of deterrence demands that we show North Korea, even if it's not true, that we are not only capable, but ready and willing to launch a massive retaliatory strike on North Korea if they choose to spark an open conflict - especially a nuclear conflict. Trump, for all his uncountable faults, is at least capable of sounding like he's ready and willing to retaliate (probably because he is). This sort of speech is exactly what you would want to say if you want to loom over North Korea and let them know that if they throw a bomb at a US country, their ass is grass. Which is, I believe (I hope), the main point of all this bluster.

*: Honestly, I should probably mention that I don't think North Korea will ever actually spark a war themselves. They know the position they're in, they're not stupid, and Kim Jong Un's biggest goal isn't to eradicate the US or Japan, it's to stay in power, and staying in power involves not stabbing sleeping dragons in the eye. I think North Korea's end goal here is just internationally recognized independence with the Kim family in control, and they're not about to risk that. However, the caveat we're discussing here is "if North Korea attacks the US or allies", and so I have to discuss it with that in mind - even if it's an outside possibility.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 22, 2017, 05:19:59 am
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.

Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".

Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
Yes. However, annihilation?

Because all of North Korea being annihilated sounds like a while lotta innocent dead folks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 22, 2017, 05:22:30 am
If the United States or its allies are attacked. People keep forgetting that second part, and it's important, since it actually makes the position quite reasonable - one might even say obvious.

If America's reaction to being attacked by a hostile state isn't to destroy that state, then what's the point of even having a military?
Military are state annihilation machines? Yeeah, they can be used that way. Kind of like how your car can be used for drag racing-potentially.

Ah yes, the ever fun argument tactic of "ignore the general point of the reply and focus on the wording of the final line".

Direct question: do you think the United States has an obligation to retaliate if it is attacked, especially if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon? Yes or no.
Yes. However, annihilation?

Because all of North Korea being annihilated sounds like a while lotta innocent dead folks.

Better North Korean innocent dead folks than American innocent dead folks! </Lindsey Graham>
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 22, 2017, 02:10:55 pm
Grahm-Cassidy is shut down.  McCain has said he's a no.

Ironbite-damn Lindsey....John Boy really gave it to you this time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 22, 2017, 04:10:11 pm
Thank you once again John McCain.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on September 23, 2017, 12:26:40 am
So is that it for Obamacare repeal?  As I understand it now they need 60 votes to kill it, which means they need democrats, who aren't likely to burn down their biggest accomplishment for the people spitting in their faces the last 8 years.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 23, 2017, 12:36:01 am
They need 60 as of October 1.

If they can somehow sway two of Susan Collins (didn't vote to repeal the ACA when Obama would veto it anyway), Rand Paul (thinks the bill isn't harsh enough, only voted for previous efforts because there was time to get it through a conference committee), John McCain (no longer beholden to the donors and hates Trump and wants to cement his "maverick" legacy) and Lisa Murkowski (claims she can't be bought off by the bill's leaving the ACA in place for Alaska and also refuses to vote to defund Planned Parenthood which Graham-Cassidy does), then they can do it with Pence's tiebreaking vote.

However, simply the fact that they trotted Graham-Cassidy out makes any healthcare reform far less likely in the near future, because it poisoned the efforts that were going on between the parties to try to make some improvements, even if they're only small and not the sort of changes the party's bases were demanding. (Full repeal for the Republicans and single-payer, or at least a public option, for the Democrats.)

They can use their reconciliation resolution for next year on health care as well, but then tax "reform" would take 60... but for one, a lot of the "centrist" Democrats are beholden to the same donors as the Republicans, who want those tax cuts, and for another, they were probably going to seek 60 anyway, because tax cuts passed through reconciliation with only a simple majority sunset after 10 years. (They'd settle for 50+Pence if they had to, of course.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on September 23, 2017, 12:56:37 am
For the record, Trump's wall will be built, it's just going to be invisible

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352016-trump-southern-border-wall-is-going-to-be-see-through

The fuck... this is actually real.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 23, 2017, 01:57:58 am
So it's a metaphorical wall.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 23, 2017, 02:00:20 am
For the record, Trump's wall will be built, it's just going to be invisible

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352016-trump-southern-border-wall-is-going-to-be-see-through

The fuck... this is actually real.
Well, you can see through air.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on September 23, 2017, 02:10:34 am
He's officially as divorced from reality as Hitler. Ordering the movement of armies that do not exist, and ordering the creation of a nonexistent wall that will somehow exist.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 23, 2017, 03:11:37 pm
And feuding with sports stars.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 23, 2017, 04:39:16 pm
He's basically a poorly-written wrestling persona let loose outside the ring.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 24, 2017, 08:03:59 pm
You gotta love how Trump is telling nfl fans to not condone something harmless like not standing for the national anthem. But he wont condone white nazi sympathizers who wish to eradicate people different from him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 24, 2017, 08:19:17 pm
You gotta love how Trump is telling nfl fans to not condone something harmless like not standing for the national anthem. But he wont condone white nazi sympathizers who wish to eradicate people different from him.

While I may disagree with Kaepernick on philosophical grounds, I don't think him kneeling during the national anthem is as big a deal as people make it out to be. Besides, doesn't Trump have better things to do than rant about NFL players?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on September 24, 2017, 09:21:09 pm
What grounds are those? That he doesn't want cops shooting black people for being black?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 24, 2017, 09:29:32 pm
What grounds are those? That he doesn't want cops shooting black people for being black?

It's our differing views of the American flag. I personally think of it as representing something to aspire to. That being said, I'm not offended at how he chooses to protest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 25, 2017, 12:28:37 am
Kaepernick feels he can't respect a flag when he as a race isn't respected or safe in the country he lives in.
Anyway Trump is not the fucking emperor of the United states and it's none of his business who chooses to stand kneel lay down during the anthem. He needs to keep his fucking mouth shut.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 25, 2017, 12:58:03 am
And anyway, just look at the crowd during these games. During the anthem, at least half of them are getting a beer, taking a leak, or chatting with their friends. Even sitting or kneeling quietly is, frankly, more respectful than that, especially when that anthem represents a system of government which enshrines and entrenches the right of peaceful protest. (If we think anthems and flags and such deserve respect.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 25, 2017, 03:17:49 am
There's also the circular reasoning. Soldiers fought and died for your right to protest, so don't disrespect them by protesting because they fought and died for your right to protest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on September 25, 2017, 03:57:43 am
To be quite honest is there even a reason to be proud of America?

We claim to stand for freedom of speech unless people are using their freedom of speech against the right wing, apparently. We claim to stand for democracy but have stood with Saudi Arabia for years, and our current elected head of state's favorite people are Duterte, Erdogan and Putin. Really, if you think about it, pretty much everything positive that we claim to stand for, we really just lie about and do what serves the interests of whoever's in office instead. Quite honestly asking here, but why should I be proud of living in this country?

Truth be told, I'd be much more proud to live in Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands than here. Hell, after 1945, even Japan has a much better record, and that's factoring in their refusal to apologize for much of anything.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 25, 2017, 04:00:35 am
You can disprove all US claims about standing for freedom and liberty and democracy and human rights and all that crap with six words.

Mohammad Mossadegh.

Salvador Allende.

Saudi Arabia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 25, 2017, 05:19:10 am
Fact is, Americans would rather have cheap oil and other resources over foreigners having the same rights and freedoms that they have. As such, propping up dictatorships in exchange for cheap shit is a great way to win votes.

Hell, the eve-popular issue of gas prices comes up in pretty much every election, with each candidate promising to bring them down as low as possible. How exactly do you think they accomplish that in the first place? Certainly not through fuel subsidies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 25, 2017, 11:25:19 am
To be quite honest is there even a reason to be proud of America?

We claim to stand for freedom of speech unless people are using their freedom of speech against the right wing, apparently.

Which is why John Oliver is in Gitmo right now. /s

We claim to stand for democracy but have stood with Saudi Arabia for years, and our current elected head of state's favorite people are Duterte, Erdogan and Putin. Really, if you think about it, pretty much everything positive that we claim to stand for, we really just lie about and do what serves the interests of whoever's in office instead. Quite honestly asking here, but why should I be proud of living in this country?

America granted women the vote before most European countries (French women weren't enfranchised until 1945!), rebuilt numerous countries devastated in World War II, is one of the most diverse countries on the planet, has made countless innovations, and remains one of the global leaders in free speech.

We shouldn't sugarcoat America's flaws and misdeeds, but there are legitimate reasons to be proud, at least in my opinion. If you don't think so, that's fine. I'm not some ultranationalist who thinks criticizing America points to some kind of underlying character flaw. I love my country, warts and all.

Truth be told, I'd be much more proud to live in Germany or Sweden or the Netherlands than here.

All countries where you can get arrested for criticizing Islam (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ida-lichter-md/penalizing-criticism-of-islam-threatens-free-speech_b_1334590.html). They might as well bring back blasphemy laws.

Hell, after 1945, even Japan has a much better record, and that's factoring in their refusal to apologize for much of anything.

You mean the country that still calls its Korean population "foreigners" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_Japan)? Japan is still very xenophobic (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-discrimination-foreign/foreigners-in-japan-face-significant-levels-of-discrimination-survey-shows-idUSKBN1720GP) for a first-world country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 25, 2017, 02:49:40 pm
a) You still seem to have a problem understanding that hate speech is not the same as critique.

b) Racism and domestic-bigotry are still common in Japan but it's been ages since they started wars for their own benefit or legalized torturing people or refused voting rights to minorities. (Ok, they have their own minorities that are actively denied jobs and upwards mobility but mainly by the citizens rather than the government.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 25, 2017, 03:36:35 pm
a) You still seem to have a problem understanding that hate speech is not the same as critique.

I know there's a difference, I just don't trust any government to decide what people can and can't say. Punishing people for crimes like defamation and incitement is one thing, saying they aren't allowed to express an opinion is something else.

b) Racism and domestic-bigotry are still common in Japan but it's been ages since they started wars for their own benefit or legalized torturing people or refused voting rights to minorities. (Ok, they have their own minorities that are actively denied jobs and upwards mobility but mainly by the citizens rather than the government.)

I'll give you your first two points, but it's also been ages since American minorities were denied voting rights. Unless you're talking about Voter ID laws, in which case I'd like to point out that they've been repeatedly (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/us/federal-judge-rejects-a-revised-voter-id-law-in-texas.html) struck (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law) down (https://newsone.com/3496501/racial-discriminatory-voter-id-laws-struck-down-kansas-wisconsin-north-carolina/).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 25, 2017, 06:09:14 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/john-mccain-cancer-trump-health-care-60-minutes/index.html

John McCain has opened up about his prognosis.

It's... not good.

EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/graham-cassidy-health-care-status/index.html

The CBO has scored Graham-Cassidy, and Susan Collins has now said she will not vote for it.

As Rand Paul and John McCain have already voiced their opposition, barring the possibility of the GOP flipping somebody like Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill, or Angus King, this renders Graham-Cassidy dead.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 25, 2017, 07:56:10 pm
We shouldn't sugarcoat America's flaws and misdeeds, but there are legitimate reasons to be proud, at least in my opinion. If you don't think so, that's fine. I'm not some ultranationalist who thinks criticizing America points to some kind of underlying character flaw. I love my country, warts and all.
Never thought pride in a country was tied to how "free" the country was in the first place. Loving a country "warts and all" is essentially a tribal affiliation not a rational argument.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on September 25, 2017, 08:47:23 pm
Which is why John Oliver is in Gitmo right now. /s

Nah, the right wing in this country knows better than to try to use legal force against those whose speech it disapproves of. Easier to look the other way and let the people do it themselves, with knives and cars.

America granted women the vote before most European countries (French women weren't enfranchised until 1945!), rebuilt numerous countries devastated in World War II, is one of the most diverse countries on the planet, has made countless innovations, and remains one of the global leaders in free speech.

We shouldn't sugarcoat America's flaws and misdeeds, but there are legitimate reasons to be proud, at least in my opinion. If you don't think so, that's fine. I'm not some ultranationalist who thinks criticizing America points to some kind of underlying character flaw. I love my country, warts and all.

The first point really depends on how you define the word "most". In terms of population, a large portion of Europe's feminine population was in fact able to vote before America passed the 19th Amendment in 1920 (Germany, Finland, Russia, Poland, the Netherlands to name a few). I will grant you that we did a pretty good job in rebuilding Europe and Japan after the big war. That's definitely a good thing. Of course, everyone who was involved in that is now dead, and our current government over the past generation, well... we managed to start several wars in the middle east, I'm living under a nuclear umbrella from Korea, we still don't have capable healthcare, we still don't have high-class infrastructure, and our current Congress has spent the last six months trying to dismantle what little progress we've made towards a stable, affordable health care system, basically ignoring everything else in their quest to appease their donors. I mean, should we really be proud if our last great moment was 70 years ago?

As was already mentioned, of course, there's a difference between loving your country and being proud of it. If you have a son who's a dropout and doing drugs, you can love them, but you're probably not going to be proud of them. And I sure don't see a lot to be proud of in America.

All countries where you can get arrested for criticizing Islam (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ida-lichter-md/penalizing-criticism-of-islam-threatens-free-speech_b_1334590.html). They might as well bring back blasphemy laws.

I could question your use of the article you linked, wherein the only sourced information stating that any criticism of Islam is illegal links to another article on a profoundly right-wing, pro-nationalist site. But in truth, that whole deal is irrelevant, because to be proud of a country doesn't mean that it it perfect, or that it has no blemishes. You seem to be implying that being proud of a country like Germany or the Netherlands is equated to believing it can do no wrong, but that isn't true, and I never said any such thing. We could instead talk about Germany's leading role in holding together a difficult-to-hold EU, their honestly startling economic recovery starting in the early 50s, or the fact that they have one of the best health care systems in the world, right now. Or we could talk about how, while we yelled at Australia over 1,200 people that we'd already agreed to take in, Germany was doing their best to take in a million Syrian refugees, which I would at the very least call extremely brave, if a little reckless (Germany didn't have the infrastructure for that and it showed). Those are things to be proud of, and they're not something that ended 70 years ago.

You mean the country that still calls its Korean population "foreigners" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_Japan)? Japan is still very xenophobic (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-discrimination-foreign/foreigners-in-japan-face-significant-levels-of-discrimination-survey-shows-idUSKBN1720GP) for a first-world country.

This has already been answered, so I'll let Askold's answer stand. In response to the claim that voter ID laws have been struck down, this is true, but it doesn't excuse the fact that they're being put up in the first place.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 26, 2017, 12:51:12 am
Not only are those voter IDsuppression laws passed, but there's no real remedy for the damage they do. Sure, they might get struck down eventually... but how many elections have been affected in the interim?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 26, 2017, 04:08:12 am
Yep, after the elections said and done striking the law down doesn't do a hell of  a lot for the people who lost their vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 26, 2017, 09:05:32 pm
From CNN's health care debate:

Quote from: Sen. Cassidy
For 25 years, I worked in the public hospital system of Louisiana trying to bring health care to those who did not have. And I learned in those 25 years that when the patient has the power, the system lines up to serve her. And when the bureaucrat has the power, it first serves the bureaucrat. Now, this is a debate about who has the power. Is it you, the patient, or is it the federal government? The narrative on the other side is that you don't have the capability to care for yourself, that your governor is corrupt, scheming to take away your protections if you have a pre-existing condition. And they think the federal government taking control of your life is a better way to go.

The logical extension of that, unfortunately, is the Charlie Gard case, the Charlie Gard case in which the single payer of England said the decide -- the life -- the decision of the life of your child is too important for the parents to make, and then the child died. I will tell you, if it's a decision about you versus the federal government, we side with you. Those who oppose us and those who want single payer, they choose otherwise. Thank you.

Argh the UK does not have single-payer, they have single-provider.

EDIT: Anthony "Carlos 'The Mongoose' Danger" Weiner has been sentenced to 21 months in prison after pleading guilty to sending explicit messages to a 15-year-old.

Good riddance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on September 26, 2017, 11:35:57 pm
How would single-payer take power away from the patient? I mean, the choice looks to me more like deciding if the power should go to the federal government or the private insurance companies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 26, 2017, 11:42:32 pm
How would single-payer take power away from the patient? I mean, the choice looks to me more like deciding if the power should go to the federal government or the private insurance companies.

To some extent, they're conflating single-payer with single-provider.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 27, 2017, 06:44:59 am
OK...

Parts of USA are on fire, underwater or blown miles away by hurricanes but relief efforts are a clusterfuck. GOP fails repeatedly to take down ACA. What is the country talking about? Some athlete who has been protesting police brutality for at least a year now. And instead of his protest they are talking about how he supposedly hates "the flag" and war veterans.

Say what you want about Trump but once again he has managed to take all his numerous failures and as a bonus he has once again made it acceptable for his fans to complain minorities being "uppity" or "ungrateful" when they want equal treatment. Meanwhile the only defense the people who support the protest can think of is "1st amendment makes protesting legal" which will soon be used to defend the next Nazi rally in USA.

Score for Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 27, 2017, 08:38:39 am
That's how outrage culture works, while the world burns yell about how outrageous some piddling shit that offends conservatives sense of decorum is and how that's the real issue. Never mind the smoke starting to fill the room and the temperature rising.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 27, 2017, 06:07:04 pm
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G17/AL#S2_

Oh God Roy Moore will probably become a US Senator.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 27, 2017, 09:45:01 pm
That's how outrage culture works, while the world burns yell about how outrageous some piddling shit that offends conservatives sense of decorum is and how that's the real issue. Never mind the smoke starting to fill the room and the temperature rising.

Yup. Distract people from real issues with irrelevant crap that doesn't really affect anything.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G17/AL#S2_

Oh God Roy Moore will probably become a US Senator.


That fanatic a senator? Oh no.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 28, 2017, 02:46:20 pm
https://www.wired.com/story/jared-kushner-voter-registration-woman?mbid=social_twitter

On the one hand, laugh at how Jared Kushner accidentally said he was a woman when he registered to vote.

On the other hand, remember that this person has top security clearance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 28, 2017, 06:58:37 pm
Calling it he's gonna come out as trans. This was some kind of Freudian slip.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on September 28, 2017, 11:34:03 pm
That would drive Trump into full on "I am now Napoleon" insanity.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on September 29, 2017, 12:39:43 am
So Lindsey Graham has admitted he had no idea what he was doing with that awful healthcare bill.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/27/lindsey-graham-on-obamacare-repeal-i-had-no-idea-what-i-was-doing/

Quote
Graham, though, said he was not alone in his lack of understanding of health care. “Nobody in our conference believes Obamacare works. It must be replaced. But until now, we didn’t know how to do it,” Graham told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday, audio of which is posted below."
...

A reporter pointed out that such ignorance at this late stage is hard to understand. “You’ve been working to overhaul this for seven years. Why is this so hard?” she asked.

“Well, I’ve been doing it for about a month. I thought everybody else knew what the hell they were talking about, but apparently not,” Graham clarified, adding he had assumed “these really smart people will figure it out.”

The crash course in health policy has been a romp, Graham said. “I’ve enjoyed this more than anything. I’ve learned so much about health care in other states — Pennsylvania, Alaska, Ohio,” he said, adding that he even learned about his own state. “South Carolina, we have 11 predominantly African-American counties that have unique health care needs and one size doesn’t fit all, even within your state. I looked at the history of welfare reform, and I think we can replicate that here.

First, maybe you should quit congress until you actually understand the stuff you make laws about and give your seat to someone smart. Second, the fact that he's admitting he and his party don't know what they are doing sadly still puts him ahead of most of the Republican party who haven't even done that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 29, 2017, 02:10:49 am
Graham's name was only at the top of the bill because he and McCain are best buds, so they thought they could get McCain to vote for it on that basis.

At least Cassidy's a doctor.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 29, 2017, 07:22:55 am
We have entrance exams for universities, but not the law-making body of our entire country.  HMM.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 29, 2017, 04:47:23 pm
We have entrance exams for universities, but not the law-making body of our entire country.  HMM.

If the electorate was actually intelligent, the election would be an entrance exam.

Unfortunately, all too many of them vote on emotion rather than reason.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 29, 2017, 05:26:57 pm
Price has resigned in the wake of the private plane scandal.

Ironbite-his mistake was being a GREEDY FUCKING BASTARD!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 29, 2017, 05:45:23 pm
Price has resigned in the wake of the private plane scandal.

Ironbite-his mistake was being a GREEDY FUCKING BASTARD!

Which will come first: Price spilling his guts to Mueller, or Mueller subpoenaing Price?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 29, 2017, 05:52:59 pm
Yes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 30, 2017, 12:58:45 am
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/opinion/a-boondoggle-masquerading-as-tax-reform.html?mcubz=3 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/opinion/a-boondoggle-masquerading-as-tax-reform.html?mcubz=3)

Can we really call Prima Donald a populist anymore?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 30, 2017, 03:44:45 am
So three guesses on who's in New Jersey golfing while Peurto Rico drowns.

The first two don't count.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 30, 2017, 04:04:20 am
Price has resigned in the wake of the private plane scandal.

Ironbite-his mistake was being a GREEDY FUCKING BASTARD!

His mistake was getting caught. Trump would not have cared at all if he hadn't made the administration look bad (well, worse.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on September 30, 2017, 04:55:27 am
Another one bites the dust.

Any news on replacements?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 30, 2017, 08:10:46 am
He hasn't even made noise about a replacement for Kelly or the other hundred positions that are still open.

Ironbite-doubt anyone's even told him he's got to nominate a new guy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 30, 2017, 08:46:55 am
Apparently the acting HHS director is some guy named Don Wright. Who will take the position until Trump eventually gets around to nominating some guy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 30, 2017, 08:54:02 am
It'll just keep going down the line until the only guy left is the part-time janitor.  Who will be immediately kicked out because he's not white enough.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 30, 2017, 02:23:51 pm
Quote
Trump's lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship.

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.
We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?
And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today. The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”
General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.
Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.” ... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.

It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years. So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America! written by Evan Sayet
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Wurdulac on September 30, 2017, 02:43:03 pm
Quote
Trump's lack of decorum, dignity, and statesmanship.

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.
We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?
And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today. The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”
General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal.
Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.” ... Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. ... They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.

It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church.. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years. So, say anything you want about this president - I get it - he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America! written by Evan Sayet

...I mean, on the one hand, WHAT.

Then again, on the other hand, WHAAAAAAT.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 30, 2017, 02:50:37 pm
Whoever this Evan Sayet is he's an idiot and doesn't understand how reality works.

Ironbite-which means he's probably a white idiot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 30, 2017, 02:59:43 pm
It's funny how everyone, no matter which side they support, loves to claim that their side is showing the utmost caution and restraint (even to a fault), while the other side is fighting dirty and holding absolutely nothing back. Not that I expect anything different, mind you. Shit's really fucking polarised, y'all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 30, 2017, 06:08:35 pm
I think I can sum that shite up in two words: ook ook.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on September 30, 2017, 07:51:20 pm
Quote
That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.

People sometimes write their senior thesis about a book they disagree with. The resulting thesis ends up being about how wrong the book in question is, or it avoids the subject of the book's veracity in favor of elucidating on the book's meaning.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 02, 2017, 07:27:17 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLK0u_bX0AA0djb.jpg:large)

EDIT: https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/May2012corptaxpaper.pdf

This US government paper shows, essentially, that trickle-down economics is complete and total bullshit.

So naturally the Trump administration has removed it from US government websites.

Share it far and wide.

EDIT #2: I'm putting this here because I'm not sure it's worth its own thread, and anyway I don't doubt Trump would do the same thing in this fuckwit's place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBrsrNWqYPg

A trans woman is running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates against a sitting delegate who pushed to pass a bathroom bill and has, during the race, questioned "his" gender identity.

FUCK YOU BOB MARSHALL. DANICA ROEM IS A WOMAN. GET IT RIGHT YOU PATHETIC BIGOTED HUMAN-SIZED PIECE OF SHIT.

Roem made the ad in the video above not to bring up her gender identity, but to point out that it shouldn't matter.

And if she wins and the presiding officer ever refers to her as a male... there'll be fucking hell to pay.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 04, 2017, 10:54:06 am
And unfortunately I'm in the district next to her so I can't vote for her.

Ironbite-sadness.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 06, 2017, 03:01:05 am
OH hey, remember that short period of peace between world wars that we've been having?

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/trump-warns-military-leaders-today-is-calm-before-the-storm-and-tells-them-youll-find-out-what-he-means/

It was fun while it lasted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 06, 2017, 03:19:51 am
Belgium: At least he can't invade through us this time!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 06, 2017, 03:36:33 am
Belgium: At least he can't invade through us this time!

Don't let Trump hear that, he'll figure out a way.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 06, 2017, 04:22:55 am
Trump: We are invading Germany...by tunneling through the ground, and we'll emerge through Belgium.

Belgium: OH FOR FUCK'S SAKES.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 06, 2017, 01:35:02 pm
I wonder if even Trump would dare to say this...

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2017/10/06/paul-gosar-charlottesville-conspiracy-cliff/738547001/

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 4th) is suggesting that the neo-Nazi/KKK/white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was in fact a false flag operation funded by George Soros.

Fuck you Paul Gosar.

Fuck you for even entertaining the notion that a man whose family was hunted by the Nazis, who survived the Holocaust, would for one instant do anything that would advance the modern incarnation of that despicable group.

You don't deserve to be in the US Congress. You don't deserve to be on any governing body. You probably shouldn't even be allowed out of your house because you're that fucking stupid and insane.

And every single person who voted for this despicable human-shaped piece of crap should hang their heads in shame.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 06, 2017, 02:35:55 pm
THE TEA PARTY EVERYONE!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 07, 2017, 02:08:02 pm
And in the category of "Trump would definitely say that":

http://www.wisn.com/article/johnson-access-to-health-care-a-privilege/12655631

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told a group of high school students that they don't have the right to things like food, clothing, shelter, or health care, only the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There are so many things wrong with that, but I'd just be repeating this guy in ripping Sen. Johnson a few new ones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlvargbI9Z8
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on October 08, 2017, 12:47:12 am
"You have the right to life, but not to live."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 08, 2017, 12:57:51 am
Ron Johnson, my representative, by the way, is a fucking partisan hack who is just as fucking fascist as Trump. He has not gone against what Trump has wanted ONCE. I fucking hate this guy almost as much as I hate Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 08, 2017, 01:44:11 am
Ron Johnson, my representative, by the way, is a fucking partisan hack who is just as fucking fascist as Trump. He has not gone against what Trump has wanted ONCE. I fucking hate this guy almost as much as I hate Trump.

And since Wisconsin is ALEC's playground (that's why they've passed so many voter suppression laws), Feingold lost to this jackass twice.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 08, 2017, 02:11:42 am
Remember when presidential campaigns like this were just a joke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rjiplsMDz0

Although the jokes are about Obama's campaign I think that Trump fans might have a comment or two about his position on illegal immigration as well.

EDIT:

Putting 2 and 2 together seems to give me: USA attacking Korea very likely.

Trump's earlier "calm before storm" comment together with his recent tweets about how diplomacy with "rocket man" and that "only one thing will work" implies that he wants a military solution.

So much for not giving away your plans...

Then again, he could just be a goddamn idiot who is fumbling about without a plan.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 08, 2017, 09:19:08 am
Trumps the kind of idiot that would tweet the military's plan of attack before doing it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 08, 2017, 09:53:34 am
Trumps the kind of idiot that would tweet the military's plan of attack before doing it.
Especially because he already complained about USA announcing an attack plan in advance.

And really, there can be a strategic advantage from announcing attack plans in advance. Aside from the obvious announcement of a fake plan, you could for example say that you are going to attack city X and give time for the civilians to evacuate which will make it easier for you to fight there.

Or you could lie about the correct time of attack. Or you could announce a real plan but fail to mention that you are doing something else at the same time.

And so on.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 08, 2017, 03:18:51 pm
It's what the Western Allies did for Overlord: they faked a whole operation in which they hit Norway and Calais (Operation Fortitude).

The idea was both to draw the Germans away from Normandy for D-Day itself and to keep them away by convincing them that strikes on the other two areas were imminent.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 08, 2017, 03:49:23 pm
USA had a massive amount of fake evidence for a supposed invasion direction for both wars with Iraq. I think it worked both times as well with US forces coming from a direction the Iraqis didn't expect. (Granted that particularly for the latter time USA just went with such overwhelming force that it wouldn't have mattered much what the defenders did.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 08, 2017, 04:10:38 pm
While Trump wants a war with Kim so bad he'll do anything to have it, he will not throw the first punch.  Why?  Cause he's an internet tough guy.  He does not, oh lord does he not, want anyone to see him as the "bad guy" in that situation and is perfectly comfortable making everyone else sweat in order to goad Kim into doing something stupid.  On the other side of the coin, Kim's handlers are smart enough to see that ploy for what it is and will keep a tight leash on him to prevent such a cataclysm from happening.

Ironbite-until Trump gets bored and decides a war with Yemen would be nice.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 08, 2017, 04:18:34 pm
The US is already effectively at war with Yemen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 09, 2017, 01:26:33 am
Why would Trump think that attacking North-Korea makes him look like a bad guy? Everything so far has demonstrated that he thinks it would be a great choice that would make him look like the tough leader he wants to look like.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 09, 2017, 01:28:24 am
Why would Trump think that attacking North-Korea makes him look like a bad guy? Everything so far has demonstrated that he thinks it would be a great choice that would make him look like the tough leader he wants to look like.

Because he (or at least Mattis) has to know that ordinary North Koreans are actually political prisoners, and it doesn't look good to bomb your enemy's hostage camp unprovoked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 09, 2017, 01:32:15 am
Why would Trump think that attacking North-Korea makes him look like a bad guy? Everything so far has demonstrated that he thinks it would be a great choice that would make him look like the tough leader he wants to look like.

Because he (or at least Mattis) has to know that ordinary North Koreans are actually political prisoners, and it doesn't look good to bomb your enemy's hostage camp unprovoked.


But do you really think that someone can explain that to him? Consider how many people must have helped him come up with a way to denounce the violence in Charlottesville and he still ended up going with the "many sides" comment in the middle of the scripted speech.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 09, 2017, 01:33:36 am
Why would Trump think that attacking North-Korea makes him look like a bad guy? Everything so far has demonstrated that he thinks it would be a great choice that would make him look like the tough leader he wants to look like.

Because he (or at least Mattis) has to know that ordinary North Koreans are actually political prisoners, and it doesn't look good to bomb your enemy's hostage camp unprovoked.


But do you really think that someone can explain that to him? Consider how many people must have helped him come up with a way to denounce the violence in Charlottesville and he still ended up going with the "many sides" comment in the middle of the scripted speech.

Trump? Maybe not. But Mattis and Tillerson at least seem to have three brain cells between them.

EDIT: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/white-house-adult-day-care-republican-senator-trump-twitter-1.4346107

Republicans: Disagree with them, hate them, think they're awful and promote horrible policies, but every once in a while they make you laugh for the right reasons...

Quote from: Senator Bob Corker
It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 10, 2017, 12:16:42 am
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-recruited-youtubers-to-bash-racist-btch-hillary-clinton-over-rap-beats?source=twitter&via=desktop

...But sure, let's keep calling Russia investigation a "nothingburger."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 10, 2017, 05:32:57 pm
Rep. Marsha Blackburn is running for the Tennessee Senate seat which Sen. Corker will not be contesting in 2018. So what does she do in her announcement video?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-shuts-down-rep-marsha-blackburn-campaign-announcement-video/

Marsha Blackburn claims that she "stopped the sale of baby parts."

For fuck's sake PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOES NOT SELL BABY PARTS. They donate them for medical research and only charge for storage and transportation costs--not to make any profit.

Those videos were essentially sting operations. No charges have ever been brought against Planned Parenthood over them, and, in fact, the people who made the videos have been charged over them.

Fuck you Rep. Blackburn, you lying sack of shit.

EDIT: Seen in response:

Quote
[T]here is very strong evidence that Planned Parenthood's sale of baby parts violated relevant federal law. Planned Parenthood repeatedly claimed that they earned no profit from the sale of baby parts, but also failed to produce one single lickspittle of evidence to refute the words captured on tape from its own representatives. Instead, it relied on its media and political defenders to make it go away, and, just like the accusations against Mr. Weinstein (also a major Democratic donor), it did. The media had to lie and suppress the plain videotaped evidence of anyone with eyes to see, calling the videos "doctored" for no reason at all -- but they succeeded, because the media is very good at spreading lies when it puts its collective mind to it.

But the evidence was still there. Rep. Blackburn's committee took note of it in its report and filed the appropriate criminal referrals with the California Attorney General, among others. Of course, the CA A.G., the real sack of shit in this story, is a big ol' Democrat, and was far more interested in putting away David Daleiden for exposing the truth than he was in even pretending to investigate Planned Parenthood's very possible crimes. Shades of the Weinstein-Cyrus Vance Jr. relationship there.

So, before you go on a ragemode again, open your "fucking" eyes and look at the "fucking" statute and the things those Planned Parenthood "fuckers" said on tape, and see if you can explain what legally-allowed expenses StemExpress was paying Planned Parenthood for, since StemExpress was already (by mutual admission) directly handling both the storage costs and the transportation costs, not to mention every single other valid expense permitted by statute.

Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.*

And Twitter, in an act of unmitigated political evil, has decided to censor that basic truth.

There's a lot of people in this story who deserve full ragemode -- a genuinely stunning number of lying sacks of shit -- but a Congresswoman who helped expose them is not one. She deserves our donations, not our ire.

*On a relatively minor linguistic note, even if Planned Parenthood were able to show that its sale of baby parts did not incur them a profit and was within the law, it would still be accurate to call the transfer of harvested fetal organs to a for-profit corporation in exchange for money a "sale." And I think that's an overlooked element of this case: Planned Parenthood's whole defense has been, "Oh, the literal blood money we received was technically legal," but there's a large portion of the American people who believe that, even if it is legal, it should go the way of the slave trade and be banned. Either way, it is a sale, and Blackburn is saying a truth that makes a lot of people very angry, but it is nevertheless indisputably true for any regular user of the English language.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 10, 2017, 11:00:18 pm
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 10, 2017, 11:04:57 pm
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?

No, they should be buried with full military honours like the brave soldiers they would undoubtedly have been.

At the sole expense of the mother, of course.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: pyro on October 11, 2017, 12:57:21 am
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?

That would represent a conflict of interest. If the hospital makes money selling aborted carcasses, then they'll encourage mothers to abort, or even just perform then without asking and lie and say it was a miscarriage.

The world is a dark and lonely place, and it is literally impossible to be too paranoid. No matter how evil you imagine people to be, they are worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 11, 2017, 01:47:00 am
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?

That would represent a conflict of interest. If the hospital makes money selling aborted carcasses, then they'll encourage mothers to abort, or even just perform then without asking and lie and say it was a miscarriage.

The world is a dark and lonely place, and it is literally impossible to be too paranoid. No matter how evil you imagine people to be, they are worse.

Side note to that: I wouldn't want any of them thrown into an incinerator. I'd want them buried near the roots of trees or under gardens so they can fertilize the planet's flora as they decompose.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 11, 2017, 02:49:26 am
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?

That would represent a conflict of interest. If the hospital makes money selling aborted carcasses, then they'll encourage mothers to abort, or even just perform then without asking and lie and say it was a miscarriage.

The world is a dark and lonely place, and it is literally impossible to be too paranoid. No matter how evil you imagine people to be, they are worse.

Side note to that: I wouldn't want any of them thrown into an incinerator. I'd want them buried near the roots of trees or under gardens so they can fertilize the planet's flora as they decompose.

I'm pretty sure burying medical waste (especially in someone's garden) is fifty shades of illegal.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 11, 2017, 03:17:32 am
Even if they do sell aborted carcasses. So what? Is that so much worse than simply throwing them into an incinerator?

That would represent a conflict of interest. If the hospital makes money selling aborted carcasses, then they'll encourage mothers to abort, or even just perform then without asking and lie and say it was a miscarriage.

The world is a dark and lonely place, and it is literally impossible to be too paranoid. No matter how evil you imagine people to be, they are worse.

Side note to that: I wouldn't want any of them thrown into an incinerator. I'd want them buried near the roots of trees or under gardens so they can fertilize the planet's flora as they decompose.

I'm pretty sure burying medical waste (especially in someone's garden) is fifty shades of illegal.

In some US states, it's mandatory.

(But really, I don't like cremation, because it means that all that matter isn't going back to help keep the biosphere ticking along.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 11, 2017, 09:29:26 am
People tend to also be quite oddly attached to cadavers.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 11, 2017, 04:04:13 pm
Anyone catch the Diss Track Eminem threw down on Trump?

Ironbite-the Orange Piss Pot is pissed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on October 11, 2017, 06:31:34 pm
It was pretty good. Haven't seen Trump's reaction, though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 11, 2017, 09:31:28 pm
Eminem / Ice-T 2020!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 11, 2017, 09:47:47 pm
Eminem / Ice-T 2020!

Oh please God fuck no.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 12, 2017, 12:44:31 am
Chris Evans 2020: What you need is a good celebrity to beat a bad celebrity
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 12, 2017, 01:02:16 am
Chris Evans/Don Cheadle 2020. If Captain America and War Machine can't fix things, no one can.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: lord gibbon on October 12, 2017, 02:32:01 am
Chris Evans/Don Cheadle 2020. If Captain America and War Machine can't fix things, no one can.
I hereby nominate Robert Downey Jr. for Treasury Secretary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 12, 2017, 02:41:14 am
Surely Robert Downey Jr should be Director of National Drug Control Policy
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 12, 2017, 06:54:30 am
Haven't you heard taht Ron Perlman is running in 2020?

There is a non-zero chance that he could make a "war never changes" reference is his inauguration speech if Trump has nuked a neighbouring country by then.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on October 12, 2017, 07:32:20 am
Haven't you heard taht Ron Perlman is running in 2020?

It's pretty telling about the times that I had to check not only if he really had announced it but also if he was serious when doing that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 12, 2017, 10:09:40 am
Does the veep have to be a native citizen?  If not, then I'd go for Lewis Black for President and Danny Trejo for VP.  If anyone can keep a madhouse in line, it'd be Machete.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 12, 2017, 02:04:37 pm
The VP has to meet all the same requirements as the President.

EDIT: This is essentially so that if the President leaves office for whatever reason, the VP will always be able to take over. After that, people ineligible for President can be in positions in the line of succession (Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Cabinet secretaries in order of creation); they're just skipped over.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 12, 2017, 04:46:19 pm
Aw, that's disappointing.

*reads Wiki*

...Danny Trejo could be President.  Brotha was born in LA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 12, 2017, 04:51:18 pm
There is one unclear point: whether someone can be VP if they've served two terms as President.

The term limits bar is on being elected twice as President, not necessarily on serving more than two terms. Apparently Hillary was considering Bill as her VP nominee, but part of the reason she decided against it was because she didn't want to run into that potential constitutional issue.

EDIT: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/gop-primaries-chaos-democrats-243487

The Dems' "new" strategy for winning in 2018?

Prop up the extremists in Republican primaries.

Because that totally worked in 2016 when they elevated Trump, Cruz, and Carson.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 12, 2017, 05:54:14 pm
It's not a new strategy.  It's the one you run when your opponents have this amount of unelectable crazy to begin with.  And don't you say that Hilary couldn't have beaten Trump.  She absolutely could've if she figured out where he was concentrating on.

Ironbite-I just hope the Democrats have some young hungry blood waiting to take the crazy down.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 12, 2017, 06:03:46 pm
It's not a new strategy.  It's the one you run when your opponents have this amount of unelectable crazy to begin with.  And don't you say that Hilary couldn't have beaten Trump.  She absolutely could've if she figured out where he was concentrating on.

Ironbite-I just hope the Democrats have some young hungry blood waiting to take the crazy down.

Hillary could have beaten Trump... if she could have broken the image of her being the ultimate insider.

And the Dems have young hungry blood (https://justicedemocrats.com/), it's just that their establishment hates them.

EDIT:

Quote
This is an island, surrounded by water, big water, ocean water.

What the ever-loving fuck, Donnie?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 13, 2017, 12:07:19 am
He's obviously trying to ape more successful villains.

This week its Ansem / Xehanort's Heartless.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 13, 2017, 02:33:41 am
This is not just a single incident of this kind of "memory problem" https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/mike-pence-chases-trump-forgets-sign-executive-order/

He has also forgotten where his limo is (it was right in front of him) where his wife was (next to him) and so on...

I think there is a non-zero chance that Trump has Alzheimer or Dementia or something...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on October 13, 2017, 03:40:36 am
His vocabulary has also degenerated noticeably from his old interviews and he has started using vague fill-in words more. This is also very typical for a dementia/alzheimer patient.

Of course, these things are borderline conspiratorial speculation. That doesn't mean that there is not enough smoke to at least consider the possibility of a fire.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 13, 2017, 03:50:53 am
If Hillary was acting like this GOP would be out there with torches demanding her to be removed from office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 13, 2017, 04:28:29 am
If Hillary was acting like this GOP would be out there with torches demanding her to be removed from office.

The GOP was pretty clear from before the election that if (or, as just about everyone was assuming, when) Clinton won, they would be out there with torches demanding that she be removed from office (and pursuing impeachment toward that).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 15, 2017, 02:17:48 am
My current theory is that the moment GOP passes the tax breaks for the rich they will turn against Trump and remove him from office.

And then pretend that they had been just trying to do the best they could for USA while president Pence passes laws to electrocute homosexuals. (Funnily enough, because Pence and several others may be incriminated in the Russia investigation who knows how far down the order of succession they'll have to go.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on October 15, 2017, 02:31:34 am
They're never gonna impeach Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 15, 2017, 03:40:03 am
They're never gonna impeach Trump.

They might, if he's causing the party to tank enough to cost them the House and the Senate in 2018--especially the latter in a year when 10 Democratic incumbents are in states Trump carried, so they're looking to gain in the Senate.

And even if he doesn't quite do that, they may well ditch him before 2020, because there they could lose the Senate (having 22 incumbents to the Democrats' 11) and if things go really badly, they lose state legislatures just in time for redistricting. (Granted the Dems might not be able to do things quite as atrocious as the GOP did after 2010 if Gill v. Whitford goes the way any sane democracy would have it go, but...)

But even if they just lose Congress for 2020, that still loses them control over federal redistricting, if the Dems are willing to go that far. (I don't think Congress' residual power over their own electoral maps has ever been exercised, but it's there, per Scalia's plurality opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer and not contested in Kennedy's concurrence or any of the dissents.)

Plus he keeps pissing off everybody in Congress.

I highly doubt Trump will finish his term. He's going to resign, be removed per the 25th Amendment, or be impeached.

EDIT:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMMUuJ3V4AA3pFD.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on October 16, 2017, 04:23:50 pm
Apparently Trump loves to mock Mike Pence for his Fundie views, ridiculing him and comparing him to the Taliban for "wanting to hang gays" and making fun of his plans to overturn roe vs wade since "blue states will just make it legal on their own."

Stopped clocks and all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 16, 2017, 05:39:13 pm
Being realistic for once, Donald Trump, ladies and gentlemen!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 16, 2017, 06:23:15 pm
Apparently Trump loves to mock Mike Pence for his Fundie views, ridiculing him and comparing him to the Taliban for "wanting to hang gays" and making fun of his plans to overturn roe vs wade since "blue states will just make it legal on their own."

Stopped clocks and all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/59teyc/a_stopped_clock_will_be_right_twice_a_day_but_a/

More like clocks that lose a second every year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 16, 2017, 06:26:19 pm
I am reminded of stories of Hitler making fun of Himmler for being a weird nerd with esoteric beliefs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 17, 2017, 05:50:09 pm
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence

Read this... now do you really want Pence over Trump?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 18, 2017, 12:53:24 am
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence

Read this... now do you really want Pence over Trump?
I dunno, has anybody hear voiced that preference? Pence is probably more dangerous as Trump's a wanna be dictator that's too shambolic to get shit done whereas Pence is a Christian dominionist and Koch operative who isn't.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 18, 2017, 01:27:51 am
a) Pence is 99.9% less likely to start a war just because someone dared him.

b) Pence has experience in politics and is more likely to actually accomplish things.

c) Pence would not have similar chaotic government where people are getting fired after 11 days on the job.

Sure, there's a high chance that he tries to push for fundie laws and Pence-care and whatnot, but that's nothing new. Trump is pushing laws like that already. Sure, he might accomplish more but even now it's clear that the GOP is running their own show with Trump as a figurehead. (They are doing it poorly as can be seen from their inability to pass laws, but still.)


EDIT: Hey, remember how Reddit has The_Donald subreddit filled with russian bots most fanatical Trump supporters?

A "funny" thing happened:
(https://i.redditmedia.com/P3FONukMEbVL7rdPXMG-eI5izgH2EMfVtQe7ycW3sRY.jpg?w=415&s=9c39048a1af903f2b57eca529e693284)

http://theralphretort.com/ralph-retort-statement-lane-davis/
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/770awy/protrump_redditor_and_youtuber_useattle4truth/
https://www.goskagit.com/news/man-pleads-not-guilty-in-father-s-stabbing-death/article_479b3b6f-88d4-502d-ae77-ff5f098fb511.html

To be fair, he was also interested in "ethics in gaming journalism" being an active member of GamerGate. But yes, T_D mods removed all of his comments from the subreddit so that they could pretend he isn't one of them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 18, 2017, 03:38:42 am
Correction, hegot kicked out of KiA, not sure how other GG groups felt about him.

EDIT: Nope, KiA is retconning as well.  He was active with them and GG.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/3f9el9/tw_gendered_and_racist_slurs_gamergate_supporter/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on October 18, 2017, 04:19:40 am
a) Pence is 99.9% less likely to start a war just because someone dared him.

b) Pence has experience in politics and is more likely to actually accomplish things.

c) Pence would not have similar chaotic government where people are getting fired after 11 days on the job.

Sure, there's a high chance that he tries to push for fundie laws and Pence-care and whatnot, but that's nothing new. Trump is pushing laws like that already. Sure, he might accomplish more but even now it's clear that the GOP is running their own show with Trump as a figurehead. (They are doing it poorly as can be seen from their inability to pass laws, but still.)

As long as the Republicans control both the House and the Senate b) and c) are still serious negatives compared to Trump. On the other hand, the more stressed and unpredictable Trump gets the more important a) becomes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 18, 2017, 04:33:48 am
I'm gonna be selfish here and admit that I am more worried about a global war than horrible laws in USA.

The latter can be undone after the next election while damage from nukes is a bit more troublesome.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 18, 2017, 04:43:32 am
I'm gonna be selfish here and admit that I am more worried about a global war than horrible laws in USA.

The latter can be undone after the next election while damage from nukes is a bit more troublesome.

Horrible laws in the USA --> massive rise in global average temperature --> world is possibly fucked even harder than it would be with a global nuclear war.

Granted, you'd get that with any Republican, which is why GOP delenda est.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on October 18, 2017, 05:04:31 am
I'm gonna be selfish here and admit that I am more worried about a global war than horrible laws in USA.

The latter can be undone after the next election while damage from nukes is a bit more troublesome.

According to a leak the Secretary of Defense is considering "tackling" Trump if he tries to launch a nuclear strike. I think the inner circle is well aware of Trump's instability and would at least think twice letting him do that. I am not so much afraid of Trump starting a nuclear war as I am afraid that he starts a conventional one and/or spreads instability that leads to a war or wars in the future. This is still so bad a situation that I, too, would rather take Pence as a president.

I just wanted to point out that the main reason the Republicans have not been able to do more damage is Trump's political incompetence. If it had been Pence who was pushing through the same agendas we would be in a much worse situation right now. The leaks just point out that Trump is getting more and more unbalanced which changes the equation towards getting rid of him being the less shitty option.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on October 18, 2017, 11:52:40 pm
Hey remember that Scaramucci guy who was in the white house for ten days?  Ever wondered what he's been up to lately?

The answer is polling his audience abut whether or not the holocaust happened.  https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/scaramucci-post-holocaust-poll
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 19, 2017, 02:39:37 am
I was wondering why would Trumpettes quote Vox Day, but it turns out that he is a Trumpette as well. https://redice.tv/news/vox-day-of-gamergate-why-i-support-donald-trump

Gee, I wonder if he feels stupid now?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 19, 2017, 05:47:13 am
I'm gonna be selfish here and admit that I am more worried about a global war than horrible laws in USA.

The latter can be undone after the next election while damage from nukes is a bit more troublesome.
That possibility will still be there, though it will be reduced if Trump goes. The battle lines that were there during the Cold War are solidifying again only this time everyone admits it's all about national interest and resources and has nothing to do with ideology.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 19, 2017, 06:07:26 am
Pence will not try to nuke a country because someone made a mean Tweet. Can you say the same of Trump, who reportedly asked repeatedly why he just can't nuke someone during his first briefing as a president?

Unofficial rumours do say that Mattis has people near Trump to stop him, one way or another, from launching an attack but those are just unverified rumours and even if true, that's all kinds of fucked up as well.

Nearly no one wants to restart the Korean war. All the countries would just be harmed by it. Senseless slaughter and suffering would follow and the money spent in the war would offer little profits.

Tough talk is standard practise. Negotiations and sanctions are standard practise. Trump on the other hand joins Kim in the "dictator dick measuring contest" quite earnestly which will just further destabilize the situation.

EDIT: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/trump-killed-more-civilians-obama/

Trump has managed to beat Obama in at least one category now... Killing civilians.

Which, to be fair, was one of his campaign promises. He said he would kill the families of the terrorists, and by God, he certainly seems to be doing his best in that endeavour.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 23, 2017, 12:29:13 am
I mean, hell, one of the first military actions he authorized only ended up with 30 civilian casualties and the target escaping. And he reportedly only authorized it because Obama had declined to.

I would question why this didn't become his Benghazi, but we all know the answer.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 24, 2017, 02:54:00 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-ambassador-knight-craft-1.4366936

Who did Trump name as US Ambassador to Canada?

Kelly Knight Craft, who believes "both sides" of the climate change "debate".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 24, 2017, 09:39:29 am
https://www.thedailybeast.com/congress-trump-wont-implement-russia-sanctionsand-he-wont-tell-us-why

Trump is stalling on the Russia sanctions and refusing to answer why.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 24, 2017, 12:56:11 pm
Could it be that Trump possibly made a deal with Putin to possibly Lift or reduce sanctions on Russia if Putin helped to get him elected?

I know, its a conspiracy theory, but Trump just makes it seem true.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 24, 2017, 03:11:04 pm
And David Nunes, on Trump's orders, is going after Hilary.

Ironbite-Mueller must have something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 25, 2017, 06:00:42 pm
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans just voted to allow banks and credit card companies to put arbitration clauses in their contracts, clauses which barred people from going to court, particularly in a class-action lawsuit. This repeals a rule from the CFPB which barred such clauses.

The Vice President had to break a tie, however, as Sens. Graham and Kennedy broke with the Republican line.

The House has already passed the repeal, and for all his campaign trail rhetoric, I'll bet any amount of money Trump will sign it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 25, 2017, 07:36:51 pm
Of course he will.  Doesn't affect him but does fuck over his voting base that still froths over mentions of Hillary.

Ironbite-this makes what the 5th time they've hauled in Pence to fuck us over?  Never heard of Biden doing this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 28, 2017, 01:14:56 am
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html

First charges in the Mueller investigationg. Expect arrests soon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 28, 2017, 02:05:45 am
I wish more details were out. Who are they arresting? What are the crimes?  Is this supposed uranium deal that Hillary Clinton is getting blamed for being put out there by the Trump administration to try to distract from this? Did Trump say he would release the jfk assassination files as a distraction?  Is Trump trying to get all of Clinton's emails released to try to distract from the investigation. Does Trump realize that he is president and not Hillary Clinton?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 28, 2017, 02:19:57 am
Not sure. Not sure. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes but nothing is ever his fault and he doesn't think far ahead so he is just trying to do something, anything in the hopes that his house of cards that is already collapsing might last at least a bit longer.

EDIT: Manafort and one of his associates were indicted. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html

This is certainly not a surprise. Some people were hoping for an even bigger fish but these are just the first two, we shall see how many people get arrested by the time this is done.

EDIT 2: Third indictment. Suspect is already pleading guilty:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNZFXceW4AEbKCT.jpg)

...This is important. And I'm just waiting to see how Trump fans and Russian bots will try to downplay the investigation now...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 30, 2017, 03:42:27 pm
Pappy up there flipped btw.  He's been cooperating with the feds since the 5th apparently.  This is Trump's biggest weakness.  He does not inspire loyalty in anyone who does anything for him.  None whatsoever.  And seeing as how this guy flipped, that's big.\

Ironbite-bigger then Sarah Hucklefuck Sanders trying to third grade world problem her way out of the press briefing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 30, 2017, 08:27:28 pm
I'm guessing these are just the first three. I wonder if were going to see another water-gate type scandal with people getting indicted left and right until Trump makes the stupid move of firing Mueller.
Except Nixon from my understanding was much more inconspicuous. He went into his second term with a 64 percent approval rating and it was quite the shock to the country to find out what a scum bag he was.
No this is something more like stupid water gate where everything was on the table form the beginning and Trump is doing a terrible job of lying about it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 30, 2017, 08:43:12 pm
Here's the thing that I take from this: This is the perfect opportunity for Congress Republicans to start standing up to Trump. It's the perfect opportunity to make themselves look good by focusing on how they can no longer trust Trump or anyone from his administration. It's the right time for them to stand up and save their own asses by pretending that they were always more interested in the good of the country over the good of their party and donors.

As you can probably imagine, I'm not taking bets on this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 30, 2017, 08:49:42 pm
They will once they are finished with tax reform once it passes or doesn't. They need him at the moment. I see come 2018 a lot of repubs are going to start turning their back on him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 31, 2017, 11:33:45 am
So there's talks of firing Mueller being brought up in the Media. Isn't this going to be looked at as an act of desperation from the Trump administration? That something is actually going on that Trump doesn't want to get out. It's going to look even more fishier than it already is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 31, 2017, 11:40:55 am
So, you've been listening to Pat Robertson as well?

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/tv-preacher-pat-robertson-demands-trump-fire-mueller-pardon-everyone-whole-thing-shut/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 31, 2017, 11:55:55 am
Shut it down why exactly? Apparently these idiots feel like if you fire everyone and pardon every person involved it just makes the problem go away. Instead it just makes them look even more guilty.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 31, 2017, 03:19:41 pm
That's why it's such a risky move.  You have to have something bigger in order to distract everyone from the truth.  And because the Orange Piss Pot has been tweeting out bullshit throughout the year, we've kinda been desensitized to even the biggest shocks.  I mean, I don't even think war being declared would shock us at this point because he's so bad at this game.

Ironbite-and to think, the GOP gets everything they want with Pence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 31, 2017, 03:48:20 pm
So, you've been listening to Pat Robertson as well?

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/tv-preacher-pat-robertson-demands-trump-fire-mueller-pardon-everyone-whole-thing-shut/

Well this is a blatant violation of separation of church and state. This should result in a very swift revoking of his tax exemption.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 31, 2017, 04:35:04 pm
But it won't.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: lord gibbon on October 31, 2017, 05:12:40 pm
Don't forget, Nixon fired the special persecutor too. And that worked out SO well for him...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 31, 2017, 05:18:58 pm
You gotta love the double standards. They would love to relinquish all of their rights and let Trump act as a dictator and shut down investigations towards him just so he'll stay in power. But spent the last eight years lying that Obama was doing the same thing, but it's different cause he's black.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 02, 2017, 08:15:49 am
Won't be long now, 38% approval rating-signature policies right down to repealing Obamacare, stupid walls and tax cuts all come to zilch.

Republicans are getting ready to do the Brutus perforation as we speak!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 02, 2017, 09:40:27 am
Once they've passed the tax bill they'll mysteriously discover their spines and take down Trump while saving the new law.

And all their incompetence and pure evil things they did will be blamed on Trump while the GOP voters think their party is more honest than the Dems who didn't event put crooked Hillary in jail.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 02, 2017, 01:36:32 pm
Apparently Trump wants to call the tax "reform" bill the "Cut, Cut, Cut Act".

EDIT:

Meanwhle...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Donna Brazile: The Democratic primaries were rigged, the Clinton campaign had been controlling the DNC since mid-2015, and she was pretty sure Clinton was going to lose.

EDIT #2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhd-7iOfRd4

The US has the money for single-payer, they just spend it on war instead.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 02, 2017, 03:42:37 pm
I think anyone with sense would know that the US has money to afford Single payer. But we want to throw 500 billion dollars at the Military.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 02, 2017, 05:44:03 pm
BUT MUH DAFENCE!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 02, 2017, 06:08:55 pm
In other words, he wants to name the bill after what Donald Jr. does in his spare time to hookers and hardbodies in New York.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 02, 2017, 07:04:51 pm
Seen on another forum:

Quote
Quote
Quote
I believe in a future in which the Republican party awakens from its fundamentalist-infected fever-dream.

(https://image.ibb.co/enDNqw/image.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

I couldn't agree more.

Innermost quote from a US moderate, middle quote from someone who vehemently denies that he's part of the alt-right, outermost quote from me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on November 03, 2017, 03:26:11 pm
Tinfoil hat time. Gonna pretend I'm a conspiracy theorist for a few minutes.

Consider the possibility that the recent terrorist attack in Manhattan could be a false flag by the Trump administration. It's extremely convenient after all. Around the same time we have people being indicted for Russian collusion (hi George!), suddenly there's a very convenient terrorist attack in Manhattan, near the WTC site, and a low-casualty attack at that. The attacker was an immigrant (Trump's least favorite people) and gave the president a wonderful excuse to demand cutting immigration.

He also moved surprisingly fast to blame Democrats and Democratic-enacted policies for the attack, almost like he knew it was going to happen and had his notes prepared in advance.

Now I'm not saying this is what happened. But it's definitely not impossible, and it's roughly in line with what I'd expect from Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on November 03, 2017, 03:37:30 pm
It can't have been Trump because it wasn't staggeringly incompetent.  A false Flag staged by Trump he would have bragged about pulling off the Biggest False Flag ever on twitter before it happened, then the killer would have been wearing a shirt reading "REAL TERRORIZT NOT FALSE FLAG" and failed to kill anyone, and ten minutes later his son would have e-mailed reporters proof that it was a false flag by mistake.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 03, 2017, 05:29:44 pm
Clearly Trump is a false flag himself, created by the Russian government to trick us into thinking that Russia is secretly controlling the US governmental election process from within, BUT are actually distracting from the fact that Russia is secretly controlling the US governmental election process from within.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 03, 2017, 06:03:08 pm
https://gritpost.com/donna-brazile-superdelegates-clinton/

To the extent that Donna Brazile's tell-all is true, and to the extent that all the other leaks about the DNC's tilt toward Clinton in the 2016 primaries are true, that sure explains a lot about why you had things like Sanders winning the Wyoming caucuses 56-44 but Clinton getting 11 of 18 total delegates from the state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 03, 2017, 06:19:20 pm
At the same time, Clinton was ahead in the popular vote from day 1 of the primaries. And, yeah, imagine that, Democrats preferred the Democrat over the Independent running as a Democrat for strategic reasons. So, yeah, I think it goes without saying that the DNC preferred Clinton and didn't do much to support Sanders, but at the same time, the election is fucking over. I am really sick of people still dwelling on the damn primaries.

Sanders supporters need to realize that he was at a disadvantage simply because he's not a Democrat and Clinton supporters need to stop pretending that Sanders is detrimental to their cause. This is the rare case where both sides ARE, in fact, acting like children in many ways. I supported Sanders in the primaries, but, because I'm not an idiot, I voted for Clinton and encouraged everyone else to support her because AT THE VERY LEAST, she wasn't a fascist like Trump (and, no, I'm not saying she was the lesser of two evils, but I preferred Sanders for a few reasons, none of which matter at this point).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 03, 2017, 06:41:47 pm
1. Who's to say that she would have been ahead in the popular vote from day 1 had the DNC not worked to ensure Clinton received more exposure than Sanders? (Plus she wasn't quite; Sanders did lead in popular votes after New Hampshire.) Now that he has received a ton of exposure, his policies are overwhelmingly popular among Democrats. I'm pretty confident that if it had been, say, Elizabeth Warren running against Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders--Warren notably being a registered Democrat--the DNC would have done the same dirty tricks to prop up Clinton over Warren.

2. People are still dwelling on it because it exposes that that DNC is completely corrupt, which not only had implications for 2016 but has consequences going forward, too. Obama and Clinton are still controlling the DNC; witness Tom Perez being airlifted in to become chair when it seemed like Keith Ellison was a lock for the position, and now Sanders/Ellison supporters have been ejected from the DNC en masse. And we know that the Obama/Clinton model of corporate Democrats has failed; just look at all the electoral losses over the last eight years. The Sanders wing needs to take over if the Democrats are ever to become ascendant over the GOP again (ever more critical as the GOP moves further and further right), and the corporate wing is bound and determined to see that that doesn't happen.

"They'd rather lose to Republicans than have a progressive win with them. That's how dumb the corporate Democrats are."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on November 04, 2017, 02:16:31 am
I`ve been reading Michael Adams "Could it Happen Here?", a book about whether or not a Trump like demagogue is likely to rise in Canada.  His answer is no, saying that the statistics show far less fear of immigrants and hostility to the government and elites in Canada then in the US or Europe, due to a combination of good policy decisions* and dumb luck.  There was a particular chart in the book I found interesting that I wanted to share with everyone.  Unfortunately I can't find it online so here is a version that goes up to 2012

(http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1892222/22985015/1372201018077/fatheroffamily.jpg?token=dyq6kSDkiQ88b%2FOi5byDiqcOmi8%3D)

Now when it came to 2016, the number of Canadians who said that a Father must be master of the house was only 23%, but in the United States it shot up to 50% and credited this to a backlash against feminism among men of generation X and Y in the last few years.  The timing of that backlash seems to coincide with the Anita Sarkeesian/gamergate movement although I do not know if that was the cause or result of the backlash.  I strongly suspect the former though, which might make gamergate a major part of why Trump got elected.

And that gap is a big part of why Trump is president and Trudeau is Prime Minister.

*For example we didn't shred our banking regulations and thus avoid the worst of the recession, our policies are designed to making it easier for immigrants to integrate, we have no fox news, etc
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 04, 2017, 02:33:00 am
*For example we didn't shred our banking regulations and thus avoid the worst of the recession, our policies are designed to making it easier for immigrants to integrate, we have no fox news, etc

The Conservatives were about to shred the banking regulations, but the recession hit before they did. (And then they took credit for our having strong regulations.) I would note, however, that Canadian banking has traditionally been more conservative than US banking, which was another reason Canadian banks weren't as exposed as US banks. (They still got bailouts, but nowhere near as much, to my knowledge, as US banks got.)

And the Conservatives tried to get Sun (or whatever that channel was called) into basic cable as I recall.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 07, 2017, 10:00:01 pm
A promising victory tonight as Dems seem to be winning across the board. I think it's showing a shift for next year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 07, 2017, 10:06:05 pm
Yeah, today went sideways for the Republicans. Virginia managed to elect a trans woman. That's huge.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 07, 2017, 11:00:45 pm
They're still going to keep Chaffetz's seat. Not much of a surprise, since it's Utah.

Interestingly, it looks like Curtis will get about 15 points less than Chaffetz, but it isn't to the Democrats, it's to the third-party candidates.

EDIT: Seen re: the "tax reform" bill: This isn't a tax bill, it's reparations to the rich for the crime of the New Deal.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 08, 2017, 03:24:50 pm
Man oh man.  Democrats really cleaned up last night.  My favorite was the woman who ousted the man who wrote a version of a Bathroom Bill and then turned around and said, "I don't want to speak bad about my constituents."

Ironbite-what a classy lady.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 08, 2017, 03:35:16 pm
How many elections were there and how many did the Democrats win?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 08, 2017, 04:13:41 pm
Well Democrats cut out the GOP majority in the state legislature by picking up 10+ seats.  And both Virginia and New Jersey's governorships stayed/went blue.  And a bunch of city council, mayoral and state legislatures around the country went blue.  So there's that.

Ironbite-basically races that should've been the GOP's slithered to through the Elephant's trunk and right into the Donkey's ass.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 09, 2017, 07:11:48 pm
So Republicans keep saying that if you can't afford to raise your child, just put it up for adoption!

So they proposed to eliminate the adoption tax credit in their new tax bill.

Democrats then proposed not only to restore the credit, but make it refundable, paying for it by raising the corporate tax rate from 20% to 20.04%.

Apparently a .04 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate is a bridge too far for the "pro-life" GOP, because they rejected it in committee.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 11, 2017, 05:02:30 am
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359730-trump-thinks-scientology-should-lose-its-tax-exempt-status

...You know, this is actually a good idea. I'm sure somehow this will turn into another disaster but I really do think that taking the tax exempt status from Scientology is a good thing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 11, 2017, 05:09:05 am
Just Scientology, huh? At least we can hope that it'll set a precedent.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 11, 2017, 08:02:20 am
Scientology loves doxxing people that go against them. Let's see what kind of dirt they can come up with in the Trump administration.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 11, 2017, 09:11:02 am
Oh dear god.  That's like the episode of South Park where the invading Jersey trash is pushed back by Al-Qaeda.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 11, 2017, 01:09:44 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/11/politics/president-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-election-meddling/index.html

You heard it from Trump folks. Trump said Putin didn't do any meddling in the election because he's asked him about it so many times and he's said no. Because clearly someone that had done something wrong is obviously going to incriminate himself when asked about it. Right? I guess we can put this case to rest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 11, 2017, 04:44:36 pm
Meanwhile EVERY SINGLE US INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WAS JUST TOLD THEIR WORK IS MEANINGLESS AND WE ARE NOW VULNERABLE TO ATTACK IN A WAY WE'VE NEVER BEEN SINCE WE WERE CONCEIVED AS A COUNTRY!

Ironbite-jesus he's stupid.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 11, 2017, 08:36:07 pm
Just Scientology, huh? At least we can hope that it'll set a precedent.

Thing is, I think the tax exempt for Scientology was judicially established. So it'd be a lot harder just to strip it away than it would to remove the tax exempt status for all religions.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 12, 2017, 12:59:00 am
Please tell me that someone hacked Trump's FB because he posted this:

Quote
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

...


...Really?

This from the guy who has been insulting Kim and threatening other countries not to give any sort of assistance to him until he drops his nuke program and basically has been lobbying to restart the Korean war with his own incompetence in diplomacy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 12, 2017, 01:17:33 am
Did he really fucking say that? You've been calling him rocket man this whole time!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 12, 2017, 03:16:18 am
It may have been a joke of his and another jab at Kim ...or he is just incredibly stupid and incompetent in diplomacy.

And yes, this is yet another "covfefe" level confusion causing tweet.

(https://i.redditmedia.com/fVnWn1MiYg7mfcwVvhY_2MdtX9KhNGLEMZaLaKcJPwo.png?w=1024&s=ad7225570652b5ad48384a649b9f6b99)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 12, 2017, 04:38:35 am
He even uses the wrong "there". Still, he's only the fucking president of the US and A. It's not like professionalism is important or anything.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 12, 2017, 08:19:35 am
It may have been a joke of his and another jab at Kim ...or he is just incredibly stupid and incompetent in diplomacy.
Yeah, that probably is an attempt at humor. You can't be sure, though, since when it suits him he just unashamedly recreates reality ignoring opposing evidence and/or his own previous record on the issue at hand.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 12, 2017, 02:29:13 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/08/paul-ryan-erases-any-doubt-were-with-trump/

Paul Ryan: "We're with Trump."

Okay, then every stupid thing Trump says or does, or any indictment that comes against Trump, is now counted against the entire GOP. Gotcha, Mr. Speaker.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 12, 2017, 03:26:08 pm
Yeah Ryan that wasn't the sound bite you wanted to get out there after the trouncing you had.  That was a dumb statement to make.

Speaking of dumb statements, after giving a black eye to our intel community on Veterans day, Trump walked it back Charlottesville Style and said now he doesn't believe Putin's obvious lies.  I guess he was told he could be murdered and made to look like an accident by people who he depends on to save his life might have opened his eyes a bit.  But I fully expect him to walk back that and go "BUT I REALLY DO BELIEVE HIM WHEN HE SAYS HE LOVES ME!" in the next few days.

Ironbite-can't wait for the next blunder.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 16, 2017, 07:08:03 pm
So we know that the GOP is getting rid of the SALT deduction, because fuck blue states.

If you're an individual, anyway.

Under at least one version of their tax bill, corporations keep the SALT deduction.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 19, 2017, 09:16:56 pm
I can't believe this asshole president. He gets China to release three UCLA basketball players from prison and since one of the students father's isn't kissing the ground Trump walks on he tweeting that he should've let them rot in prison. Meanwhile the students all thanked Trump even though they didn't have to. What a shit head.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2017, 01:22:48 pm
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/360060-millionaires-and-billionaires-to-urge-congress-not-to-cut-their-taxes

400 millionaires and billionaires are petitioning Congress not to cut their taxes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 23, 2017, 01:42:33 pm
That's...that's amazing.

Ironbite-just amazing that they'd do that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 23, 2017, 01:52:02 pm
Congress won't listen to them. They're still trying to sell the lie that their tax plan will help out the middle class the most, and blame the democrats when it doesn't work. They continue to go against the wishes of their voters. Just like gutting net neutrality despite seventy five percent of the population being against it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 23, 2017, 02:04:31 pm
98% actually.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Katsuro on November 28, 2017, 04:10:16 pm
Another example of the man who literally wrote the book on the art of the deal in action :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42159139

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 28, 2017, 06:34:58 pm
Yeah Chuck and Nancy really got told by Trump didn't they?

Ironbite-yesh what an idiot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 29, 2017, 07:34:50 am
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/28/project-veritas-protesters-trial-trump-inauguration-protest?CMP=fb_gu

Hey, the team that was just caught defending a pedophile by trying to discredit the victims are a source of major evidence for prosecutor against protestors who were opposing Trump.

And that's about all I can say without swearing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Katsuro on November 29, 2017, 02:02:16 pm
So the President of the United States retweeted fake videos from a British far-right nationalist hate group (what was that about fake news, Mr President?)...and then the White House Press Secretary said about it, "The threat is real even if the videos aren't."  Coz we all know "just coz my evidence is a total fabrication doesn't mean I'm wrong" is how logic and being a sane rational human work. 

This is where we're at.  What the fuck is even happening?  Is this a dream?  Someone tell me this is a dream please for fuck sake!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 29, 2017, 02:14:13 pm
Fake news is anything that Trump thinks is bad.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 29, 2017, 05:02:11 pm
So in the span of 48 hours Trump:
1.Retweeted fake videos from a far right British nationalist hate group about Islam, and not just one but three.
2.Sent tweets using the excuse of the firing of Matt Lauer to call NBC fake news for some reason.
3.At an event honoring native American veterans trump used it to make a joke about calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas like you're awkward uncle who makes a rascist joke at thanksgiving while everyone else in the family sits around in awkward silence. Not to mention while standing in front of a portrait of Mr. Trail of tears himself Andrew Jackson.
4.Now claimed that the access Hollywood tapes are doctored or fake somehow.
5.Continues to doubt that President Obama was born in the United states.
6.Set up a crazy photo op after bashing Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on twitter telling them it was pointless to have a meeting with them and then lambasted them for not showing up to the meeting they weren't going to cooperate with them with in the first place.
7. Continues to stoke the fire with North Korea and puts it out in public.

On top of that we have Congress trying to pass a tax plan hand out to the wealthy, a threat of a government shut down and Net Neutrality being taken out to pasture.

Fuck

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 29, 2017, 06:47:03 pm
Also worth note: Murkowski has announced that she intends to vote for the tax plan and Ron Johnson has flipped (and seeing who Ron Johnson is in the first place, this is my surprised face.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 29, 2017, 07:47:53 pm
Also worth note: Murkowski has announced that she intends to vote for the tax plan and Ron Johnson has flipped (and seeing who Ron Johnson is in the first place, this is my surprised face.)

It's not a done deal yet, though, because I highly doubt the Senate will pass whatever passed the House, so it'll go to a conference committee to hash out the details, and then we'll see what happens.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 01, 2017, 12:15:03 pm
AAand Flynn pleads guilty and may be co-operating with the investigation as had been rumoured before!

Multiple stories about this, Trump supporters like Fox News are furiously trying to shift the conversation to the 2016 Democratic candidate who is NOT the president of USA. Some sources are even claiming that this is proof that Flynn is going to testify against Trump on the basis that informants get a plea deal for ratting out one of their superiours so it's either Trump or Pence that he must be ratting out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/michael-flynn-donald-trump-fbi-informant-security-analyst-juliette-kayyem-james-comey-investigation-a7651461.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-charged/index.html

This is going to be an interesting weekend.

EDIT: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/936628560374071296

Ooh!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 01, 2017, 12:41:32 pm
Meanwhile the GOP are a another step closer to fucking over the economy for the next ten years.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on December 02, 2017, 03:17:21 am
Where the fuck are the guillotines?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 02, 2017, 07:20:03 pm
A direct transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that explodes the deficit more than any social program could hope to built on a piece of legislation that was rushed so hard the last part was handwritten. Fucks sake!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 02, 2017, 07:36:02 pm
With Trump being largely unfavorable, and the GOP failing to pass a very unpopular healthcare reform and now trying to pass a very unpopular tax reform. I'm expecting a trouncing of the GOP next year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on December 02, 2017, 08:29:41 pm
With Trump being largely unfavorable, and the GOP failing to pass a very unpopular healthcare reform and now trying to pass a very unpopular tax reform. I'm expecting a trouncing of the GOP next year.

Don't. People are idiots. They've demonstrated this before and they're going to demonstrate it again. They'll vote for anyone with an R in their name if it means making "dem durn fuckin' libtards" mad.

Don't expect good things out of this. It's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 02, 2017, 09:05:02 pm
It's darkly ironic that a government elected on nativist/xenophobic/ultra nationalist sentiment just sold their country down the river to a bunch of multinational corporations that clearly don't give a single fuck about them!

Will a trillion dollar debt and fatter billionaires MAGA? Not bloody likely!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 02, 2017, 10:47:41 pm
I think the again time he's referring to is the 1930s. Remember that time when people were really rich and wealthy and then the economy tanked in one of the most devastating financial crisis the world has ever seen? Well I'm Donald Trump and I'm gonna get us back to that time!

I think the next slogan the dems should run on in the 2020 presidential election is Make America Great Again. Just to really troll Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 05, 2017, 03:13:11 pm
Aand Trump just got hold of a telephone and told the leaders of the Arab.and Muslim worlds that he's gonna put the US embassy in Jerusalem. Ankara is so pissed they're threatening to cut ties. Where the fuck is his babysitter?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 05, 2017, 03:54:13 pm
Oh, and now Mueller has issued a subpoena to Deutsche Bank for Trump's financial records.

And Trump is freaking the fuck out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on December 05, 2017, 04:09:12 pm
Oh, and now Mueller has issued a subpoena to Deutsche Bank for Trump's financial records.

And Trump is freaking the fuck out.


FAKE NEWS™! (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-deutsche-bank/trump-lawyer-denies-deutsche-bank-got-subpoena-on-trump-accounts-idUSKBN1DZ0XN) Nobody is interested in checking if Russian banks bought Trump's loans from Deutche Bank. Lugenp... I mean lying press lies again like the lying liars they are! Sad!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 05, 2017, 11:33:39 pm
Trump: Himmwer! HIMMWER! I DON'T WANT MULLER GOING ANY FURTHER!! WAAAH

Pence: For one, my name is Mike Pence, not Himmler. And two, compose yourself with a little decency and grace, will you?

Trump: WAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 05, 2017, 11:38:40 pm
This just keeps getting better and better.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 06, 2017, 12:00:09 am
Yeah, but it also came out that Pence tried to get Trump kicked off the GOP ticket after the Access Hollywood tape came out. I bet Trump's trying to find any means he can to get Pence to quit since he'd see that as a personal betrayal.

EDIT: http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/metoo-movement-silence-breakers-time-magazine-person-of-the-year-1.4435005

Serial sexual harasser Donald Trump thought he'd be Time's Person of the Year. Instead, it's all the people who came forward about being sexually harassed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/democrat-al-green-vote-impeach-donald-trump-1.4434969

Rep. Al Green plans to force a vote on impeaching Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 06, 2017, 09:58:33 am
Yeah, uhm...if it gets out that Russia basically bought him, wouldn't that mean that Trump, at the very least, would be guilty of actual, literal treason?  If he is, he will certainly be remembered.  Right alongside the likes of Nixon, except he'd be the first President to ever be both impeached and subsequently put to death (I believe treason still carries the death penalty) for treason.

That's not counting anyone who might've colluded with the whole ordeal.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 06, 2017, 10:52:47 am
https://slate.com/business/2017/12/senate-republicans-may-have-made-a-usd260-billion-mistake-in-their-tax-bill.html

...Ooops.

TL;DR by someone:
Quote
Took me a while to get my head around what has happened, but what I understand is: They lowered the corporate rate to 20% and removed the AMT. Then at the last minute the AMT goes back in, but instead of being inserted at a rate lower than the corporate tax rate (which is what it is supposed to be because it is an alternative minimum rate) it was left at its old rate, which happens to be 20%, exactly the same as the new actual corporate tax rate.

So the "alternative minimum" rate is now just "the rate" - which is a huge blow to companies which spend a lot of time and effort trying to pay the AMT and not the usual rate of corporate tax.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 07, 2017, 03:52:16 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/opinions/trump-jerusalem-arab-credibility-opinion-khalid/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/opinions/trump-jerusalem-arab-credibility-opinion-khalid/index.html)

It's getting to be the natural order of things, isn't it? Fish swim, birds fly, grass grows, and Trump makes really bad decisions.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 08, 2017, 12:09:53 am
It's almost as if he was creating scandals on purpose to distract from previous scandals.

N-K situation is driving towards a war and now he is trying to start another war in the Middle East as well...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Stormwarden on December 09, 2017, 11:35:33 am
It's almost as if he was creating scandals on purpose to distract from previous scandals.

N-K situation is driving towards a war and now he is trying to start another war in the Middle East as well...

It's an old Reality Star trick. Distract from one problem with a series of others. Hope the monkeys in the room distract from the gorilla. Thing is, reality star strat doesn't work so well as foreign policy. People see past that crap, and now it's hopefully coming home to roost on Trumpy's head.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on December 09, 2017, 03:08:14 pm
There's also the fact that the best way for a fascist regime to hold on to power is to start a war to distract from domestic failings.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 09, 2017, 03:28:49 pm
(https://i2.wp.com/www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/goering.png)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 14, 2017, 04:14:30 pm
Man with the FCC killing Net Neutrality today I'm glad that I moved to Canada earlier this year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 14, 2017, 05:19:27 pm
Man with the FCC killing Net Neutrality today I'm glad that I moved to Canada earlier this year.

It's still going to have an impact on Canadians, because US-based businesses (like Netflix) are going to have to raise their prices to pay the bribes the US ISPs are going to demand.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 14, 2017, 05:38:28 pm
Well I'm already mooching my netflix account off of somebody else so it will be up to them if they're going to cancel or not when the prices go up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 17, 2017, 04:04:52 am
ATTENTION! Start stockpiling popcorn and popcorn accessories!

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/dem-lawmaker-sounds-alarm-capitol-hill-rumor-indicates-trump-fire-mueller-next-week/

There are plenty of rumours about this and even though the craziest (Trump planning to fire Mueller) might not be true just the fact that Trump's miracle-team of lawyers is protesting that Mueller had no right to get the emails is revealing. It's more likely that the emails have something incriminating than that Mueller should not have gotten them.

(On the other hand, Trump being the reality-TV star that he is, it is certain that he wants to hype up the christmas episode of his show before taking a vacation.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 17, 2017, 04:54:56 am
If he does fire him expect the GOP to do stuff all even if the pee pee tape comes out in the same week!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 17, 2017, 05:02:33 am
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/16/matthew-peterson-judges-robes?CMP=fb_gu

You know, maybe he should try to fire Mueller. If nothing else, it would at least hasten his downfall.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on December 17, 2017, 08:30:39 am
What downfall? We're stuck with his ass. Congress is never gonna impeach. They wouldn't impeach if it came out that his daily dinner was a whole, live puppy washed down with a glass of freshly-squeezed orphan tears. We're not getting ANY where until after midterms at the absolute earliest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on December 17, 2017, 03:04:26 pm
The biggest thing I don't get it is that virtually everyone in the line of succession would sign any bill Republicans put in front of him. They don't need Trump unless the conspiracy is so huge that the entire line of succession is guilty. And even then, it will take so much time for the conspiracy to unravel (remember, Nixon had a probably much smaller scandal and he still took three years) that it doesn't matter. Trump goes down? Pence will sign the same bills. Pence goes down? Ryan will sign the same bills. Hatch will sign them. Tillerson will sign them. They don't need Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 17, 2017, 03:19:41 pm
I think it's two things. Republicans don't want the drama and the damage done to their party if impeachment processes would become the major focus in Washington. Democrats are hesitant to demand impeachment because they don't have power and it's an election year so they probably dont want to jump the gun and then look foolish if nothing comes up in these investigations.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on December 17, 2017, 03:55:33 pm
The biggest thing I don't get it is that virtually everyone in the line of succession would sign any bill Republicans put in front of him. They don't need Trump unless the conspiracy is so huge that the entire line of succession is guilty. And even then, it will take so much time for the conspiracy to unravel (remember, Nixon had a probably much smaller scandal and he still took three years) that it doesn't matter. Trump goes down? Pence will sign the same bills. Pence goes down? Ryan will sign the same bills. Hatch will sign them. Tillerson will sign them. They don't need Trump.

I think it's two things. Republicans don't want the drama and the damage done to their party if impeachment processes would become the major focus in Washington. Democrats are hesitant to demand impeachment because they don't have power and it's an election year so they probably dont want to jump the gun and then look foolish if nothing comes up in these investigations.

Here's my opinion:  Cloud is absolutely right that Pence or Ryan or Hatch or anyone else would sign the tax cuts just as quickly.  The GOP establishment knows that, but they're afraid of Trump's voters.  They've spent four decades using hate radio and Fake News to cultivate this mob of racist, heavily-armed religious kooks who are convinced that the dam librals are out to steal their guns and Bables and make their sons gay marry Mexican immigrants then let Muslins kill them all.  The human dumpster fire has them convinced that he's their Messiah;  if Dump is removed from power and the GOP establishment looks culpable in any way this mob--or, as you can also call it, the Republican base--will be livid.   The GOP establishment--the economic royalists who actually don't give a flying fuck about gay marriage or abortion or Jesus returning and just want their tax cuts, dammit--need those votes to keep and stay in power.

At best, the base stops voting.  Worse, they vote for every bomb-throwing nut job or con-man who rails about the Establishment and invokes Dump as their martyr and primaries the more royalist candidates.  In both those cases, the Democrats could benefit (See the Todd Akin/Roy Moore effect).  At worst...well, we have heavily armed rioters that Fox Noise will still call "peaceful protestors" even when they start killing people.

So I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are actually hoping that the Democrats take power and get rid of Trump; their hands would be "clean", and ironically they would--without the slightest trace of shame--campaign on Dump's martyrdom in 2020 or whatever themselves.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 17, 2017, 04:03:22 pm
(https://i0.wp.com/leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/06/good-voter-1200.png?resize=675%2C959)

EDIT: With the tax bill proceeding apace through Congress...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRXUz7cX0AESVRA.jpg:small)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on December 18, 2017, 08:03:34 pm
Here's my opinion:  Cloud is absolutely right that Pence or Ryan or Hatch or anyone else would sign the tax cuts just as quickly.  The GOP establishment knows that, but they're afraid of Trump's voters.  They've spent four decades using hate radio and Fake News to cultivate this mob of racist, heavily-armed religious kooks who are convinced that the dam librals are out to steal their guns and Bables and make their sons gay marry Mexican immigrants then let Muslins kill them all.  The human dumpster fire has them convinced that he's their Messiah;  if Dump is removed from power and the GOP establishment looks culpable in any way this mob--or, as you can also call it, the Republican base--will be livid.   The GOP establishment--the economic royalists who actually don't give a flying fuck about gay marriage or abortion or Jesus returning and just want their tax cuts, dammit--need those votes to keep and stay in power.
You forgot to follow the money. Yes Trump is the king of free publicity, and yes everything you said is pretty much true, and yes, it's only the midterms coming up, but these tax cuts stink to high heaven, and even half the Republicans in the Legislative branch know it, but they're going to pass it because they'll be wiped out in the midterms if they don't, and it's not about appeasing (or even energising) the base, or having a win under their belt, you just have to look at the boondoggles they're putting in, the people they're hurting, and the only people who are going to benefit from this fiasco. It is about the Republican donors. There aren't millions of them giving $27 each. It's the super rich giving hundreds of millions, and if the Republicans don't give them the world's most expensive blowjob, they're going to lose a LOT of funding for midterms and 2020. No ads to feed FOX or Breitbart or Drudge. No ground support. No stickers or posters or fake news (made in America). No insane 'think'tanks. They're trying to appease the asshole portion of the 0.01%, no one else.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 18, 2017, 10:05:15 pm
It's lose lose for them. Either do nothing and not get funding and lose support. Or pass a highly unfavorable tax reform and lose support.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 24, 2017, 02:05:17 am
Trump is alternatimg between "Jesus Christ! Somebody stop that man!" and "What is this? A cartoon villain?"

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/trump_replaces_e_pluribus_unum_with_make_america_great_again_on_new_presidential_coins_raising_ethics_issues?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Post&utm_campaign=PM&utm_content=Trump+Replaces+%27E+Pluribus+Unum%27+With+%27Make+America+Great+Again%27+on+New+Presidential+Coins%2C+Raising+Ethics+Concerns+and+Outrage
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 24, 2017, 05:41:39 am
Quote
the coin, which is thicker than those made for past presidents

This really got me, it was such an odd change to make and is more fascinating in its egotism to me than the rest of the changes listed by this article.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on December 24, 2017, 06:04:44 am
So the president of America wants to immortalise the idea that America is shit right now and therefore needs to be made great again. It's almost a refreshing change from the usual patriotic wank that these things tend to be.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on December 24, 2017, 09:29:22 am
It's not even a coin anymore. He fucked up a circle. A goddamned CIRCLE.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 30, 2017, 12:40:05 am
Not all coins are circular, ya know.

Anyway...

http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_2473_the-year-2017-if-trump-hadnt-won-election/

Cracked readers on what 2017 might have looked like had Clinton won.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 30, 2017, 02:16:25 am
 some of those were pretty clever.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on December 30, 2017, 07:31:36 am
These four are my favourites:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 02, 2018, 11:25:05 pm
Mike Pence went on vacation to Aspen. What did he find when he got there?

https://www.mediaite.com/online/mike-pences-aspen-neighbors-hang-up-make-america-gay-again-sign/

(https://am14.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2017/12/make-america-gay-again.jpg)

That sign, hung at both entrances to his property, by a lesbian couple. (Apparently they were a bit hesitant to do it because of the Secret Service presence, but the Secret Service said they figured it was the couple's First Amendment right. They gave the bodyguards chili.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 03, 2018, 08:52:21 am
Couple: "We're not sure if this is legal or smart..."

Secret Service: "Dude, fuck this guy, go ahead."

How I imagine the conversation more or less went.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 03, 2018, 06:40:27 pm
Wow.  Pence is about as beloved as Trump is.

Ironbite-who'd he piss off in SS?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 10, 2018, 01:38:57 am
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/trump-administration-waives-punishment-convicted-banks-including-deutsche-which?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

Anyone surprised?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 10, 2018, 03:52:28 pm
Only that it didn't happen sooner.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 10, 2018, 03:58:11 pm
Aren't we all glad that Trump is in there draining the swamp?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 11, 2018, 08:19:20 pm
(https://i.redd.it/lweiedfxhg801.png)

1. If you want to claim you're mentally sound, maybe you shouldn't compare yourself to a man who had Alzheimer's.

2. You ran in 2000, so no, you didn't win on your first try.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 11, 2018, 10:10:57 pm
I hold my position to this day that anyone who brags about being a genius is most likely insane or a teenager. We pretty much have a 6th grade for a president.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 12, 2018, 01:32:04 am
"being, like, really smart"

He wrote it.

I mean, saying "like" is one thing, but fucking writing it? Argh.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 12, 2018, 08:20:51 am
This is only the second week of 2018:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/pdHp6bnI1CUNuZ71Jdu6U8Gj3jCH6IRczLrcvHJa-mQ.jpg?w=702&s=5a2e3bb3b45cf1a8f976a50063849a9f)

And that is the person the people of USA elected as their leader. Good jorb guys.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 12, 2018, 10:57:22 pm
This is only the second week of 2018:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/pdHp6bnI1CUNuZ71Jdu6U8Gj3jCH6IRczLrcvHJa-mQ.jpg?w=702&s=5a2e3bb3b45cf1a8f976a50063849a9f)

And that is the person the people of USA elected as their leader. Good jorb guys.

Yeah, we dropped the ball on that one. Now your shithole, Scandinavian nation has to turn to Angela Merkel to lead the free world. Our bad.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 13, 2018, 12:02:31 am
Right now the only person I can think to compare to Trump is Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu. Way too many people are utterly convinced that they are/were amazing people who can do no wrong while the reality is almost exactly the opposite.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 13, 2018, 04:39:43 am
1. If you want to claim you're mentally sound, maybe you shouldn't compare yourself to a man who had Alzheimer's.

2. You ran in 2000, so no, you didn't win on your first try.
That's all you noticed?

Very successful businessmen was a blatant lie, collusion hasn't been proven to be a hoax, Obama won on his first try too, and has never been called a genius by Trump (ignoring the entire non sequitur of it), the entire point of the absurd Reagan comparison wasn't that he was sick - it was that he claimed he wasn't and the whole thing was a massive MSM conspiracy (the man is batshit insane!), his only assets were his dad's money, ambition, seething pathology, narcissism, and a total lack of perspective. Sometimes they worked for him, sometimes they didn't. Self praise is no praise at all (same for coerced praise), without even looking at the most dubious claim of all ----- I think that would qualify .

Also this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcGQpjCztgA
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 14, 2018, 04:19:24 am
Also this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcGQpjCztgA
Oh. Guess that one was pretty obvious...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbD_gKexiZw
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 14, 2018, 10:35:17 pm
Wow, this passage describes Trump perfectly:

Quote
Seers aren’t born every day. The realm that has one— But that’s no matter to us, Mira. The messengers tried that tack on me, whining on about how you’d help keep our borders safe, our people fed and happy because of how you can tell what’s going to happen. As if there aren’t lands that know peace and plenty without the help of any magic at all, except a king wise enough to heed and give good counsel! A leader who looks beyond his own mirror’s all any country needs to be happy, not a weathercock who’ll dance to follow the latest gust of wind, nor a man who smiles in the face of war because he only sees his own glory, never mind if he climbs to reach it over the bones of other people’s sons.

--"Child's Play," Esther M. Friesner
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 15, 2018, 02:55:15 pm
So how does Trump spend MLK Jr day? Why playing golf of course and with no plans for civil service work or speeches. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/15/politics/mlk-jr-day-donald-trump-schedule/index.html
All of this following his Shithole comment made to African countries and then just yesterday saying he is the least racist person that's ever been interviewed.

Whether he's racist or not it's a total lack of self awareness of how this may make him look. He did what he had to do as tradition at the white house, but not partaking in any civil services that the past three presidents have made part of their presidency. The fact that Trump just used the day to play golf just makes him seem rather callous and cold. Not to mention that Trump claimed he wouldn't be playing ANY golf during his presidency because he would be so busy helping the people and bashing his predecessor for doing so. Fucking hypocrite.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 15, 2018, 09:15:52 pm
Hopefully he's got all three screens on, and is crying into his cheeseburgers... No one's got an inkling of sympathy for his fat fatuous ass, and it's only building with the other controversies. Going to be an interesting week. Golfing on MLK day will kill with getting the vote out in the midterms too if he's still round. So far the closest thing to a 'defense' they can come up with is, is "he isn't racist, he's just a stupid moron." (So far everyone who's seen that argument has been too polite to fly with, why isn't he both?)

He's probably still in rage mode though. Butthurt tweets coming in 12hrs time though...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 17, 2018, 07:52:39 am
So Bannon was forced to testify for the Congress and said that he doesn't have to answer about anything that happened in the White house because Trump told him not to...

I guess he forgot that he could just say "I don't remember" 50 times in a row and that is perfectly legal. Because though both are shady we now have a Bannon on record saying that those specific topics are things that he was forbidden to talk about.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 17, 2018, 08:59:15 am
Holy hellfire, is he fucking special or something?  Seriously, that's practically Self-Incrimination 101.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 17, 2018, 06:22:39 pm
Wisconsin's State Senate District 10.

Special election.

Trump beat Clinton 55-38.

Republicans held the district since 2000.

The Democrat beat the Republican by 9 points.

34th seat swung from R to D in the Trump era.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTw2IO_XkAAMKCu.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 18, 2018, 11:30:38 am
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP.  Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.

Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 18, 2018, 03:07:56 pm
Do you really think that the GOP voters will blame the GOP? When they can conveniently blame the Democrats (and probably Hillary as well) instead?

After Fox news and Trump say that the Dems are to blame because they weren't flexible enough and put party over country anyone saying anything else will be "shills" and "fake news."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 18, 2018, 04:53:28 pm
That only gets the hardcore crowd though.  The crowd that has no idea what's actually going on and will never ever vote for any Democrat ever.  That's a crowd the Democrats need not court anymore.  But for the moderates and independents?  Oh boy does that cost the GOP.

Ironbite-and considering how bad they've been doing in special elections lately, they have no clue how to stop it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 20, 2018, 03:27:00 am
EDIT: Nevermind, they fucked up as expected.


Let's see if controlling all branches of the US government is enough for the GOP to not manage to fuck things up.

Or if Trump's first inauguration anniversary will be government shutting down.

Someone joked that Trump was voted to run the government like a company and this is the phase where he declares bankruptcy and runs away with the money. (Which is pretty much what I said here a long time ago.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 20, 2018, 10:20:58 am
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP.  Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.

Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.

This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...

Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 20, 2018, 11:55:16 am
^I figured you're from a continuity where she dumps Joker for Poison Ivy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2018, 12:19:22 pm
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP.  Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.

Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.

This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...

Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.

Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.

Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 20, 2018, 06:32:44 pm
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP.  Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.

Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.

This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...

Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.

Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.

Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.

Yeah, remember last time you held out for everything (Bernie and Jill) and got nothing (Trump)... It doesn't quite work that way.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2018, 09:06:06 pm
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP.  Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.

Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.

This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...

Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.

Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.

Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.

Yeah, remember last time you held out for everything (Bernie and Jill) and got nothing (Trump)... It doesn't quite work that way.

Did I say anything about holding out for everything?

Quote
Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 20, 2018, 10:33:20 pm
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP.  Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.

Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.

This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...

Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.

Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.

Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.

Yeah, remember last time you held out for everything (Bernie and Jill) and got nothing (Trump)... It doesn't quite work that way.

Did I say anything about holding out for everything?

Quote
Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.

Some of it when? After the government shuts down? After people are out of work for however long? Fact is, they could shut the government down asking for all of it, but then they'd be the ones shutting down the government, they'd get the blame, they'd take a hit in public polls, and good luck winning the House or the Senate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 21, 2018, 01:11:36 am
We are gonna have a Government Shutdown because the Orange Piss Pot can't let go of his wall but will let go of CHIP.  Oh they'll try to blame the Dems for this but most of the GOP knows it's gonna be hollow blame considering they control the Government.

Ironbite-and with Trump's prediction of only a terrorists attack being able to save the GOP come November, I'm a bit scared.

This is seriously like something out of the Dark Knight: one boat with Dreamers and one boat with CHIP recipients, and Trump has given Schumer a button to blow up one of the ships...

Fuck, I just realized my Avatar his Harley Quinn and I described Trump as The Joker. Just ignore that, this simile isn't perfect.

Which is why the Dems should also be insisting on entrenching Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and legislatively restoring net neutrality. (The latter is pretty likely, since plenty of Republicans support it.) For that matter, repeal of federal criminal law on marijuana (or at a minimum a ban on the use of federal resources to enforce marijuana laws in states that have repealed their criminal laws on the matter) is another one that can win Republican support (just look at Cory Gardner's reaction). Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.

Anyway, the GOP was particularly cruel with CHIP, because previously there had never been an issue reauthorizing it, until they decided they needed another hostage.

Yeah, remember last time you held out for everything (Bernie and Jill) and got nothing (Trump)... It doesn't quite work that way.

Did I say anything about holding out for everything?

Quote
Ask for all of that, and you'll get some of it.

Some of it when? After the government shuts down? After people are out of work for however long? Fact is, they could shut the government down asking for all of it, but then they'd be the ones shutting down the government, they'd get the blame, they'd take a hit in public polls, and good luck winning the House or the Senate.

No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.

We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.

We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.

If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.

The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 21, 2018, 03:27:23 am
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.

We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.

We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.

If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.

The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.

The fatal flaw to your reasoning is that even though those things are popular (and to varying degrees necessary), they are not more immediately necessary than funding the government. Theoretically, you could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling and then subsequently address those issues, a point which is not lost on most American voters. In fact, in 2013 when the GOP shutdown the government to repeal the ACA, the law only had an approval rating of 40%, with a 50.5% disapproval rating. Nevertheless, the GOP was largely blamed for the shutdown, and voters simply felt that while the ACA was unpopular, it did not warrant shutting down the government.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 21, 2018, 01:47:21 pm
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.

We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.

We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.

If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.

The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.

The fatal flaw to your reasoning is that even though those things are popular (and to varying degrees necessary), they are not more immediately necessary than funding the government. Theoretically, you could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling and then subsequently address those issues, a point which is not lost on most American voters. In fact, in 2013 when the GOP shutdown the government to repeal the ACA, the law only had an approval rating of 40%, with a 50.5% disapproval rating. Nevertheless, the GOP was largely blamed for the shutdown, and voters simply felt that while the ACA was unpopular, it did not warrant shutting down the government.

Okay, then, when do you fight for those policies?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 21, 2018, 02:08:29 pm
No, before that, when the GOP are trying to get the Democratic votes they need in the Senate.

We know that the public will blame the GOP for a shutdown over the Democrats.

We also know that everything I mentioned--net neutrality, protecting Dreamers, funding CHIP, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are popular (at least 60% on each). Legalization of marijuana's also pretty popular.

If you're asking for popular things, then you have the edge in messaging--we were asking for these highly popular things, and the GOP wouldn't give us any of them. It does not mean that you refuse to sign off on anything that doesn't include all of them.

The problem is that you don't start from the position you'd be happy to end up at. You start from a position beyond that (but not one that is unreasonable) so that you can reach the compromise you wanted all along. And the Democrats have been doing the former for far too long.

The fatal flaw to your reasoning is that even though those things are popular (and to varying degrees necessary), they are not more immediately necessary than funding the government. Theoretically, you could pass a clean raise to the debt ceiling and then subsequently address those issues, a point which is not lost on most American voters. In fact, in 2013 when the GOP shutdown the government to repeal the ACA, the law only had an approval rating of 40%, with a 50.5% disapproval rating. Nevertheless, the GOP was largely blamed for the shutdown, and voters simply felt that while the ACA was unpopular, it did not warrant shutting down the government.

Okay, then, when do you fight for those policies?

I don't know. Nevertheless, discretion is the better part of valor. If dems did as you wanted, they would inevitably be blamed for the shutdown for making such pie-in-the-sky demands. If they're blamed, they'd take a hit in the generic party ballot poll, which directly correlates to mid-term success.

So the calculus here is not "ask for everything, get something." The calculus is (1) does the GOP cave first and acquiesce when they're not being blamed for it, and (2) assuming they do, does that short term win justify costing the dems the House and the Senate (and at the time, Fivethirtyeight is saying the House is 50-50, while the Senate has about a 22% chance of flipping). Fact is,  the GOP will not acquiesce (they're being blamed for this shutdown because they are trying to roll back large portions of the ACA, and we still wound up in shutdown land). If the GOP does not acquiesce, then the dems get nothing by way of policy, and only hurt their chances of winning a chamber of Congress, which could be instrumental to stopping the next round of tax cuts for the wealthy or the next attempt to take health care away from 30 million people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 21, 2018, 06:07:08 pm
So Bannon was forced to testify for the Congress and said that he doesn't have to answer about anything that happened in the White house because Trump told him not to...

I guess he forgot that he could just say "I don't remember" 50 times in a row and that is perfectly legal. Because though both are shady we now have a Bannon on record saying that those specific topics are things that he was forbidden to talk about.
It could be a ploy by Bannon to hint that he does indeed have dirt and will release it unless Trump throws him a lifeline. Trump is shite at interpreting hints.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on January 21, 2018, 06:22:51 pm
A view into how when you dehumanize people with terms like "illegals" they become some far away "other". Some Trump voters are shocked that their friends and members of their community are now being deported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown (http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 21, 2018, 06:49:23 pm
A view into how when you dehumanize people with terms like "illegals" they become some far away "other". Some Trump voters are shocked that their friends and members of their community are now being deported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown (http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown)

"But my friends are the good ones!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 22, 2018, 03:19:56 am
A view into how when you dehumanize people with terms like "illegals" they become some far away "other". Some Trump voters are shocked that their friends and members of their community are now being deported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown (http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown)

"But my friends are the good ones!"

Doesn't matter. Donald Trump said he was gonna take the illegals away. And he's taking the illegals away. Really I'm not sure how they didn't see this coming.

To anyone who voted for Donald Trump and is now complaining that he's doing what he said he was gonna do, I say "well fuck, maybe you shouldn't have voted for him then. Actions have consequences, asshole."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 22, 2018, 05:50:36 am
Someone needs to follow up on lil Bob Corker's daycare tweet theme, with something along the lines of,

Can the 'adults' in charge of the Daycare Centre please stop rejecting all the bilateral proposals being tabled.



Get to point out Trump is a baby and an imbecile, blame the people actually responsible for the impasse, and possibly also get Trumpy pissed at them. Make Miller the next Bannon, and make Trump massively resentful of Kelly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 22, 2018, 03:18:51 pm
Well the Government is funded and oh hey, the Republicans blinked.  ChIP is funded for the next 6 years and the government gets to keep going for another 3 weeks for the  Turtle to put forth a clean DACA bill otherwise we're right back here.

Ironbite-good game.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 22, 2018, 06:29:41 pm
And of course the dems get all of the blame for the shut down.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 22, 2018, 07:07:10 pm
No - the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Repubs. I have seen polls that demonstrate this. People are not so blind as to ignore that Republicans control Senate, House and the Presidency and this still happened.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on January 22, 2018, 07:54:34 pm
It's still a bad look for the democrats. Because they were standing against the funding and now most of them voted for it. People who aren't as invested will probably just see the surface level of that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 22, 2018, 08:39:11 pm
You're adorable if you think this makes the Democrats look bad.

Ironbite-like super adorable.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on January 22, 2018, 10:32:41 pm
No - the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Repubs. I have seen polls that demonstrate this. People are not so blind as to ignore that Republicans control Senate, House and the Presidency and this still happened.

What this guy said. Most polls are about 45% blaming the GOP, 25% blaming the dems. I do not know about the other 30%, but I suspect it includes options for blaming "both parties" or "the president"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on January 22, 2018, 10:35:36 pm
 Mostly the president and his damned wall/ fence/ moat or whatever it is today. The good part of this is they have to have something on immigration by I think the 8th. So they're able to force the issue.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 22, 2018, 11:34:13 pm
Mostly the president and his damned wall/ fence/ moat or whatever it is today. The good part of this is they have to have something on immigration by I think the 8th. So they're able to force the issue.

Or the Republicans could just do what they always do, lie and forget about the whole thing. Really, this was a terrible move by the Democrats. They traded away all their leverage in return for a few words from a man who can't be trusted. I don't think they could possibly have gotten less.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on January 23, 2018, 01:19:50 am
Or the Republicans could just do what they always do, lie and forget about the whole thing. Really, this was a terrible move by the Democrats. They traded away all their leverage in return for a few words from a man who can't be trusted. I don't think they could possibly have gotten less.

What?

If I understood right the Democrats got a life saving program funded for 6 years for giving a temporary relief of 3 weeks to the Republicans. I don't see how anyone can see this as a loss for Democrats. If neither party budges the shutdown is imminent again in three weeks and the Democrats will have as much leverage then as before this deal.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 23, 2018, 01:20:33 am
No - the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Repubs. I have seen polls that demonstrate this. People are not so blind as to ignore that Republicans control Senate, House and the Presidency and this still happened.

What this guy said. Most polls are about 45% blaming the GOP, 25% blaming the dems. I do not know about the other 30%, but I suspect it includes options for blaming "both parties" or "the president"

The Queen speaks correctly. The other options are indeed Both Sides or Just The Prez.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 23, 2018, 03:01:48 am
What?

If I understood right the Democrats got a life saving program funded for 6 years for giving a temporary relief of 3 weeks to the Republicans. I don't see how anyone can see this as a loss for Democrats. If neither party budges the shutdown is imminent again in three weeks and the Democrats will have as much leverage then as before this deal.

Except the Republicans already had a plan to create a temporary spending bill that would fund CHIP. That was really never the issue - the issue was that Democrats wanted a DACA guarantee, and they shut down the government for the sake of a DACA guarantee... that they didn't get. All they got were a few empty words from Mitch McConnell, a man whose word is as good as a piece of dirt on the ground. In my eyes, that isn't exactly a win - you shut down the government and didn't even get anything out of it except a few words. Trust me, in three weeks McConnell is probably going to just conveniently forget he ever said anything and the Democrats will just go along with it, because that's what they do, has been for years.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 23, 2018, 05:12:54 am
Really having trouble understanding Chuck on this one. (Or most of the time, come to think of it. He seems as out of touch with the Universe as Romney was.) It would've been an awesome maneuver if he thought there was a big chance the Republicans would implode and fail to undo the shutdown in the House or if Trump was going to have a dummy spit and refuse to sign, then the shutdown would've been 100%+ Republicans, and they would have zero credibility as adults, let alone Government. Didn't happen though, and didn't look like happening, so couldn't be that. And the DACA promises were weak as shit, so when nothing happens there, it'll be hard to blame the Republicans when it fails, and the CHIP and DACA 'hostage' narrative isn't being put forward enough, and isn't sticking. You know - when crowdfunding sites first opened up and contemptible douche-bags would post a photo of a puppy and say they were going to eat it (or worse) unless they got $10,000 from emo-kids and bleeding-heart liberals (and gullible morons). That's what the Republicans are doing with DACA and CHIP. Sure there's a handful of insane fuckwits who genuinely do want to eat the puppy, but the rest of it was just holding these programmes (and people) hostage to get some sweeteners, and so far the public hasn't called them out on it.

Yes the "DACA needs weeks of negotiating, and has nothing to do with the budget line" was sticking, but the counter narrative of - "we're doing this because you can't trust Republicans to do the right thing", wasn't put forward enough, and it really needed to be.

Which leads to the next three weeks. Is the focus now solely going to be on the wannabe puppy killers? DACA and CHIP are popular, even among sane Republicans (Heck, even popularish amongst the basest base going.) The Republicans are not going to look good if they try to fuck this up, but all they're going to do is talk (lie/make shit up) about security, security, security, security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security,  security. It's going to be 3 weeks of build the wall scaremongering and an avalanche of Dumbo-shit talking points, and the Democrats are going to get pasted with a shit-blaster for not capitulating to anything and everything the rabid right wants, because it's not about DACA, it's about all the other rubbish that's going to be attached to the bill, and Schumer just gave them the go ahead to talk about exactly that. 3 weeks of democrats talking about principles and 3 weeks of hate-mongering towards everyone except the dreamers (who won't get mentioned) by the Republicans and insane rider after insane rider and attachment.

And so in three weeks, when there is no deal, no only is the narrative going to be it's the Democrats fault for wanting immigrants to kill you in your bed and rape your children in front of your eyes, and if they then try to attach it to the budget, they've already capitulated on the precedent for doing so, and it will look terrible, both for that, and moreso because it will look like they're admitting they lost the DACA debate too, and are now trying to hold the Government hostage to fit their 'extreme' views in.

If Schumer thought he was giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves, he's in for one really nasty surprise - he just gave a lynch-mob a rope and a permission slip to use it in any way they see fit.

And as much as I wish I was wrong, it really fits with how poorly he judges everything else.

(There is of course the outside possibility that something will pass, but given he has just given all the ground and the upper hand to the Republicans, and the extreme right were running this unmitigated shit-show already, which is why the saner (but still extremely shitty) bipartisan compromises went nowhere, this is frankly a ridiculous thing to expect. You don't give ground to bigots and zealots and expect them to reciprocate - it just encourages them to double or triple their efforts.)

The other option is playing the martyr, bowing out quietly, and watching ICE trying to deport dreamers before the mid-terms. That is a destructive and stupid thing to do, and frankly if you normalise it, it's saner than half of Trumps other shit, so blow-back could be a lot, LOT less than they're banking on - not to mention you just can't do that to people (or puppies), and they'd also be blaming the Democrats (for not paying the $10,000). We gave them a chance to save the dreamers and they didn't. They chose not to. They chose to put politics over people. (You know, like the people who created the situation in the first place, but ssssh on that bit.) Also the SCOTUS might reinstate DACA before then.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 27, 2018, 02:49:30 pm
And now, after Republicans went on their #SchumerShutdown rampage and Senate Democrats got essentially the same funding deal McConnell had offered before the shutdown, the polls now show that 39% of people blame Democrats for the shutdown and 38% blame Republicans... when previously that had been 26% Democrats and 46% Republicans.

Remember: it's all about messaging. Here's the message I would have put out:

Democrats want to pass the Dream Act, protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, restore net neutrality, and fund CHIP. Republicans would rather shut down the government. #TrumpShutdown
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 27, 2018, 05:26:30 pm
I am consistently disgusted with the utter idiocy and simple-mindedness of the American voter.

IMO, things could be better if you HAVE to attend college in order to vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on January 27, 2018, 05:34:49 pm
Ah yes. Those born too poor to get into college don't need to vote. Disregarding that that would impact PoC far more than white people, and basically be used as an excuse to disenfranchise them even more than they already are.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 27, 2018, 05:52:48 pm
...admittedly, not one of my more thought out ideas.

It occurs to me I'm prone to knee-jerk spite.

Mostly directed at hillbillies - I recognize it in myself a sort of abject disdain for rural whites.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 27, 2018, 06:09:53 pm
I am consistently disgusted with the utter idiocy and simple-mindedness of the American voter.

IMO, things could be better if you HAVE to attend college in order to vote.

Combine that with free college (cost: 60% of the cost of the increase in the military budget last year) and you might--might--have a workable proposal.

One I think is wildly undemocratic, but at least it wouldn't be outright class warfare.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 27, 2018, 08:48:22 pm
Remember: it's all about messaging. Here's the message I would have put out:

Democrats want to pass the Dream Act, protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, restore net neutrality, and fund CHIP. Republicans would rather shut down the government. #TrumpShutdown
Well put.

But as tiresome as alliteration can be, as others have mentioned - people are fucking morons, and sadly alliteration sticks. Next shutdown - don't even mention the shutdown. It's the Trump train wreck. (Not least because if he weighs in, you describe the disaster, and if he stays out you describe the disaster, and he'll probably have changed his position at least five times since last time anyone checked, and the second you mention a train wreck people will put aside a minute or two to hear a disaster narrative and litany of failure. Not to mention every time he fucks something else up, it's part of the Trump train wreck. Every tweet. Every denial. Every utterance. All part of the Trump train wreck. You'll never need to mention the word Presidency ever again. It's the Trump train wreck.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 29, 2018, 05:48:49 pm
Remember: it's all about messaging. Here's the message I would have put out:

Democrats want to pass the Dream Act, protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, restore net neutrality, and fund CHIP. Republicans would rather shut down the government. #TrumpShutdown
Well put.

This, meanwhile, is the Democratic Party as it actually is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHHZBmF8mk4

EDIT: On another note, Trump State of the Union drinking games!

(http://www.clotureclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-joint-session-drinking-game-Copy.png)

http://www.debatedrinking.com/state-of-the-union-drinking-game
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 30, 2018, 04:03:58 am
Now we just have to get the Democrats to play it during the TeleTrumpted speechism...

Misstatement of the looney one.

Hopefully everyone realises he's not going to implode, so there is exactly zero point in watching. (And if he does suddenly go into denture mode - well, who needs to see that live.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 30, 2018, 09:00:05 am
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html

Trump has decided that just because the congress has approved the Russia sanctions and done so in a way that prevents him from using his veto, he doesn't have to accept the results anyway.

...Fun fact, originally impeachment was designed for situation like this and not for the crazy idea that the president would break the laws.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 30, 2018, 03:49:09 pm
And the GOP does nothing.

Ironbite-despite how bad this looks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 30, 2018, 05:37:19 pm
Man, isn't it great living in a country where the President is a fascist despot and the people whose job it is to hold him accountable refuse to do that job?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on January 30, 2018, 05:44:19 pm
And the "Liberal Media" will swoon about how "Presidential" he was reading someone else's speech as long as he doesn't eat his tie on national TV.

Actually, even then...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 31, 2018, 10:37:55 am
Gotta love Trump riding high off of continued policies that have been ongoing since Obama's presidency. He acts like Unemployment being down, consumer confidence being up and wages going up are all brand new now since he became president, and absolutely nothing to do with him not passing any policy to really make any major changes yet to the economy in the last year. Well see where things are in four to eight years after Republicans really have a chance to effect the economy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 31, 2018, 12:35:10 pm
There is indeed that irony - coupled with the greater one where he used to slag off most of those metrics as being lies when Obama was running the show, and the greater one still where the only metric that is remarkably unreliable shite is the only one he's actually doing better than Obama with, and that's consumer confidence, and is what you get when you ask stupid people stupid questions, both when Obama was running the joint, and when Trump was playing with trucks in his garden.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/30/16945146/trump-economic-record (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/30/16945146/trump-economic-record)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 31, 2018, 12:57:52 pm
I seriously thought this was an onion article https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/train-carrying-gop-lawmakers-retreat-hits-trash-truck-n843311
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on January 31, 2018, 01:31:08 pm
It kind of makes you wonder where they were going. My guess was it was like Christian 'conversion' therapy where they try to beat/shock/torture/gaslight the gay away*, but moreso Clockwork Oranging the last vestiges of humanity and empathy away.

* (which really is wrong, not just because it's morally wrong and intellectually wrong, but because if a bunch of blokes are going to go out to the woods in the middle of nowhere for a week to bond and focus on each other, surely that's the time to experiment, rather than repress?)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 31, 2018, 03:30:48 pm
And the "Liberal Media" will swoon about how "Presidential" he was reading someone else's speech as long as he doesn't eat his tie on national TV.

Actually, even then...

Uh, what? The liberal media (for the most part) hates Trump, and isn't even trying to hide it.

Gotta love Trump riding high off of continued policies that have been ongoing since Obama's presidency. He acts like Unemployment being down, consumer confidence being up and wages going up are all brand new now since he became president, and absolutely nothing to do with him not passing any policy to really make any major changes yet to the economy in the last year. Well see where things are in four to eight years after Republicans really have a chance to effect the economy.

Yep. I'm not an economist, but I know that a change in government generally doesn't have immediate effects.

It kind of makes you wonder where they were going. My guess was it was like Christian 'conversion' therapy where they try to beat/shock/torture/gaslight the gay away*, but moreso Clockwork Oranging the last vestiges of humanity and empathy away.

* (which really is wrong, not just because it's morally wrong and intellectually wrong, but because if a bunch of blokes are going to go out to the woods in the middle of nowhere for a week to bond and focus on each other, surely that's the time to experiment, rather than repress?)

Someone needs to write that story. Maybe I'll do it myself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 31, 2018, 05:05:08 pm
As I've seen it noted, unemployment isn't a great measure of how people are doing, because if a lot of those jobs are minimum wage jobs, that isn't a sign of a healthy economy.

I mean, you could have 0% unemployment if you wanted--just institute slavery.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on February 01, 2018, 12:47:37 pm
I mean, you could have 0% unemployment if you wanted--just institute slavery.

Shh! Don't give any ideas to our government.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 01, 2018, 01:36:55 pm
No kidding. They'd been slowly coming round to how expensive and wasteful, and excuse the tautology, punitive prisons are, then Trump gets in, Sessions starts fapping about locking black folk up again, other Republicans start drooling over fat oversight contracts and disenfranchisement, and if things really go tits up, you can get yourself a lovely slave labour force right there. Fuck the UN. Fuck human rights. Fuck happiness indexes and quality manufacturing. Combine that with shrieking about taxes, and there'll be 12 to a cell, 16 hr shifts, sawdust for meals, and it'll be for 50c a day, payable on release and they'd probably bill you for your gear too.

Slavery by any other name.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on February 02, 2018, 03:12:37 am
No kidding. They'd been slowly coming round to how expensive and wasteful, and excuse the tautology, punitive prisons are, then Trump gets in, Sessions starts fapping about locking black folk up again, other Republicans start drooling over fat oversight contracts and disenfranchisement, and if things really go tits up, you can get yourself a lovely slave labour force right there. Fuck the UN. Fuck human rights. Fuck happiness indexes and quality manufacturing. Combine that with shrieking about taxes, and there'll be 12 to a cell, 16 hr shifts, sawdust for meals, and it'll be for 50c a day, payable on release and they'd probably bill you for your gear too.

Slavery by any other name.

Well, my stab was aimed at the Finnish government but yeah, you are further on that road in many ways.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 02, 2018, 02:25:23 pm
So the Nunes memo was released.

My thoughts are...... uh ok?
This is the major ground breaking thing that is going to stop the Mueller investigation against Donald Trump and possible Russian Collusion?
All the memo shows is that it's missing information as to how a FISA warrant was given in the fall of 2016 against Carter Page who has already been under investigation by the FBI for Russian Collusion since 2014. Carter page being a former foreign policy advisor to Donald Trump during his campaign. And it tries to pin the blame on the Steele dossier as a reason to investigate a man who had already been investigated for a few years prior to a continued FISA warrent.
This some how discredits the whole FBI and the whole Mueller investigation into the possible Russian collusion with Donald Trumps presidential campaign? (Who, might I add has time and time again made his actions look more and more fishy with a possible Russian Collusion. Not enforcing Russian sanctions that he himself signed into law, Held private closed door meeting with Russian diplomats where he shared secret intelligence, not to mention asking for loyalty from people in the FBI and wanting them to stop an investigation against him.)

All this will do is come the time Trump is caught for actually colluding with evidence against him the republican party will use this memo as an excuse of political Bias against the republican party and they won't issue for articles of impeachment and further obstruct the investigation and justice.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 02, 2018, 02:29:17 pm
So the Nunes memo was released.

My thoughts are...... uh ok?
This is the major ground breaking thing that is going to stop the Mueller investigation against Donald Trump and possible Russian Collusion?
All the memo shows is that it's missing information as to how a FISA warrant was given in the fall of 2016 against Carter Page who has already been under investigation by the FBI for Russian Collusion since 2014. Carter page being a former foreign policy advisor to Donald Trump during his campaign. And it tries to pin the blame on the Steele dossier as a reason to investigate a man who had already been investigated for a few years prior to a continued FISA warrent.
This some how discredits the whole FBI and the whole Mueller investigation into the possible Russian collusion with Donald Trumps presidential campaign? (Who, might I add has time and time again made his actions look more and more fishy with a possible Russian Collusion. Not enforcing Russian sanctions that he himself signed into law, Held private closed door meeting with Russian diplomats where he shared secret intelligence, not to mention asking for loyalty from people in the FBI and wanting them to stop an investigation against him.)

All this will do is come the time Trump is caught for actually colluding with evidence against him the republican party will use this memo as an excuse of political Bias against the republican party and they won't issue for articles of impeachment and further obstruct the investigation and justice.

Remember that Devin Nunes was on Trump's transition team and he sent his memo to the White House for edits.

It's a partisan hack job, and just like, their opinion, man.

I'd be interested in seeing the Schiff memo, but that's also a partisan hack job and just like, the Democrats' opinion, man.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 02, 2018, 02:38:08 pm
Man this Nunes memo was another shot in the dark for the GOP.  One that utterly fails at doing what it said it'd do.

Ironbite-how are these idiots in power?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 02, 2018, 03:11:05 pm
Man this Nunes memo was another shot in the dark for the GOP.  One that utterly fails at doing what it said it'd do.

Ironbite-how are these idiots in power?

Because when given the choice between Republican and Republican-lite, Americans choose Republicans.

EDIT:

Seen on Sid Roth's It's Supernatural (Sid in quotation marks, guest plain):

Quote
That's why we have a President right now from New York. It's no coincidence. People, you can hate it, if you want, but you're going to go against certain things that God has chosen to--to put his hand on. And watch--

"But how do you handle the things he did before he was a believer in Jesus?"

I--I only report the message.

"By the way, I hope you caught what I just said: the things he did before he was a believer in Jesus. Praise God for the blood; because of the blood of the Lamb, I don't have a past! How about you?"

Well, then, a lot of the people in the Bible should be disqualified. I think the key thing is what is God's plan now. God's plan is, and I've been prophesying this for years, Sid, that God would make America great, that happens to be their saying(?), 2020 God's going to make America greater. Again. 2024 they're gonna say God has made America greatest again. This isn't going away.

New York City--the reason why--9/11, our nation was pierced, this nation's never been the same, the nations of the Earth have never been the same. God is trying to reestablish a blood right. It's no coincidence the President is from New York, that's where the towers fell. He also is part of Trump Tower, towers fell, he was part of world trade, World Trade Center, because God is revisiting this nation to establish a blood right. Whoever gets the blood right gets the legal right to rule.

Why do we have rights as Christians to bind and loose? Because of the blood right that Jesus provided. But Jesus' blood, it brought something, it brought glory, because after he was crucified and his blood was shed the Holy Spirit was poured out. This is more than just about who's President. It's about a blood right being established by God so that his glory can come.

The enemy was working real hard to get the blood right. That's why he wants to keep boarding children. That's why he wants to continue its agenda, so that it has the legal right to rule and to push the Church out. God is coming. Nobody is gonna remove his Church. Nobody's gonna stand against the Church that he is raising up.

https://youtu.be/r69mAC-TdAY?t=12 (until 2:14)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 03, 2018, 04:41:22 am
I must say that Joe Kennedy's response to the State of the Union has me quite enthusiastic about this young man. He represents a future, a generation - in a day and age where most politicians are septuagenarians and beyond, he is 37, young, vital and handsome.

There is also the name recognition present - he is a Kennedy. A family gifted with greatness and cursed at the same time with misfortune.

Of course it wouldn't be modern politics if the "geniuses" over at TYT didn't try and drudge up a hit piece on him for...not being Bernie or something.

Really makes me wonder what'll happen when Sanders, y'know, dies. He's not getting younger.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 03, 2018, 10:24:55 am
There will, for a few weeks (at most), be great wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Then, they'll latch on to someone new as the new "face of the revolution."  Maybe it'll be Joe Kennedy.  That'd be ideal, because what we really need is someone that looks like they've got more than a decade, at best, of living left in 'em.  A lot of the people that would vote for Bernie or someone like him are young, and they need someone to reflect that.  Someone you can look at and see energy, life, and motivation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 03, 2018, 12:57:22 pm
So Trump says the memo totally vindicates him. I guarantee you he didn't read it. Because it doesnt do that at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 03, 2018, 03:45:01 pm
You don't have to guarantee anything.  Nunes himself didn't read the memo he wrote.

Ironbite-and Trump hasn't a damn clue what's in the memo.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 03, 2018, 03:46:55 pm
I must say that Joe Kennedy's response to the State of the Union has me quite enthusiastic about this young man. He represents a future, a generation - in a day and age where most politicians are septuagenarians and beyond, he is 37, young, vital and handsome.

There is also the name recognition present - he is a Kennedy. A family gifted with greatness and cursed at the same time with misfortune.

Of course it wouldn't be modern politics if the "geniuses" over at TYT didn't try and drudge up a hit piece on him for...not being Bernie or something.

Really makes me wonder what'll happen when Sanders, y'know, dies. He's not getting younger.

Find me policies Joe Kennedy talked about in his response. I'll give you one: he mentioned (briefly) a living wage.

I'll also point out where he takes his money from:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00034044

There are young(er) people onto whom the left can latch: Tulsi Gabbard (36) and Nina Turner (50) come to mind pretty readily. For that matter, Gabbard is younger than Kennedy (he's 37).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 03, 2018, 03:54:44 pm
Okay, dpareja, I'm just going to stop right here and ask you something simple. What do you actually have against Joe Kennedy? What policies does he support that you oppose? What specific problem do you have with him taking a specific company's money in a campaign contribution? Because keep in mind, very rarely can a politician just get by without taking anyone's money. But I think my biggest question is why are you so hell bent on not liking him?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 03, 2018, 04:11:31 pm
And of course out comes the "LOOK AT WHO HE GETS MONEY FROM - IMPURE! IMPURE! IMPURE!"

That's a fairly standard tack - and one I've long learned to ignore, as it only comes out when the Purity Squadron need to discredit a non-Bernie or non-Bernie approved candidate. They did it to Corey Booker, they did it to Kamala Harris, and now they want to down Joe Kennedy.

Because for all of their wailing about Hillary Clinton and a coronation, they sure seem to want to set up a coronation for Bernie.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 03, 2018, 04:25:22 pm
Okay, dpareja, I'm just going to stop right here and ask you something simple. What do you actually have against Joe Kennedy? What policies does he support that you oppose? What specific problem do you have with him taking a specific company's money in a campaign contribution? Because keep in mind, very rarely can a politician just get by without taking anyone's money. But I think my biggest question is why are you so hell bent on not liking him?

I have nothing against him personally. I think he's your bog-standard corporate Democrat who also happens to have a famous name.

As for what policies he supports that I would oppose, it's more a matter of what he doesn't support. For instance, he has not cosponsored H.R. 676, which, since the last cosponsor of that bill signed on in late September 2017, implies that whatever he does support when it comes to health care reform, it is not single-payer.

As for money, I have an issue with any politician taking any company's money, because doing so furthers a system in which corporations (and unions) have too much influence over politics, diluting the power of the only legitimate source of political authority, the people, and particularly the people en masse, which is why I find it troubling that his donor profile, per Open Secrets, has him receiving 52% of his funds from large individual contributions, 22.2% from PACs, and only 20% from small individual contributions. You can raise plenty of money off small individual contributions, more than enough to run an effective campaign. There's simply no need for a donor profile like what Rep. Kennedy has--and especially for Democrats, since (generically) Republicans are going to be able to outraise Democrats from those sources, so playing by those same rules puts the Democrats at a permanent fundraising disadvantage while making them appear just as beholden to those donors as the GOP candidates appear.

So it's not that I'm hellbent on not liking him personally. I don't like what he appears to represent and I don't like the wing of the Democratic Party to which he almost certainly belongs. He's just currently a public face of that wing--just as Booker and Harris have been.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 04, 2018, 07:35:11 am
As for what policies he supports that I would oppose, it's more a matter of what he doesn't support. For instance, he has not cosponsored H.R. 676, which, since the last cosponsor of that bill signed on in late September 2017, implies that whatever he does support when it comes to health care reform, it is not single-payer.
WTF!

You don't have to cosponsor something in order to support it.

Consider H.R.3364 - Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act:
Passed the House: 419-3
Passed the Senate: 98-2

One sponsor. 5 co-sponsors.

Not even Trump would be retarded enough to say that this means the actual bill failed 6-(13)-516, and Trump would say almost anything. (He's the Meatloaf of bullshit, and even he'd put that 'argument' in his 'that' bucket. If it's not worthy of a Trump tweet, it's a whole new dimension of dumb!)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 04, 2018, 02:02:29 pm
As for what policies he supports that I would oppose, it's more a matter of what he doesn't support. For instance, he has not cosponsored H.R. 676, which, since the last cosponsor of that bill signed on in late September 2017, implies that whatever he does support when it comes to health care reform, it is not single-payer.
WTF!

You don't have to cosponsor something in order to support it.

Consider H.R.3364 - Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act:
Passed the House: 419-3
Passed the Senate: 98-2

One sponsor. 5 co-sponsors.

Not even Trump would be retarded enough to say that this means the actual bill failed 6-(13)-516, and Trump would say almost anything. (He's the Meatloaf of bullshit, and even he'd put that 'argument' in his 'that' bucket. If it's not worthy of a Trump tweet, it's a whole new dimension of dumb!)

There's a difference between voting for something and co-sponsoring it.

Voting for it means that you think it's better than the alternative (ie the status quo), not necessarily that it's good. Co-sponsoring it means you actively support it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 04, 2018, 02:46:29 pm
So only 5 people 'actively support' H.R.3364 - Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act? Is that your contention?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 04, 2018, 03:00:33 pm
So only 5 people 'actively support' H.R.3364 - Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act? Is that your contention?

H.R. 3364 isn't a particularly great example here, because there wasn't very much time between its introduction and signing, never mind the House vote. In fact, half of the time spent between its introduction and its becoming law was the President considering what to do (sign, veto, take no action).

It was introduced on July 24. The House voted on it and passed it on July 25. (The Senate vote was July 27, it was presented to the President per the Presentment Clause on July 28, and signed into law on August 2.) That doesn't leave a lot of time for people even to decide if they want to cosponsor it.

As for "active support," remember that it also blew up the Iran nuclear deal. That might lead a lot of Democrats to vote for it because what they viewed as the positives (sanctions on Russia and North Korea) outweighed the negatives (sanctions on Iran). They were willing to vote for it, because it was better than not imposing any of those sanctions, but might not have been willing to cosponsor it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 05, 2018, 01:22:47 am
Thanks Trump:

https://forward.com/fast-forward/393595/holocaust-denier-will-be-gop-nominee-in-illinois-congressional-race/?attribution=blog-article-listing-1-headline
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on February 05, 2018, 01:41:45 am
@dpareja

I think it's a bit much to assume that not co-sponsoring something means he's against single-payer.  I remember before the 2008 campaign Barack Obama described himself as a fan of single payer health care.  But then he turned around a supported Obamacare.  And that's probably because he didn't think single payer was something he could accomplish, but Obamacare was.  I don't know much about Joe Kennedy or the bill in question, but I could easily see him just think the bill isn't going to happen regardless of whether or not it should.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 05, 2018, 02:23:01 am
@dpareja

I think it's a bit much to assume that not co-sponsoring something means he's against single-payer.  I remember before the 2008 campaign Barack Obama described himself as a fan of single payer health care.  But then he turned around a supported Obamacare.  And that's probably because he didn't think single payer was something he could accomplish, but Obamacare was.  I don't know much about Joe Kennedy or the bill in question, but I could easily see him just think the bill isn't going to happen regardless of whether or not it should.

Thing is, right now, when there's no way it will happen and it's a popular policy (consistently above 50% support for Medicare for all in opinion polling), there's no political harm in co-sponsoring it, and especially for someone in a district as reasonably safely Democratic as MA-04 (D+9, and Rep. Kennedy has won all three general elections he has contested by at least 25 points). (I could make a case that there is some other harm, but I'm not going to go dig deeper into just who's been donating to Rep. Kennedy, as telling as I think that would be.) I'll admit there are some Representatives who have co-sponsored that bill who I think don't actually really support single-payer and are only doing it to try to fend off primary challenges so that they can say that they do ("I co-sponsored the bill on the matter!"); Joseph Crowley is one such example.

As for Obama and the ACA, recall that he didn't even do any sort of attempt to get single-payer once in office (whether or not he thought he might be able to). He was the President; he had the bully pulpit of that office. If he had used that to argue publicly for single-payer, he might have swayed more conservative Democratic (or Democratic-caucusing) Senators like Lieberman and Nelson (NE) by the force of public opinion. And even if he couldn't get them that far, he might still have been able to move them to supporting a public option. Instead he started with a public option, moved away from that pretty quickly, and ended up with the plan supported by the likes of Richard Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Grassley, and Mitt Romney. And even then saw that undermined by the Supreme Court when they ruled that the federal government couldn't change the terms for Medicaid so that states had to expand it or lose funding entirely (creating the "Medicaid gap"), and that the individual mandate was constitutional under the taxation clause rather than the commerce clause (which is why it could be repealed in the GOP's tax-increase/reparations/fuck-blue-states bill, passed via reconciliation).

I'm not saying he could have done better, given the political realities which pertained. (In particular, Lieberman might have decided to say "fuck it" and jump ship and caucus with the GOP--as I once saw it put, the only reason he didn't is because Republicans don't allow Jews into their upper echelons. Recall that he spoke at the 2008 RNC.) But he didn't much try to do better, from my perspective.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 05, 2018, 03:20:05 am
H.R. 3364 isn't a particularly great example here, because there wasn't very much time between its introduction and signing, never mind the House vote. In fact, half of the time spent between its introduction and its becoming law was the President considering what to do (sign, veto, take no action).
Actually, I would contend the opposite. Most bills don't have a stack of cosponsors, so as a generalisation, that doesn't hold, and H.R. 3364 is one of the best examples of extremely strong support in recent times, even the Republicans actually put country over party idiocy on that one, and it's rapidity shows the strength of support, not it's cosponsor cheer squad.

HR 676 is an interesting one for several reasons, one, it has 120 co-sponsors or heading towards 60% of Democrats, but that is highly abnormal, two, it's going to hang around for a long time, and to a certain extent they're tying people's colours to the mast on it through cosponsoring it as a show and a straw poll, and thirdly, he very may well support it, but his team 2020/2024/2028 advisers are telling him to sit out for now, which might be getting closer to your point, but it really doesn't hold as a generalisation, and barely holds as tea leaf reading or entrail divining. HR 676 is a bit of a quagmire, and not a true litmus test yet, no matter how much some people are trying to portray it as one.

You're also suggesting with your comments on the difference between voting and sponsoring that he wouldn't vote for it, because you're speculating (possibly unwisely) that he believes the Obamacare status quo is the superior option (or do you think he doesn't support Obamacare either?), or that he might vote for it, but only because he's going to be whipped into the new party line, which isn't going to happen with the current House, Senate and 'Executive timer', etc. (and SERIOUS debate). No, he isn't leading on this, but no one can lead on everything, and you can very strongly support something you don't cosponsor, and you shouldn't cosponsor anything you haven't read backwards, (or possibly are intimately involved with the negotiations and drafting or vote lobbying and bill presentation) and don't want to be (or have the time to be) dragged into hearings over, etc. You just can't pretend or insinuate people are only for things they cosponsor.

(not to mention absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 05, 2018, 05:55:00 pm
Hah! The market dropped 1000 points today after Trump bragged about how great the stock market has been doing at his state of the union last week. Now presidents have little to no impact on the stock market or the economy in general. It's just great to see something he's bragging about blowing up in his face.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 05, 2018, 06:23:31 pm
Hah! The market dropped 1000 points today after Trump bragged about how great the stock market has been doing at his state of the union last week. Now presidents have little to no impact on the stock market or the economy in general. It's just great to see something he's bragging about blowing up in his face.

The stock market will rebound! The rebound will be tremendous! It will be bigger than any rebound ever! Fake news! Sad!

EDIT: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-democrats-un-american-1.4521095

Wait, it might be treasonous not to applaud the President during the State of the Union?

Then just what is shouting "YOU LIE!" during the State of the Union?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 06, 2018, 10:50:51 am
I like how Trump has the nerve to ask "why not?" When accusing his political opponents of treason. Well, you orange fuckstick, maybe because treason actually has a definition in the constitution, and not clapping for your fat ass doesn't fit that definition in the slightest. If we only had a Congress that would actually hold you accountable for every idiotic word that passed your lips... But I guess that's kind of a pipe dream.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 06, 2018, 04:55:28 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stock-markets-investors-equities-1.4521715

The rebound is tremendous! It's incredible, let me just tell you. Believe me, the stock market is doing better than it ever has been. Anyone who says otherwise is #fakenews! Sad!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 06, 2018, 09:29:14 pm
Are you kidding me? Trump wants to have a military parade? Like some kind of dictator.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 07, 2018, 03:12:28 am
I have managed to find secret footage of the march in question being rehearsed. Here is an actual part of Trump's planned military march;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX3W9D8e8TQ
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 08, 2018, 10:53:38 pm
So are they pretty much going to shut down the government like every three weeks now?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on February 08, 2018, 11:01:28 pm
Sure sounds like it and it's because those Democrats don't want to deport people who've lived their entire lives here and are Americans in all but a piece of paper that says they are. Those monsters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 09, 2018, 02:43:35 am
Sure sounds like it and it's because those Democrats don't want to deport people who've lived their entire lives here and are Americans in all but a piece of paper that says they are. Those monsters.

I've said this since this particular mess began last year: if the US wants to deport 800,000 productive, hard-working, well-educated, trained, law-abiding people, Canada should want that economic shot in the arm. They'd probably have an easier acclimatisation process here than they would anywhere else.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 09, 2018, 08:21:28 pm
Who here is surprised that Trump blocked the democrat memo being released? Show of hands? No one? Alright then moving on.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on February 10, 2018, 12:26:05 am
He's really fucking bad at not looking guilty.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 10, 2018, 04:47:44 am
He's really fucking bad at not looking guilty.

Because he's never had to learn how to look not guilty. People in his circles never get held to account for their shit, unless it's a rare case of them managing to fuck over other people in said circles.

EDIT: Actually seen on another forum:

Quote
If you like logical analysis, try this on. It's a bit of a long read, but I found it worth the time.

Are Trump Voters Irrational? (http://quillette.com/2017/09/28/trump-voters-irrational/)

You clearly have a different worldview than I do, and you clearly think that my worldview makes me a bad person.  I'm sorry that you feel this way. As I stated before, we can agree to disagree, though I don't see the need or the value in personalizing it to the degree that you have. 

When I said I thought long and hard about my vote, I wasn't lying.  I considered the details - Trump University, the Access Hollywood tape, all of the rest. But despite that stuff, the alternative was still to vote for a candidate whose worldview, governing agenda, and political philosophy was more or less diametrically opposed to my own. When that's true, a lot of the details don't matter that much, because at the end of the day the results matter because the results are what we all have to live with. I don't know what results we would have gotten under President Hillary, but I'd be willing to bet that the range of outcomes would go from absolutely completely terrible to, at best, four years of not getting anything positive done while the existing problems continued to fester and get worse. In that scenario, it's not hard to go for an alternative with at least some chance of positive upside.

The fact that Trump has so far governed in the most Constitutional manner of any President this century has been an added pleasant surprise, especially since he didn't even really run on explicit Constitutionalism.  That's definitely a result I can live with.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 11, 2018, 03:36:02 am
http://theweek.com/speedreads/754262/trump-reportedly-isnt-even-reading-intelligence-briefings-anymore

Quote
Trump has instructed his staff not to provide him written intelligence briefings, The Washington Post reported Friday, because he "rarely if ever reads" them. Instead, Trump indicated that he'd rather be updated on the intelligence matters du jour through "an oral briefing of select intelligence issues."

I would be incredibly surprised if this meant something other than "Trump prefers to get his 'intelligence matters' from Fox & Friends only."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 11, 2018, 03:51:31 am
I do not think it has been mentioned, but ICE has indicated it wants to have an Intelligence Division, if not be an Intelligence Agency itself. Awkward way of pining for the days Heydrich led the SD.

...so, as a talented sociopath, let me tell you, ICE, that the ship has sailed and you're not on it. Even if I put in the effort to learn Intelligence and such, I still wouldn't work for you. Thomas Homan is a no-talent moron whose sense of subtlety, tact and cunning is nil. You have abysmal PR, and every attempt made to be Die Schutzstaffel has been met with blocking, derision, and preparation - in part because of said lacking of subtlety. You operate at exactly one sensibility - and that is such that everyone should obey you, with little if any rationale for this respect you should be given. You take respect, fear and power to be granted to your agency - when you have done nothing to deserve any of that. You pick on immigrant families with little to their name, and think this makes you powerful and great.

Every attempt to branch out has been humiliating. You wagged your influence before Congress, and were laughed at. You whine when you are defied, oh, that is a common one. Whine whine whine. For all that your supporters talk about snowflakes, you ICE SS Wannabes melt when places break off arrest and detainment agreements with you.

In looking at ICE, there is an obvious lickspittle element - they could have, as Ironchew pointed out in 2016, been fearsome indeed. The men in black coats who seize you for copyright material, and seek out the undocumented with ruthlessness and malignance. However, powers of personality can shape an organization for the worst as much as for their benefit. And in this case, ICE mostly hands out promotions based on who can flatter and hand undeserving praise unto Donald Trump, following his every mercurial shift and decision. The results of this can be seen.

tl;dr: I'm a bad guy, but I'm not interested in a whole organization of shithead brown-nosers..
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 11, 2018, 03:30:43 pm
I've been saying this on almost every single ICE news article I find but....

Disband ICE.

Ironbite-the agency has run it's course.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 11, 2018, 03:32:58 pm
Yeah. They are literally unable to be salvaged at this point into anything productive. They are obviously and irritatingly a partisan organization wedged up the President's posterior and unable to do anything that doesn't involve that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on February 12, 2018, 01:05:40 am
Quote
The fact that Trump has so far governed in the most Constitutional manner of any President this century has been an added pleasant surprise, especially since he didn't even really run on explicit Constitutionalism.  That's definitely a result I can live with.

...HOW?  I'm at a complete loss here.  How?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 12, 2018, 01:07:01 am
Even in trying to defend the rationality of Trump voters, he exposes his complete and total lack of understanding of why people object to this orange despot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 12, 2018, 01:30:01 am
Quote
The fact that Trump has so far governed in the most Constitutional manner of any President this century has been an added pleasant surprise, especially since he didn't even really run on explicit Constitutionalism.  That's definitely a result I can live with.

...HOW?  I'm at a complete loss here.  How?

I think his position is that Bush and Obama governed so unconstitutionally that even Trump somehow managed to clear that low bar.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 12, 2018, 04:38:43 am
...HOW?  I'm at a complete loss here.  How?
Step 1: Pretend to take offense to the Patriot act, even though you secretly love it because deep down you believe they only spy on brown people.
Step 2: Listen to everything FOX says about Obama, up to and including the stuff they'll say when the Mueller Trump indictments come down where Obama set up a spacetime wormhole to store his secret plans in Gomorrah and they were so evil, God nuked the joint to ensure they never saw the light of day.
Step 3: Listen to everything FOX says about Trump, including that his hair shines the way he does because it's a holy aura, not because he can't even follow instructions on a hair dye packet...

Even then, it's still a massive stretch, but no one said the quote was sane or remotely based in reality.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 12, 2018, 04:48:07 am
(That or its the psychological defense of it's not a lie if you're a completely deluded fuck, therefore it can't be unconstitutional if you don't know what's in the constitution.)

HINT: It really can!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 12, 2018, 03:22:25 pm
.......so I guess all those court rulings against him are just...what, not counted?

Also his budget blueprint is out.  I'll sum it up.

Ironbite-it's garbage.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 12, 2018, 04:27:12 pm
.......so I guess all those court rulings against him are just...what, not counted?

No, made by liberal activist anti-Constitutionalist (really anti-original-intent, pro-remembering-that-it's-2018) judges who have no business being on the bench.

(EDIT: said the opposite of what I meant)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 12, 2018, 05:27:35 pm
Was nearly going to go there myself in the FOX comment.

SCOTUS brands one of Trump's dickhead moves unconstitutional.

FOX brands the SCOTUS unconstitutional - problem solved.

They're one step away from doing the Jesus riding an ass/horse into Jerusalem. If the forefathers had known the golden child would one day sit on the throne (and tweet), they definitely would've written stuff into the constitution for his exceptionalism, just for him and him alone (until their next twat comes along) and the fact that he's doing stuff outside the constitution only proves how massively constitutional he is, because he knows when to break it, which makes him Lord of the Constitution or something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 12, 2018, 05:30:23 pm
I still think Jefferson had the single best take on Constitutions: they should be rewritten every 19 years. (Or once a generation was his argument, since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living," so maybe every 25 years now.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 12, 2018, 10:01:56 pm
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 13, 2018, 01:45:27 am
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!

I know. Same with states' rights and all that garbage.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 13, 2018, 06:19:30 am
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...


Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 13, 2018, 01:02:54 pm
Actually, my favourite example of how "strict constructionists" ignore framers' intent is the Second Amendment.

The main concern brought up that led to its enactment was that standing armies are bad and have a tendency to overthrow governments. (Jefferson especially was concerned about this.) So the whole idea of the Second Amendment was to allow soldiers in the military to disperse to their states whenever they weren't needed to serve the country, and, to keep in training for the next muster, form "well-regulated militia[s]" and keep their guns.

The second purpose was brought up by Patrick Henry and George Mason (yes, the one they named the university after), who were afraid that certain guarantees in the Constitution would lead to escaped slaves being declared free by the courts. They asked Jefferson if the amendment would allow them to form armed militias to hunt down escaped slaves and recapture them before they could get to a free state. (Pennsylvania, perhaps, or Delaware--Henry and Mason lived in Virginia.) Jefferson agreed, and so that was the second purpose of the amendment: hunting down escaped slaves before they could reach freedom.

So the Second Amendment has two purposes: precluding the need for a standing army (which, for better or worse, is defunct today since the US has a huge standing military), and hunting down escaped slaves (which, very much for the better, is defunct today). But nope, MAH GUNZ!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 13, 2018, 03:49:42 pm
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 13, 2018, 05:59:29 pm
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

That's not quite the same, but that's a famous Steven Weinberg quote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on February 13, 2018, 06:06:18 pm
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

I'd say a more accurate statement would be that it takes a strong ideological conviction and/or an authoritarian mindset. Many religious ideologies combine these two nicely but destructive secular ideologies are also able to seduce decent people. Religion is an easy and socially acceptable target but I'd argue that for example nationalism isn't much better in this regard.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 13, 2018, 06:25:53 pm
Silly dpareja, framers' intent only matters when its convenient!
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

I'd say a more accurate statement would be that it takes a strong ideological conviction and/or an authoritarian mindset. Many religious ideologies combine these two nicely but destructive secular ideologies are also able to seduce decent people. Religion is an easy and socially acceptable target but I'd argue that for example nationalism isn't much better in this regard.

Sure, but those approach fundamentalist religion in mindset. As Hitchens noted, the most religious state in the world is North Korea, where you wake up, go about your day, and fall asleep praising the Great Leader and the Dear Leader (I don't know what they're calling Un these days) all the while.

EDIT:

https://morningconsult.com/2018/01/23/senator-rankings-jan-2018/

Morning Consult released their quarterly Senate popularity poll a few weeks ago. No points for guessing that, yet again, the most popular Senator is a socialist and the least popular is the Majority Leader.

But it does show some worrisome results for Democrats: Menendez, McCaskill, Baldwin and Tester are all up in 2018 and are all in the bottom 10.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 13, 2018, 07:00:34 pm
Wouldn't take those polls to heart exactly.  The Trump factor hasn't been thrown in.

Ironbite-took down Roy Moore in Alabama.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 13, 2018, 11:05:29 pm
Wouldn't take those polls to heart exactly.  The Trump factor hasn't been thrown in.

Ironbite-took down Roy Moore in Alabama.

Barely, and Moore was also an anti-Constitution pedophile. (To quote one Republican, "Moore's loss delights me. Jones's win depresses me. Fuck those guys.")

Anyway, those polls were about what people thought of their Senators, not about whether they'd vote for them when they're next up for election.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 14, 2018, 04:16:09 am
I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
Do know that one. Not sure if mine had something to do with Bertrand Russell or not, or I happened across it when I was coming across a lot of his stuff. It was a little longer, took a detour or two, and the language was a little more flowery - something like kindly men will be kindly anyways, but fucked if I can seem too ask Google the right question any more. It had been on a page with a bunch of other wonderful quotes and I found it once or twice by googling them and getting back to the page, but either its been reorganised or taken down, or I can't even get that right any longer... Little frustrating. Usually tend to give up after 15-20 minutes. Might have to go through my back-ups one day to see if I pinched the whole page and saved it as a text file. It was a nice resource.

Ever since SEO (search engine optimisation) came to the fore a few years back, the internet has really started to suck a bit. You almost want to Google sources rather than content, (and I can't remember the source in this case). I remember the days when the algorithm used to blackball metaspamming and so forth, now they teach you how to do it, and moronic asswipes with no life max out the ads to content ratio, and shovel their clickbait neurotoxic botullism above the useful stuff. Not even going to talk about youtube.

(Excuse the language)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 14, 2018, 04:36:58 am
Well I for one am super fucking offended, you filthy mouthed cunt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on February 14, 2018, 06:16:02 am
I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

I'd say a more accurate statement would be that it takes a strong ideological conviction and/or an authoritarian mindset. Many religious ideologies combine these two nicely but destructive secular ideologies are also able to seduce decent people. Religion is an easy and socially acceptable target but I'd argue that for example nationalism isn't much better in this regard.

Sure, but those approach fundamentalist religion in mindset. As Hitchens noted, the most religious state in the world is North Korea, where you wake up, go about your day, and fall asleep praising the Great Leader and the Dear Leader (I don't know what they're calling Un these days) all the while.

It's a lazy comparison that tries to hand wave the counter argument away. Besides, I said nationalism, not communism, nazism or juche. Nationalism creates conflict just like religious differences and actual religion isn't needed for people to start wars and do horrible shit believing that it's their duty. Nationalism also serves a function in organizing the society just like religion does and has done for a long time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 16, 2018, 12:52:47 am
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-will-campaign-democrats-2018-despite-being-even-less-popular-803380

Quote
Despite having an even lower favorability rating from the American people than President Donald Trump, former 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will selectively campaign for Democratic congressional hopefuls for the decisive 2018 midterm elections.

Clinton's favorability rating sank to a new low of 36 percent, according to a December Gallup poll compared to a 40 percent job approval rating for Trump in the most recent Gallup poll from early February. Jaime Harrison, an associate chairman and counselor for the Democratic National Committee, told The Washington Post that Clinton plans to help candidates campaign that have a history of supporting her and her family, but Harrison said "she’s not going to be up front."

Despite plans to campaign for some Democrats, advisors and friends of Clinton said the former secretary of state wants to keep a low enough profile so as not to attract criticism from Republican candidates. "The reality is Hillary is a nuisance to the Democrats and a gift to Republicans," Sam Nunberg, a former Trump aide told the Post.

If there's one thing I've learned about the Democratic Party post-2008, it's that they will always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 16, 2018, 02:38:06 am
If there is ever a negative Hillary story to be posted, Dpareja will find it, post it, and then lord it over the rest of us.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 16, 2018, 08:18:36 am
She'll probably concentrate her attentions in areas that view her like a god.

Ironbite-so New York will probably be getting the Coming Out of the Woods tour exclusively.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 16, 2018, 01:06:18 pm
She'll probably concentrate her attentions in areas that view her like a god.

Her plan is to focus on areas which she won overwhelmingly, whether people there actually like her or just despised Trump even more (at the time--remember, her approval rating is lower than his now).

The real reason for my annoyance at this story, though, is that we've seen, over the last eight or so years, just what happens when her wing of the Democratic Party is in control.

During the 111th Congress (the one elected in 2008), the Democrats controlled between 253 and 258 House seats, with the Republicans never holding more than 180. In the Senate, from July 7, 2009 (swearing-in of Al Franken) to February 3, 2010 (Scott Brown was sworn in on February 4), they controlled 58 seats which, with the two Independents (Sanders and Lieberman) gave them a filibuster-proof majority. Further, they controlled 29 state Governorships.

Compare this to the situation after the 2016 elections. The House--lost in 2010 and not recovered. The Senate--lost in 2014 and not recovered. The Presidency--lost, by none other than Sec. Clinton. An unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court opened up, and with the loss of the Presidency and failure to reclaim the Senate that too was lost (and, what is worse, many seats on lower federal courts remained open, and they have been being filled at a record pace--filled by young ultra-conservative judges whose views are already outmoded in modern society and will only become more so as time goes on and they enjoy their lifetime appointments). Governorships? Only 16 after the 2016 elections, to become 15 not long thereafter when Jim Justice in West Virginia decided to switch back to the GOP (and then to become 16 again in 2017). In state legislatures, over 1,000 seats were lost in those eight years, and, crucially, many were lost in 2010 (along with a net six governorships), after which redistricting occurred, in many states then to the great advantage of the Republicans, resulting in such ludicrous outcomes as the Democrats winning 83,468 more votes in Pennsylvania House races in 2012 but only 5 of the state's 18 seats.

This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, Tim Kaine, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and finally Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dappler on February 16, 2018, 02:34:42 pm
This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........
There was this thing called the GFC.

And sure, while a hypercompetent black guy, who managed to stop the contagion, even if he did listen to Volcker and a bunch of others a little too much, and passing healthcare, and mid-term apathy from the incumbents, all played a role - FOX stirred the base into a rabid frenzy, so the question is, even with disenfranchisement, and Gerrymandering, and Russian bots, and Cambridge Analytica, is Trump going to be a bigger midterm albatross than a black guy was in 2010?

(Assuming of course that he lasts that long. Bannon just spent two days in front of Mueller, and it'd be great if he flipped him because Trump would want a full debrief on what he said, and Bannon could record the entire train wreck, because there's no way Trump would shut up and just listen.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 16, 2018, 03:37:53 pm
This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........
There was this thing called the GFC.

Oh, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware of how successfully the right-wing liars managed to pin the blame for that on Obama when it was accelerated in its onset by Bush. (It was coming anyway, after the deregulation under Clinton, but the Bush tax cuts and wars sped up the timetable.) But the fact remains: the four people I named were primarily in charge of the Democratic Party during that time (whether as President, DNC Chair, or the Presidential nominee), and during that same time all the losses I outlined took place.

To be clear: I have no personal grudge against Hillary Clinton and wish her no harm. I despise, however, her positions (particularly on economic and foreign policy) and think that the evidence shows that when her ideology is in control of the Democratic Party, it hampers the Democrats and empowers the Republicans, and I think that her presence on the campaign trail will only serve to remind people of everything they hate about her and her ilk, however limited her campaigning.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 16, 2018, 06:46:49 pm
This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........
There was this thing called the GFC.

Oh, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware of how successfully the right-wing liars managed to pin the blame for that on Obama when it was accelerated in its onset by Bush. (It was coming anyway, after the deregulation under Clinton, but the Bush tax cuts and wars sped up the timetable.) But the fact remains: the four people I named were primarily in charge of the Democratic Party during that time (whether as President, DNC Chair, or the Presidential nominee), and during that same time all the losses I outlined took place.

To be clear: I have no personal grudge against Hillary Clinton and wish her no harm. I despise, however, her positions (particularly on economic and foreign policy) and think that the evidence shows that when her ideology is in control of the Democratic Party, it hampers the Democrats and empowers the Republicans, and I think that her presence on the campaign trail will only serve to remind people of everything they hate about her and her ilk, however limited her campaigning.

So basically, we could've been spared 2014 and everything going forward from there if everyone just bowed their heads and went along with whatever Bernie Sanders spoke, and heeded his every word and voted for him instead of Clinton.

I also cannot help but see you basically telling people they should not have voted for Clinton and that Bernie was both a better candidate and spoke more to a "populist sentiment" that should have been heeded. So then, applying this logic, the minority voters who voted for Clinton over Sanders, by quite large numbers, should not have gone with her, but followed you and the many white voters of the Sanders campaign. Because I suppose according to this logic on display they do not know Good Progressivism, and should have obeyed their white saviors, and followed Sanders, as he and his supporters clearly know better than them what is good for them.

So I then must suppose you and other Sanders Supporters believe if only people had coalesced around Sanders instead of Clinton, then...what? You could have rode a wave of populist and in a number of cases protectionist support to the White House, and then commenced...hm, what is a good slogan for riding such a wave of support to the White House? Something catchy, indicating a return to greatness...Make America Excellent Again? How's that sound?

Because populists are ever interchangeable.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 16, 2018, 07:34:08 pm
This record of unparalleled, unmitigated failure lies solely at the feet of Barack Obama, .........[snip].........
There was this thing called the GFC.

Oh, I'm aware of that. And I'm aware of how successfully the right-wing liars managed to pin the blame for that on Obama when it was accelerated in its onset by Bush. (It was coming anyway, after the deregulation under Clinton, but the Bush tax cuts and wars sped up the timetable.) But the fact remains: the four people I named were primarily in charge of the Democratic Party during that time (whether as President, DNC Chair, or the Presidential nominee), and during that same time all the losses I outlined took place.

To be clear: I have no personal grudge against Hillary Clinton and wish her no harm. I despise, however, her positions (particularly on economic and foreign policy) and think that the evidence shows that when her ideology is in control of the Democratic Party, it hampers the Democrats and empowers the Republicans, and I think that her presence on the campaign trail will only serve to remind people of everything they hate about her and her ilk, however limited her campaigning.

So basically, we could've been spared 2014 and everything going forward from there if everyone just bowed their heads and went along with whatever Bernie Sanders spoke, and heeded his every word and voted for him instead of Clinton.

I also cannot help but see you basically telling people they should not have voted for Clinton and that Bernie was both a better candidate and spoke more to a "populist sentiment" that should have been heeded. So then, applying this logic, the minority voters who voted for Clinton over Sanders, by quite large numbers, should not have gone with her, but followed you and the many white voters of the Sanders campaign. Because I suppose according to this logic on display they do not know Good Progressivism, and should have obeyed their white saviors, and followed Sanders, as he and his supporters clearly know better than them what is good for them.

So I then must suppose you and other Sanders Supporters believe if only people had coalesced around Sanders instead of Clinton, then...what? You could have rode a wave of populist and in a number of cases protectionist support to the White House, and then commenced...hm, what is a good slogan for riding such a wave of support to the White House? Something catchy, indicating a return to greatness...Make America Excellent Again? How's that sound?

Because populists are ever interchangeable.

Do you really think Trump and Sanders are interchangeable, or are you just trolling?

That aside, just because Sanders didn't put as much emphasis on identity politics as Hillary did in his campaign, doesn't mean he doesn't care about minorities. If he didn't, then why did he march with Dr. King? And if you judge by their heritage, Hillary is far more of a "white savior" than Bernie. Bernie is a Jewish-American of Russo-Polish descent, which is not only a more "ethnic" background than Hillary (an Anglo-Dutch Protestant), but also a group that has a very long history of being discriminated against. While American Antisemitism has generally been less virulent than that of other countries (at least on a societal level), Jews were still pretty badly discriminated against in the United States. Bernie grew up in the 40s and 50s, so he likely experienced this discrimination firsthand. Can he really be called a "white savior" if he was in the same boat as the minorities he fought for?

And I'd say Hillary supporters were "progressive policing" just as much as Bernie supporters, and probably moreso. Remember the "Bernie Bros?" Remember what Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright said about female Sanders supporters (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html)?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 16, 2018, 07:37:46 pm
If Democratic primary and caucus voters had chosen Hillary Clinton in a fair contest, where the DNC had indeed been a neutral arbiter and not tilting the scales in favour of any particular candidate, then you would not see the sort of anger from the populist wing of the party that you see now.

Nonetheless Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the 2016 election in a much higher percentage than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008--remember PUMAs?

As for populists being "ever interchangeable," that's a base slander and you know it. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for a repeal of the ACA. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have put a crazy person like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court or similarly insane, out-of-touch nuts on the lower federal courts. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for tax cuts that will go almost entirely to the ultra-rich and blow a $1.5 trillion dollar hole in the deficit (kept so low only because they raise lower- and middle-class taxes by $4.5 trillion to "offset" the $6 trillion in cuts the rich get). You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have wiped away DACA like so much rubbish.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 16, 2018, 08:06:28 pm
If Democratic primary and caucus voters had chosen Hillary Clinton in a fair contest, where the DNC had indeed been a neutral arbiter and not tilting the scales in favour of any particular candidate, then you would not see the sort of anger from the populist wing of the party that you see now.

Nonetheless Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the 2016 election in a much higher percentage than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008--remember PUMAs?

As for populists being "ever interchangeable," that's a base slander and you know it. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for a repeal of the ACA. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have put a crazy person like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court or similarly insane, out-of-touch nuts on the lower federal courts. You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have pushed for tax cuts that will go almost entirely to the ultra-rich and blow a $1.5 trillion dollar hole in the deficit (kept so low only because they raise lower- and middle-class taxes by $4.5 trillion to "offset" the $6 trillion in cuts the rich get). You cannot say with a straight face that Sanders would have wiped away DACA like so much rubbish.

(http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/967496-bless-this-post)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 16, 2018, 09:28:57 pm
I can - and I do because of all our current populist has done. This election has convinced me of one thing - populism will always burn everything that came before it to ashes.

Sanders spoke of borders, he created an insurgent wing of the Democrats that routinely smears everyone not in their wing, and there was much the same "workers party" rhetoric.

Demagogues no matter their stripe are bad.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 16, 2018, 09:49:56 pm
I can - and I do because of all our current populist has done. This election has convinced me of one thing - populism will always burn everything that came before it to ashes.

Sanders spoke of borders, he created an insurgent wing of the Democrats that routinely smears everyone not in their wing, and there was much the same "workers party" rhetoric.

Demagogues no matter their stripe are bad.

What you've seen are the right-wing manifestations of populism, largely because the left has been unwilling or unable to harness that same sentiment to the same degree.

As for demagoguery...

Quote
A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

Are you really going to say Sanders didn't use rational argument? Yes, he appealed to popular desires--but he justified his calls for those policies with rational argumentation.

Plus, the term has the connotation of being dishonest, and if you think Sanders is dishonest, I don't think you're listening to the same person I am.

I would also say that he didn't create that wing; he energized it.

And if you think Sanders would have done any of the things I listed (with the caveat that, had he done so, it would only have been to replace them with something demonstrably superior--single-payer instead of the ACA, for instance), then you are, quite simply, lying to yourself. Why you are, I don't know, but that is all it is--self-deceit.

But here's the thing: like it or not, there is a populist wave coming--the first tides have already hit the shores. Decide for yourself to which ideology you would prefer to see it attach, but don't pretend that it will be turned back.

Also, don't pretend Trump is a populist. He is so only in rhetoric (and even then not always), and his policies and the people with whom he has surrounded himself are entirely rooted in the political establishment.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 17, 2018, 11:33:55 am
This is what happens when your only metric for success is popularity.  Doesn't matter if you're a proven racist, barely literate, and rapidly succumbing to the ravages of old age; if you can appeal to lots of people, you're in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 17, 2018, 04:01:28 pm
This is what happens when your only metric for success is popularity.  Doesn't matter if you're a proven racist, barely literate, and rapidly succumbing to the ravages of old age; if you can appeal to lots of people, you're in.

And you don't even have to appeal to more people than your opponent because the electoral system is an outmoded piece of shit!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 17, 2018, 06:36:57 pm
'Murrica!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 17, 2018, 06:46:24 pm
'Murrica!

I saw it noted that there are 22 stable liberal democracies in the world (that is, continuously democratically governed, with civil liberties guaranteed, since 1950). In no particular order, these are Austria, Germany(/West Germany), Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, Costa Rica, and the United States of America.

One interesting thing to note about this list is that only two use the US model: the US itself, and Costa Rica. All the others use a parliamentary confidence system of some sort.

At this point, with all the electoral and other political fuckery going on in the US, and the effective eradication of various civil liberties (4th Amendment anyone?), I'm not sure if the US belongs on that list any longer.

What I find particularly amusing about it is that half of the countries on that list are monarchies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 18, 2018, 10:44:02 am
After the 13 Russians got the indictments and Mueller publicly stated that Russia did interfere with the elections AND had bots and trolls influencing politics in USA things are heating up.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374427-trump-i-never-said-russia-didnt-meddle-in-election

Trump goes back to lying and gaslighting as is his way.

T_D is in panic mode, r/Conspiracy is having a minor revolt when it was revealed that many of their favourite sources were in fact Russian shills...

Next week is going to be interesting.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 18, 2018, 07:30:31 pm
Oh that just makes me smile. For someone to find out they've been trolled all along.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 19, 2018, 06:59:10 pm
Democrats ran a focus group to find out what voters thought of them and the Republicans. Here's what they heard:

"Republicans have the wrong agenda. Democrats have no agenda."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 19, 2018, 08:30:28 pm
I see you were part of that focus group.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 19, 2018, 10:21:38 pm
I see you were part of that focus group.

You win elections by giving people something to vote for, not just something to vote against.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 20, 2018, 12:28:14 am
I see you were part of that focus group.

You win elections by giving people something to vote for, not just something to vote against.


Wasn't that like 90% of Trump's campaign? Being against Clinton, being against everything Obama stood for, being against everything Democrats and liberals stand for?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 20, 2018, 12:55:41 am
I see you were part of that focus group.

You win elections by giving people something to vote for, not just something to vote against.


Wasn't that like 90% of Trump's campaign? Being against Clinton, being against everything Obama stood for, being against everything Democrats and liberals stand for?

Build the wall? Withdraw from TPP? Renegotiate NAFTA? Get out of the wars (or take out their families, depending on the day)?

And...

http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/blog/2016-election-study-published/

(http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016Forum_Fig9-768x538.png)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 20, 2018, 01:27:15 am
Against "evil-rapist-Mexican-Jobstealers" , against NAFTA, against TPP.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 20, 2018, 02:20:33 am
Against "evil-rapist-Mexican-Jobstealers" , against NAFTA, against TPP.

But he proposed policy solutions there (stupid ones, generally, but nonetheless). Most of what Clinton talked about was personal attacks on Trump.

And here's two more: raising the minimum wage (though he also said it should be eliminated), and raising taxes on the rich (though he also said those should be lowered).

Oh, and that pharmaceutical companies are ripping off and effectively killing Americans (which is true, but he changed his tune on that one after one meeting with pharma lobbyists... but that was after he'd won).

Trump--in his stupid, idiotic way--talked about issues and proposed policy solutions. Clinton didn't.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 20, 2018, 02:30:34 am
Dpareja again showing that Sanders Supporters will absolutely never get over their hatred of Clinton - now for failing to win an election they in all likelihood believe Sanders could've carried.

Any data chart, any talking point is fair game for being used as a cudgel. My family and I were and are proud Clinton supporters. If that makes us corporate shills, then I will wear my corporatist badge with honor - and state in the future I hope to become a big enough money maker to be in your lobbying, corrupting your democrats with my EEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLL MONEY!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 20, 2018, 02:46:50 am
Don't worry. The 28th Amendment will be passed by then and all the money--evil or otherwise--will be banished from politics.

EDIT: Also, I don't say with any certainty that Sanders would have won (since there are too many counterfactuals), and I think Clinton could have won, if she'd had a competent campaign that focused on policy and didn't ignore states like Wisconsin and Michigan for almost the entire time.

EDIT #2: Meanwhile...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374536-trump-takes-last-spot-in-presidential-rankings-survey-on-overall

In the first "Presidents and Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey" taken after President Trump had spent a significant time in office (survey period: December 22, 2017 to January 16, 2018), respondents being 170 current and recently former members of the American Political Science Association, Trump ranks...

Dead last.

#1 is Lincoln; #2 is Washington.

https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf

Note first that of the 166 respondents who listed a party affiliation, 95 were Democrats, 45 independents, 21 Republicans, and 5 other. As for their self-considered ideological bent, 54 consider themselves liberal, 43 somewhat liberal, 40 moderate, 20 somewhat conservative, and 9 conservative. This will of course bias the survey somewhat.

Following them are FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Jefferson, Truman, and Eisenhower, that order being unchanged from 2014. However, Obama ranked 18th in 2014 and is now 8th. (I'm not sure if they know how much that's because of contrasts to the current incumbent, however.)

The bottom five are Andrew Johnson, Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Buchanan, and Trump.

Respondents identifying as Republican placed Trump 40th, with Andrew Johnson, Pierce, William Henry Harrison, and Buchanan below him. Those identifying as Democrats placed Trump dead last in 44th (Buchanan was 43rd). Others placed him 43rd on average, above Buchanan.

Respondents identifying as conservatives also placed Trump 40th, followed by Pierce, Andrew Johnson, William Henry Harrison, and Buchanan. Those identifying as liberals placed Trump 44th, with Buchanan in 43rd, as did moderates.

The top-fives are also somewhat interesting:

Republicans

Washington
Lincoln
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt
Reagan

Democrats

Lincoln
FDR
Washington
Teddy Roosevelt
Jefferson

Independents

Lincoln
Washington
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt
Jefferson

Conservatives

Washington
Lincoln
Reagan
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt

Liberals

Lincoln
FDR
Washington
Teddy Roosevelt
Jefferson

Moderates

Lincoln
Washington
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt
Jefferson

If respondents had to pick another President to place on Mount Rushmore, an overwhelming majority, 65.9%, would choose Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Other responses, in order, were Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, James Madison, Lyndon Johnson, William McKinley, Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman, James Polk, John Adams, Bill Clinton, Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, and Richard Nixon. (Some respondents named Washington, Lincoln, or Roosevelt.)

FDR was the top choice among all groups of party affiliation or ideology, overwhelmingly among Democrats, liberals and moderates, a majority among independents, and a plurality among Republicans and conservatives.

They also looked at how polarizing various Presidents were. I'll quote their methodology:

Quote
In the current polarized political climate, we thought it would be interesting to ask which presidents were considered by presidency experts to be the most polarizing. To do so, we asked respondents to identify up to five individual presidents they believed were the most polarizing, and then rank order them with the first president being the most polarizing, the second as next most polarizing, and so on. We then calculated how many times a president was identified as well as their average ranking. The results of this question can be seen in the table below.

Trump was by far the most-listed President, at 138 respondents, and on average the most polarizing. The other Presidents listed at least 50 times were Andrew Jackson, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, and Abraham Lincoln.

They also issued a report card for Trump, on the A-B-C-D-F scale, with Trump receiving 2 Ds and 3 Fs--but even Republicans only gave him 2 Cs and 3 Ds. (Conservatives were harsher, at 4 Ds and 1 F.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 21, 2018, 09:36:56 am
http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/21/twitter-just-purged-russian-bots-trump-fans-crying-followers-vanish-7329362/

So, there are only two possible explanations:

a) Trump-cultists had been getting thousands of retweets and followers that were really bots trying to make them more visible and think that they have more support.

2) Social media is under the control of SJW-COMMIE-MUSLIMS who are trying to silence proud American patriots.

And since one of those explanations would include admitting that Trump-cultists have been duped so of course it can't be that. They are stable geniuses after all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 21, 2018, 10:14:10 pm
Trump held a "listening" session at the White House for people who have survived or been affected by school shootings.  Two highlights I wanna bring to light.

(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221182253-trump-notes-school-shooting-listening-session-exlarge-169.jpg)

This note card that he was apparently holding during the session.  Not the points you can see on it.  One of which is "I hear you".  The fuck has to be reminded about that?

The other point is he wants to reopen the asylums.

Ironbite-let that sink in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 22, 2018, 05:51:18 pm
Gotta love old man Trump blaming the violent video games and music for all of the gun violence. Gee where the fuck have we heard that before? You damn kids with your Dan Fogelberg, Hula hoops and pac man video games!

They were saying this shit twenty years ago.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 22, 2018, 06:06:39 pm
(https://oregoncatalyst.com/uploads/sarah-palin-hand-notes.jpg)

EDIT: Ted Cruz at CPAC:

Quote
The Democrats are the party of Lisa Simpson, and the Republicans are proudly the party of Homer.

So... the Democrats are intelligent and insightful, while the Republicans are bumbling idiots who somehow manage to constantly fail upward?

EDIT #2: And to make it even funnier, don't forget that Homer Simpson said of going to church, "What if we've chosen the wrong god? Every time we go to church, we're just making the real one madder and madder!" (Not a sentiment I'd expect most of the GOP to share.)

(Bart: "Testify!")
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on February 27, 2018, 11:15:12 pm
Trump held a "listening" session at the White House for people who have survived or been affected by school shootings.  Two highlights I wanna bring to light.

(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221182253-trump-notes-school-shooting-listening-session-exlarge-169.jpg)

This note card that he was apparently holding during the session.  Not the points you can see on it.  One of which is "I hear you".  The fuck has to be reminded about that?

The other point is he wants to reopen the asylums.

Ironbite-let that sink in.

He's not wearing his wedding ring...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 27, 2018, 11:16:19 pm
Presumably he's planning to exchange Melania soon for a new First Lady.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 28, 2018, 12:17:39 am
Presumably he's planning to exchange Melania soon for a new First Lady.

He already knows who he wants to be his First Lady, but even he's not quite dumb enough to think he could get away with incest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 28, 2018, 03:48:34 pm
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/27/jared-kushner-security-clearance-downgrade-427178

Kushner's security clearance is downgraded, Mueller investigation is going forwards and Trump is continuing to embarrass himself with his blunders (like having a note as a reminder to show some form of sympathy to the survivors of the massacre...)

These last few weeks have not been kind to USA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 28, 2018, 04:42:45 pm
No they haven't been kind to Trump.  Rest of the country's been doing just fine.

Ironbite-oh and Mueller's recommending that all charges against Gates be dropped so.....Gates sang.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 28, 2018, 04:49:22 pm
Another one bites the dust, now Hope Hicks resigns from her position.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 01, 2018, 04:39:00 am
Meanwhile in the Trump  fanclub:

(https://i.redd.it/ux0q2uo083j01.png)

Ha ha!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 01, 2018, 05:23:13 am
I'm sure this is just a stereotype but I can't imagine that these guys would be able to have a micropenis if they all chipped in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 01, 2018, 06:19:55 am
T_D is imploding on Reddit. Ever since the election it has been a hugbox cult sanctuary for Trump fans, but this is finally the issue that broke them. All the other dumb dangerous stuff that Trump did was ignored or explained through double-think but now there's basically a revolution inside the subreddit and the mods are banning hundreds of commenters. People get banned for saying that they support Trump otherwise but don't like this one plan of his (must support Trump no matter what.) People get banned for saying that this is a good idea and they support Trump completely (2nd amendment is important and not supporting it is treason.) People get banned for quoting what Trump said about this (shows Trump in bad light by showing that he says dumb shit.)

Even if you look at the most upvoted comments on the thread about this the top 50 are a bunch of deleted messages, one dude saying "I'm just laughing at all the comments that have been deleted but are still at the top of best" and a person going "My internet was down for a day, what happened here?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 01, 2018, 10:12:37 am
There is not enough popcorn in the fucking universe.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 01, 2018, 10:41:35 am
There is not enough popcorn in the fucking universe.

You'd have to basically launch all the corn in kansas into the sun followed by all the butter in denmark
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 01, 2018, 09:07:12 pm
There is not enough popcorn in the fucking universe.

You'd have to basically launch all the corn in kansas into the sun followed by all the butter in denmark

If you sell all that at the typical rate for movie popcorn, you'd end up a quintillionaire overnight.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 01, 2018, 10:13:37 pm
We have yet another resignation, this time by Communications Director Hope Hicks (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/politics/hope-hicks-resign-communications-director.html). Normally, I'd be astonished that a 29 year-old with no political experience got such a high-ranking White House job in the first place, but this is the Trump administration.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 02, 2018, 01:28:09 am
That position is as cursed as Defense Against The Dark Arts Teacher in Hogwarts.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 02, 2018, 01:32:52 am
Don't worry. Trump doesn't need any of those people, since he's smarter than all of them.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-10-20/president-trump-thinks-hes-the-smartest-person-in-the-room
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 02, 2018, 09:46:33 am
After reading this article (http://www.businessinsider.com/who-has-trump-fired-so-far-james-comey-sean-spicer-michael-flynn-2017-7), I think Prima Donald should install a revolving door in the White House.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 02, 2018, 11:04:32 am
Trump is about to start a trade war simply because he can and the only one who loses is all of USA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 02, 2018, 11:18:17 am
Yup he's managing to piss off Republicans and Democrats with this one.
Hey remember that tax cut you got? Now you can use that money to afford things that are about to become more expensive due to tariffs. Hooray!?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 02, 2018, 03:07:35 pm
EU, China and Canada are already firing back at USA by announcing tariffs unless USA backs down. Which it will do like a little bitch unless Trump wants to ruin USA's economy just because he doesn't want to admit defeat.

...Could go either way really.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 02, 2018, 06:08:18 pm
Congress might step in on this one as he's gonna hurt the GOP's bottom line.

Ironbite-Corporate Masters are probably not liking this one bit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 02, 2018, 06:59:25 pm
Congress might step in on this one as he's gonna hurt the GOP's bottom line.

Ironbite-Corporate Masters are probably not liking this one bit.

Ah, you see, the businessmen, they love him! Trump is the best president for business, he said so! /s
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 03, 2018, 11:06:41 pm
I have a feeling he might be trying to distract people from something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 04, 2018, 12:23:24 am
According to interviews he just wanted to do something. He's angry and depressed by all the negative news about him and how he needs to actually convince other people that his ideas are good in order to get them passed. Then when he asked rhetorically why can't he just declare a trade war he was told that he can. So he did. Because it's something and now the news are all about how HE did a thing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on March 04, 2018, 01:03:04 am
And how is his company going to make money. Buying a metric shit ton of Airbus stock today and setting them up to take over 3/4 (source: my ass) of Boeing's contracts, gee that could net someone a nice little profit. He did a thing that will benefit himself, his family, and his friends. That it's done like this with these results is immaterial.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 04, 2018, 04:44:27 am
And now he's praised China's President for making himself a dictator for life. And suggested that America should do the same.

As if we needed more proof that he wants to be a dictator.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 04, 2018, 05:09:04 am
And now he's praised China's President for making himself a dictator for life. And suggested that America should do the same.

As if we needed more proof that he wants to be a dictator.

I don't think he wants to be a dictator per se, but rather a king (in the old "divine right" sense). Not much difference, maybe, but I think that's what he wants.

EDIT: Yes, I am going to call out the Democrats when they do shitty things. Like this:

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s2155/BILLS-115s2155rs.pdf
}]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2155/cosponsors?pageSort=firstToLast&r=1&q={%22search%22:[%22s.+2155%22]} (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2155/cosponsors?pageSort=firstToLast&r=1&q={%22search%22:[%22s.+2155%22)

This bill, to deregulate the financial industry (you know, that same industry that crashed the economy a decade ago), includes among its provisions one that will bar the CFPB from investigating when banks are being racially discriminatory in their interest rates, for instance, giving white customers better rates than black or Hispanic customers. (Not that the CFPB is going to be investigating anything for the next while, of course.)

It has 25 cosponsors... 12 of whom are Democrats.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Crapo (R-ID).

The Republican cosponsors are Sens. Blunt (MO), Corker (TN), Cotton (AR), Heller (NV), Kennedy (LA), Moran (KS), Perdue (GA), Risch (ID), Rounds (SD), Sasse (NE), Scott (SC), and Tillis (NC).

The Democratic cosponsors are Sens. Bennet (CO), Carper (DE), Coons (DE), Donnelly (IN), Heitkamp (ND), Jones (AL), Kaine (VA), Manchin (WV), McCaskill (MO), Peters (MI), Tester (MT), and Warner (VA).

Additionally, Sen. King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, has cosponsored the bill.

Or how about when the DCCC was advising candidates not to talk about gun control policy in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre?

(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5a957f172000007d06eb01a3.png?ops=scalefit_630_noupscale)

Evan Lukaske is the DCCC regional press secretary for the Northeast region.

Do you see now why I say that lots of elected Democrats are 1990s Republicans?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 04, 2018, 07:28:42 pm
Ya know, I'm okay with them refraining from talking gun control before the corpses are even cold.  Tact has a place in politics just as it does in the rest of life.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 04, 2018, 07:36:48 pm
Ya know, I'm okay with them refraining from talking gun control before the corpses are even cold.  Tact has a place in politics just as it does in the rest of life.

The problem with that is that shootings are such a common occurrence in the US now--maybe not on the scale of the Vegas massacre, but still--that any attempt to bring up gun control can be met with "The bodies aren't even cold yet! How could you!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on March 04, 2018, 10:22:13 pm
"now's not the time" Ok, what about next week "nope. there'll have been another shooting then. Too soon." "the week after" "Nah. Third shooting." Repeat ad infinitum
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 04, 2018, 10:30:02 pm
Don't you know? The only appropriate response to a tragedy like this is thoughts and/or prayers. Actually trying to do something to prevent it from happening again is "politicising" it and that makes you a bad person.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 05, 2018, 09:37:39 am
Fair enough, though if memory serves, the actual raw number of such incidences is on the downslope; what we're seeing is the effects of increased coverage from an increasingly blood-hungry press.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 06, 2018, 06:04:02 pm
And after Trump's genius tariff war that is going to happen Gary Cohn nopes the fuck out of the white house.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 06, 2018, 06:36:46 pm
And after Trump's genius tariff war that is going to happen Gary Cohn nopes the fuck out of the white house.

If a company had the Trump administration's turnover rate, investors would be bailing like crazy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 07, 2018, 04:07:45 am
Trump's administration has turnover rate so high that people are quitting jobs that they haven't gotten yet.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-reportedly-had-talks-with-gary-cohn-to-replace-john-kelly-as-his-chief-of-staff/ar-BBJXfXF

His latest Chief of Staff hasn't even quit or been arrested yet and his future replacements are already having second thoughts.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 07, 2018, 11:12:27 am
And he's being sued by the porn star he had spank him with a copy of Forbes magazine.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246

Ironbite-because he didn't sign the NDA
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 07, 2018, 01:36:34 pm
Any other presidency America would be flipping their shit about this. But with Trump people shrug their shoulders and say eh it's Wednesday.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 07, 2018, 01:48:46 pm
Any other presidency America would be flipping their shit about this. But with Trump people shrug their shoulders and say eh it's Wednesday.

It exposes once and for all the hypocrisy of the religious right: look at their reaction to Bill Clinton's affairs.

EDIT: Meanwhile, remember that bill I pointed out at the top of this page, S. 2155?

It came to a cloture vote on Tuesday (March 6).

The vote succeeded, 67-32. In addition to the listed cosponsors, the other Democratic votes were Sens. Hassan (NH), Nelson (FL), Shaheen (NH), and Stabenow (MI) voted for the bill. (Sen. McCain (R-AZ) did not vote.)

Remember: 99% of the time, "bipartisanship" means "Democrats and Republicans agreeing to fuck over regular people".

And the next crash is coming, and this only sped up the process.

EDIT #2: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00048

Link to the vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 09, 2018, 07:50:30 am
(https://i.redditmedia.com/2KWbIk0VsdCFS7d9U_cNNOZMKEgkCHEUqBm5DYAAhOQ.jpg?w=1024&s=c175ab0f0b106929fe0aca1c052b1969)

...


...If this had been meant to distract from Trump's other disasters then this would be a really smart move since it's not like he'd lose a single voter if they found out that he's got bastard children.

Instead, seeing as the agreement was made right after the Access Hollywood tape came out (well soon after. The Wikileaks Podesta Email dump which had been stolen by Russian hackers was made right after the "Grab 'em by the pussy" tape) it appears that Trump campaign panicked and made this NDA because they were afraid that Trump's popularity could be negatively influenced by his adultery. Which has clearly been later proven to be a non-issue to his fans.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 09, 2018, 09:12:16 am
I think there is simply nothing you can do to peel off any significant amount of Trump's current followers who have stuck with him through all the controversies. What you can do by reminding people how horrible a person he is and how awful his policies are is to prevent his/Republicans' propaganda from luring back former supporters and energize his opponents.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 13, 2018, 09:45:59 am
Aaaaand Rex Tillerson is gone.

Say what you want at least he seemed to care about foreign affairs. Which I'm sure our genuis and chief did not listen to him about. How long do you think before Jeff Sessions quits or is fired?

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 13, 2018, 02:12:20 pm
Jesus fuck, really? Tillerson was one of the few adults in the white house, so things are only going to get worse at this point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 13, 2018, 02:35:01 pm
Tillerson was only there to get Exxon's massive oil deal with Russia through. Once that proved impossible (and certain economic factors changed that made the deal not worth as much), it was only a matter of time before he quit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 13, 2018, 03:01:45 pm
Tillerson made the fatal mistake of saying something critical of Russia. He said that the nerve agent that was used in the assassination in UK came from Russia and if there's one thing that Trump won't tolerate, it's badmouthing Russia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 13, 2018, 03:15:56 pm
And so Mueller gets another witness because Trump is bad at this thing.

Ironbite-Putin has to be loving this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 13, 2018, 07:14:52 pm
Tillerson made the fatal mistake of saying something critical of Russia. He said that the nerve agent that was used in the assassination in UK came from Russia and if there's one thing that Trump won't tolerate, it's badmouthing Russia.

Theresa May blamed it directly on Russia. I wonder if Trump asked an aide if he could fire May.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 13, 2018, 07:24:44 pm
Wasn't there talk about Tillerson being Putin's pick for secretary of state anyway.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 13, 2018, 07:27:50 pm
He was because he's a friend of Russia.  No seriously, he was awarded that.  But the thing is, the pipeline deal he wanted to make ended up not working.  Hence the comments.  Trump won't let anyone "insult" his puppet master so BOOM! There goes one of the few adults in the room.

Ironbite-also hearing he wants to move Rick Perry to Veterans Affairs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 13, 2018, 07:28:25 pm
Wasn't there talk about Tillerson being Putin's pick for secretary of state anyway.

Yep.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/05/trump-dossier-author-reportedly-warned-russia-influenced-cabinet-picks.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 13, 2018, 10:58:26 pm
It's so pathetic that Tillerson was one of the only actual adults in the White House when he had no business being Secretary of State in the first place.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 14, 2018, 03:32:06 am
Also note how Trump once again couldn't be face to face with the person he fired. Tillerson was fired while he was on an official diplomatic mission on a different continent.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2018, 04:02:51 pm
Constitutional crisis incoming.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/15/robert-mueller-trump-organization-russia-documents

Robert Mueller has issued a subpoena to the Trump Organization for documents related to matters under investigation.

Quote
Asked by the New York Times last year whether he would consider Mueller examining his and his family’s finances a “red line”, Trump said: “I would say yeah. I would say yes. By the way, I would say, I don’t – I don’t – I mean, it’s possible there’s a condo or something, so, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows?”

Given that Mueller is looking into financial crimes (he issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank for information on Trump's holdings with them, for instance), it would appear that he has reached Trump's "red line".

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/trump-lawyer-dowd-cited-for-trump-campaign-contribution-above-legal-max.html

And, just to make matters even worse for Trump, his lawyer, John Dowd, handling his interests vis-à-vis the Mueller probe has been cited by the FEC for contributing more than the legal limit of $2,700 to Trump's campaign. Dowd donated $300 to Trump's 2020 general election campaign on July 4, 2017, and a further $2,700 to that same campaign on October 1, 2017.

However:

Quote
[Trump campaign treasurer Bradley] Crate told CNBC that the campaign sent Dowd a refund check for $300 on January 3, a few days too late to be reflected in their fourth quarter filing to the FEC. He said it will appear on its next quarterly report to the FEC, to be released in April. Dowd said he had received the check.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on March 15, 2018, 04:39:43 pm
Also note how Trump once again couldn't be face to face with the person he fired. Tillerson was fired while he was on an official diplomatic mission on a different continent.

John Kelly may be leaving too (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-white-house-staff-shakeup-john-kelly/).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 15, 2018, 06:13:35 pm
Trump is thinking the best way to deal with the chaos in his White House is to reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Ironbite-and is contemplating leaving several Cabinet positions empty because they're "dead weight"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2018, 06:16:34 pm
Betting pool for last original Trump Cabinet appointee remaining? I'm betting on Cruella DeVos.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYSPvKIVoAA9ZX8.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 15, 2018, 06:30:46 pm
Ben Carson's got my money.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 15, 2018, 06:48:32 pm
Ben Carson's got my money.
That's a good bet. Trump probably has forgotten he even exists so he is safe for now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2018, 07:14:09 pm
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/prosecutors-reviewing-request-to-issue-arrest-warrant-for-trumps-new-cia-director/

Gina Haspel, Deputy Director of the CIA and Trump's nominee to head the CIA now that he has nominated current Director Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State, was allegedly involved in torturing people and signed documents ordering that the tapes made of the torture sessions be burned.

Further, German prosecutors are seeking an arrest warrant for Haspel. If approved, Haspel would be subject to arrest immediately upon entering the European Union.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 15, 2018, 07:26:16 pm
She can't leave the US and her duties as CIA Director would have to have her do that.

Ironbite-DELICIOUS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2018, 10:32:21 pm
Schumer on Trump nominating a FUCKING WAR CRIMINAL to be CIA Director: I want to hear from her before making any decisions on whether we should vote for or against her.

And on Pompeo, the Democrats are calling for him to be more hawkish on Russia than Tillerson was--and keep in mind that there's a NATO buildup on Russia's border, US ships in the Black Sea, and multiple incidents of Russian and US places coming very close to colliding with each other. (Schumer says the same about Pompeo, and also says that he wants him to toughen up the administration's stance on Russia. Oh, and Pompeo thinks that Edward Snowden should be executed.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ7Ouq3Ity4

Quote
One party says, 'I can't wait to just nominate all these war criminals, it's going to be fucking wonderful,' and the opposition party goes, 'Yeah, but those war criminals better be even more hawkish.'

If you can't come out and say, "we will record 47 votes against Haspel" when she's a FUCKING WAR CRIMINAL, what the FUCK ARE YOU GOOD FOR CHUCK SCHUMER?

EDIT: And don't forget, Trump's third major nomination (to replace McMaster as National Security Adviser) is John Bolton, who led the charge in lying the US into the illegal invasion of Iraq, and has called for the US to go to war with Iran and North Korea... simultaneously. While still engaged fully in Iraq and Afghanistan. And aiding the Saudi genocide in Yemen. And conducting drone bombings in at least 5 more countries.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 16, 2018, 06:54:50 pm
So not only is she the first woman appointed to that position, she's also the first war criminal with outstanding warrants to be appointed to that spot too?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 16, 2018, 07:09:01 pm
So not only is she the first woman appointed to that position, she's also the first war criminal with outstanding warrants to be appointed to that spot too?

I'd be pretty surprised if she's the first war criminal appointed to the position, but then I think much of what the US does outside its own borders constitutes war crimes.

As for outstanding warrants, I don't think the warrant being sought in Germany has been approved yet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 16, 2018, 07:22:27 pm
So not only is she the first woman appointed to that position, she's also the first war criminal with outstanding warrants to be appointed to that spot too?

I'd be pretty surprised if she's the first war criminal appointed to the position, but then I think much of what the US does outside its own borders constitutes war crimes.

Usually the war crimes happen after being appointed though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 16, 2018, 07:27:24 pm
So not only is she the first woman appointed to that position, she's also the first war criminal with outstanding warrants to be appointed to that spot too?

I'd be pretty surprised if she's the first war criminal appointed to the position, but then I think much of what the US does outside its own borders constitutes war crimes.

Usually the war crimes happen after being appointed though.

Well, I have to wonder how often the CIA Director is appointed from inside the organization.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 17, 2018, 01:56:12 am
GOP competence: https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/maine-gop-candidate-called-parkland-survivor-skinhead-lesbian-drops-race/

GOP candidate insulted one of the Parkland students, which inspired someone to become a Democrat candidate to oppose him and now that the GOP candidate withdraws because of the shitstorm that came from him insulting a massacre survivor the Democrat is running unopposed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 17, 2018, 02:18:10 am
How many own goals for republicans this year? Between this guy and Roy Moore's scandal, and everyone and their grandma resigning from the Administration...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 17, 2018, 03:21:31 am
How many own goals for republicans this year? Between this guy and Roy Moore's scandal, and everyone and their grandma resigning from the Administration...

When a party's mantra is that government doesn't work, you'd think voters would get the message and not put them in charge of governing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on March 17, 2018, 07:42:23 pm
That or stop voting.  If government doesn't work, why are you putting asses in seats?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on March 17, 2018, 11:10:17 pm
That or stop voting.  If government doesn't work, why are you putting asses in seats?
Because if you don't vote in people who fight the government power, communists will transform the government into a dictatorship and after all the God-fearing NRA members have been exterminated in FEMA camps the survivors are forced into gay marriages and to live in hobbit homes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 17, 2018, 11:48:52 pm
That or stop voting.  If government doesn't work, why are you putting asses in seats?
Because if you don't vote in people who fight the government power, communists will transform the government into a dictatorship and after all the God-fearing NRA members have been exterminated in FEMA camps the survivors are forced into gay marriages and to live in hobbit homes.

You forgot about the part where everyone else dines on aborted fetuses.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 18, 2018, 03:10:55 am
What if people are already gay married? Are they made to double gay marry?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 18, 2018, 03:18:16 am
What if people are already gay married? Are they made to double gay marry?

Of course. Forced gay polygamy is next on the list, don't you know?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 18, 2018, 06:35:20 am
Here's a few recent Trump family news pieces.

First, Don Jr is getting a divorce
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2018/03/15/reports-presidents-eldest-donald-trump-jr-and-wife-vanessa-divorcing/430151002/

Next, a former CIA director is calling Don Sr a "disgraced demagogue"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-branded-apos-disgraced-125500718.html

And finally, more rumors of potential firings. Bet you'd never guess the reason:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-national-security-advisor-sacked-herbert-raymond-mcmaster-white-house-staff-rex-a8258646.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 18, 2018, 06:39:57 am
Don Jr:s wife hired a criminal lawyer as her divorce lawyer...

Current theories are:

-Mueller investigation is going to notice that Junior was involved in criminal deals and they are trying to hide some of that money through divorce and the marriage has no troubles but this is just a money laundering operation.

-Wife is lawyering up and distancing herself so that she won't go down with the ship when Jr and the rest of the clan start getting arrested. And/or she is doing this to protect her kids from the fallout.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 19, 2018, 03:43:09 pm
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/18/politics/rand-paul-mike-pompeo-gina-haspel-cnntv/index.html

Rand Paul went on CNN and decided to be more useful than the Senate Democrats.

He said he'd filibuster Mike "Edward Snowden should be killed" Pompeo and Gina "Burn the torture tapes" Haspel when they come to a vote for their nominations as Secretary of State and CIA Director respectively.

Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, is of the opinion that they should be heard out before he says anything about whether Senate Democrats will try to block them.

I wonder which committees Sen. Paul sits on, because if he and all the Democrats on a committee hearing them vote against advancing them, that effectively kills their nominations because I believe moving them to the floor without being advanced from committee can be filibustered, so unless McConnell's willing to tinker with the Senate rules some more, that's probably a nonstarter.

EDIT: Of course, if he is on the relevant committees, but does what Lisa Murkowski did with Betsy DeVos and votes to move them out of committee and only vote against them on the floor, then Pence can break the tie. (Although even getting a tie would require flying McCain in, because otherwise the vote would fail 49-50 if all the Democrats and Independents vote against.)

EDIT #2: Oh, and further to my point about McCain, getting him to the floor might actually work against Pompeo and Haspel, since he's vehemently against torture, having been tortured himself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 19, 2018, 07:02:26 pm
Does Trump not realize how guilty he's making himself look? News is coming out that he wants to try to fire Mueller. Innocent people don't get defensive. If he truly had nothing to hide he wouldn't care that someone was investigating him. I don't know if he had some sort of collusion with Russia but there is some shady shit going on. Money Laundering scandals or some unknown business deals.

There's a reason Trump never released his tax returns, keeps defending Russia and Putin, has had campaign aids that have known connections to Russia like Flynn, Manafort, Sessions, Carter Page, Roger Stone, Had DTJ meet with a Russian person to get dirt on Hillary and admit it in an email, the hotel in Azerbaijan that seemed to be constructed with dirty money, how a powerful Russian Banker met with Jared Kushner, revealed top secret declassified information with Sergei Kislev in a closed door meeting while bragging that the investigation against him was over, firing Comey, did a business deal to open a hotel in Toronto funded but a powerful Russian entrepreneur Alex Schnaider, requested Russia to hack the DNC to find the missing emails which then culminated in the Guccifer 2.0 hacker who might have Russian roots hacking the DNC, The fact that Mike Pence denies knowing anything, how Trump had sold a 100 million dollar house to a Russian fertilizer king during the housing crash, and how the fertilizer king showed up at a Trump Rally during his campaign at Concord North Carolina, how Devin Nunes has access to the white house and has business deals with Russian Miner corporations, says Russian investigations are all fake news, why Jason Chaffetz denied started an investigation into possible Russian Collusion and then happens to quit and go back to private life during the investigation, how Mary McCord the lead DOJ during the investigation decides to resign from her position and why Pam Bundy who was part of the Trump university scandal was appointed by Trump to head the investigation, the blaming of Flynn on Barack Obama, why Poland and British intelligence officers gave information regarding the hacking to Paul Ryan back in 2015 and did nothing with it, how Trump knew about Flynn's involvement with the Russians and hired him anyway and his constant attempts to poorly derail the investigation all together.
Something is going on.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on March 20, 2018, 04:38:28 pm
Does Trump not realize how guilty he's making himself look?
We're assuming a lot of thinking going on in the toupeed dome of the shitgibbon aren't we? Besides, this comes from the guy who bragged that he could shoot someone and not lose faith with his mindless horde!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 20, 2018, 07:57:31 pm
http://wgme.com/news/local/new-republican-candidate-speaks-out-about-controversial-tweet

Correction to that GOP own goal story from Maine: Leslie Gibson, who called one of the Parkland survivors a "skinhead lesbian" and then withdrew from his Maine state legislative race, had a Republican challenger, Thomas Martin, Jr. Martin will face Democratic candidate Erin Gilchrist, who filed after Gibson's comment, in the general election.

EDIT: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/politics/steve-mnuchin-chris-wallace-line-item-veto-congress/index.html

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggested that Congress could pass a rule to give the President a line-item veto. Y'know, that thing they did back in the Clinton years that the Supreme Court found to be entirely unconstitutional.

EDIT #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

The case in which a line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional.

EDIT #3: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/trump-loses-first-skirmish-in-suit-over-d-c-hotel-profits

A Maryland judge has allowed a lawsuit against Donald Trump alleging violations of the Emoluments Clause to proceed.

EDIT #4:

(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/alamosagop.png?itok=d2Zr71B7)

Messaging tip for the GOP: When Democrats have been accusing you for decades of hating poor people, don't put the phrase "Republicans hate poor people" in anything the public might have the remotest chance of seeing (ie anything, these days).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 03, 2018, 08:37:44 pm
This..... I..... well. I'll just let it speak for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxIUiW86x9w

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on April 04, 2018, 05:52:00 am
This..... I..... well. I'll just let it speak for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxIUiW86x9w

(http://i.imgur.com/AzsMhn2.jpg)

"He's finally lost it huh?"
"Yeah-he's gone!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 04, 2018, 10:16:15 am
"So I want to thank the White house historical association and all the people that work so hard with Melania and with everbody to, keep this incredible house, or building, or whatever you want to call it because there really is no name for it, it is special. And we keep it in tip top shape. We call it sometimes Tippy Top Shape. And it's a great great place."

Donald Trump talking like a lobotomy patient.



Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 04, 2018, 10:29:43 am
I don't know if he's going senile or regressing to the mental state of a four-year-old.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 04, 2018, 11:59:59 am
The rabbits face after he says Tippy Top Shape says it all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 04, 2018, 11:30:09 pm
The signs of dementia are becoming ever more evident as the days go by...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 05, 2018, 07:59:34 am
The rabbits face after he says Tippy Top Shape says it all.

I also love some of Melania's expressions.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 05, 2018, 09:11:18 pm
She's prolly playing the long con, hoping he dies before she does and she can get some of that sweet, sweet Donald Drumpf dosh.  Can't say that I blame her, or that the shitheel doesn't fucking deserve it, because he does.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 06, 2018, 11:24:35 am
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/381925-trump-asked-cia-official-why-drone-strike-didnt-also-kill-targets

CIA has to explain to Trump why they don't blow up a house and an entire family and instead chose to wait until the target was well outside to drop a bomb on their head.

...Which is still killing a person in a different country without a trial but at least CIA has more heart than Trump has. Trump was not impressed and wants more drones and kills ASAP.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 06, 2018, 02:34:23 pm
Well, he did say when campaigning that he thinks terrorists' families should be killed as warning examples. They are just brown people, it's not like they are real humans.

(This is assuming the target was a terrorist, of course, and ignoring all the other ethical issues involved in these strikes.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 07, 2018, 05:09:19 am
Yea, I remember that but forgot to add it to my post. Turns out that one of the few campaign promises that he tries to keep is ordering the US military to commit warcrimes. (which is another thing he said on tape. Someone pointed out that the soldiers might not be willing to murder families and civilians and Trump insisted that they will do it because he will tell them to do so.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on April 07, 2018, 05:14:43 am
I wonder if he would be willing to apply the same strategy to fighting domestic terrorism. If someone blows up a government building or shoots a bunch of black people in a church, just have the family members serve the same sentence as the terrorist.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 07, 2018, 08:13:38 am
The North-Korean tactic,  eh?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 07, 2018, 10:34:00 am
The North-Korean tactic,  eh?

He's already got an unofficial personality cult, so it's not too much of a stretch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on April 09, 2018, 07:59:10 pm
Things are gonna get hot in Washington.

In the latest comedy of terrors Trump blew his lawyer Cohen's claims in the Stormy Daniels matter into little smidgely bits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M8YYSTznKU

A smart man would have shut the fuck up. But they went and interviewed Donald Trump.

Probably as a result the FBI raided Cohen and seized documents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCsmgC0dh0w

Trump went on TV to say the raid inspired by the payment he knew nuttin' about was an attack on the country itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixjAHwRBd8w

Meanwhile US-Russia relations are on a knife edge as a result of the Syrian regime's latest use of poison gas. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/russia-us-syria-chemical-weapon-attack)

I'm afraid a large body of caca may be hurtling towards the ceiling fan, moments to impact 3,2...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 09, 2018, 09:22:09 pm
Trump then said a Raid on his Lawyers office is an attack on our country.
No Trump you're a fuck up and you did this to yourself. You really should listen to people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 09, 2018, 09:28:56 pm
I'd say that Trump thinks "L'état, c'est moi!" except that he'd actually have to be minimally knowledgeable to know that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 09, 2018, 10:05:07 pm
I'd say that Trump thinks "L'état, c'est moi!" except that he'd actually have to be minimally knowledgeable to know that.

And Louis XIV was actually successful and competent. I cringe to think of what Trump would be like with absolute power.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 10, 2018, 12:59:06 am
I'd say that Trump thinks "L'état, c'est moi!" except that he'd actually have to be minimally knowledgeable to know that.

And Louis XIV was actually successful and competent. I cringe to think of what Trump would be like with absolute power.

I'll keep saying it: Trump doesn't want to be a dictator, he wants to be a "divine right" king.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 10, 2018, 08:53:25 am
It makes sense; dictators all look like complete dorks, whereas kings wear tonnes of gaudy bullshit.  Wonder which one would appeal more to Donald "Goldify ALL The Things!" Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on April 13, 2018, 08:30:37 am
Much as Frum is a snivelling little neocon this still warmed the cockles of my black little heart!

(https://i.imgur.com/4d6g4cL.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 13, 2018, 09:23:20 pm
Great so with Bolton in charge of National Security Trump has now declared strikes on Syria possibly escalating us into a proxy war with Iran or Russia or both since this is not a simple good guy vs bad guy conflict.
I think he's doing it to distract from the investigation into his lawyer and things are digging even deeper into the shit pile that is Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 14, 2018, 03:21:19 pm
Its the latter.  He had a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad week so needed to blow off several million dollars worth of expensive military hardware.

Ironbite-Obama did it all the time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 14, 2018, 07:49:59 pm
Well, if we do go to war, Britain and France may be going with us (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/middleeast/trump-strikes-syria-attack.html).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on April 14, 2018, 10:14:33 pm
Russia now threatening "consequences"
http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-responds-us-attack-syria-actions-left-consequences/story?id=54464208
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 15, 2018, 01:17:45 am
Well great this is such a cluster fuck. There's so many hands in Syria there's no easy solution. Hopefully this doesn't lead us to world war 3.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 15, 2018, 02:32:42 am
Trump apparently coordinated with Russia about the attack before it happened, so the noise about Russia and consequences is just that - noise. I'd expect this place to be a bit, I dunno, smarter than going into everything with doomsaying.

TVTropes' On Topic Conversations got to that little bit.

Its very possible Trump and possibly Russia intended for this to be a distracting bit of theatre to deal with the Mueller probe.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 15, 2018, 02:37:46 am
http://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-loan-controversy-new-info-2018-4?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

Kushner is in deep trouble.

https://www.axios.com/russian-bots-increase-2195bf68-567c-4466-a705-17e69d4b6cad.html

And Russian's are itsy bitsy anxious...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 15, 2018, 03:49:02 pm
Trump apparently coordinated with Russia about the attack before it happened, so the noise about Russia and consequences is just that - noise. I'd expect this place to be a bit, I dunno, smarter than going into everything with doomsaying.

TVTropes' On Topic Conversations got to that little bit.

Its very possible Trump and possibly Russia intended for this to be a distracting bit of theatre to deal with the Mueller probe.

If that was the intentions, Trumps Twitter dump this morning failed to take advantage of it as he's right back on Comny and his book.

Ironbite-god I hope this nightmare is over soon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 16, 2018, 12:52:24 am
Trump: I am not a thuggish manbaby! WAAAAH WAAAAAAH WAAAAAAAH! Trump want Comey to be quiet-quiet!!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 16, 2018, 04:42:45 pm
So Cohan went to court today to answer for some charges and there, was ordered by the judge to disclose the third client that wants in on the process to go through the documents that had been previously seized last week.  Guys....

Its Sean Hannity. (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/hannity-michael-cohen-client)

Ironbite-words cannot express how joyful this makes me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 16, 2018, 05:19:18 pm
What does this mean exactly? I mean Lawyers have multiple clients don't they?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 16, 2018, 06:11:48 pm
Cohan's not a lawyer though.  He's a bag man.  A deal maker,  He's who you go to when you need to hush up a porn star on the eve of your dumbest/smartest career change.  It's also a back channel into the Trump Administration/Faux Noise.  It's also supremely unethical.

Ironbite-I doubt this'll do anything for Trump but might be the end of Sean Hannity's career.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 16, 2018, 06:14:52 pm
Yeah - Cohen is less a lawyer and more of a fixer. A guy you talk to in organized crime when you want to shut someone up, threaten them from talking, or give hush money, and possibly organize killings.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 16, 2018, 06:40:06 pm
But is there anything that he did for Hannity that would be so bad he would resign from Fox news?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 16, 2018, 06:45:40 pm
We don't know.  And honestly, if Cohen and Trump had just kept their mouths shut rather then go for this stupid farce, Hannity would've remained the silent client.  Now with his name in the news, people who are actual journalists are gonna go after him harder then ever.

Ironbite-and hell, we don't know what type of stuff was in Cohen's files that pertains to Hannity so strap in, this is a ride.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 16, 2018, 07:50:37 pm
Well, meanwhile, Trump's and Cohen's lawyers are trying to argue that the only people who can really judge what of what was seized in the raid on Cohen's home is protected by attorney-client privilege are Trump and Cohen respectively.

Pretty sure it doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 16, 2018, 08:11:17 pm
Right like if you have a Lawyer who is laundering money for a client and that Lawyer gets arrested I'm pretty sure the Lawyer has to tell the FBI or whomever who he's laundering money for.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on April 16, 2018, 08:52:02 pm
I can't believe Sean Hannity's real name is David Dennison.

Real talk, this is making me so excited. Keep the hits coming! This is better than any TV show!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on April 17, 2018, 12:51:09 am
I wonder what it is Hannity is hiding.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 17, 2018, 04:08:22 am
I wonder what it is Hannity is hiding.

Well, we already know that he was hiding that Cohen was his lawyer. Which by itself is bad because Hannity has been talking about news concerning Cohen without disclosing his connection to him. This is a severe ethical violation.

...But the fun part is that unless he was just being shady for the sake of being shady there must be something worse behind this.

Did Cohen pay off some mistresses or prostitutes to keep their mouths shut about Hannity? Well, that's a personal issue between Hannity and his wife and the least bad scenario for him.

Did Cohen act as a go-between for Trump and Hannity? That could be another ethical breach if Hannity has been doing PR work for Trump administration while getting paid to do so (while we've just been thinking that he defends Trump and spouts Set Rich conspiracies simply because he supports Trump) and maybe it's even illegal, not sure about the laws in USA concerning these kinds of matters.

All we know is that IF something illegal happened, the evidence is now in FBI hands and Hannity is in trouble. If on the other hand this was merely ethically questionable and not illegal then he could have avoided all of this by mentioning early on "BTW, Mr. Cohen is also MY lawyer, but now back to this story about how FBI is unlawfully harassing the president's lawyer."

It's just that it seems silly to me if the bigger scandal is that Hannity didn't reveal his connection while trying to discredit the investigation rather than what the investigation actually can uncover about him...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 24, 2018, 04:47:30 am
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/trump-uses-personal-cell-phone-can-call-outside-advisers-without-john-kelly-knowing-report/

Quote
CNN reported Monday that according to sources inside the Trump administration, the president is using his personal cell phone and not the White House switchboard because “he doesn’t want Kelly to know who he’s talking to.”

Early in Kelly’s tenure as chief of staff, it was common practice for him to either listen in on Trump’s calls using the White House phone or to check the printout of the president’s phone use. Amid reports of growing tensions between the two men, in which the president has aimed to circumvent his chief of staff, Kelly has been increasingly left out of the loop.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

I am certain that the same people who still want Clinton crucified for using a private Email server are equally angry at Trump doing something like this.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 24, 2018, 09:04:45 am
Now, Donnie, why would you be so paranoid?  I mean, come on, it ain't like you got anything to hide, now do ya?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 24, 2018, 03:43:12 pm
Kelley's gonna find out one way or the other.

Ironbite-the man isn't stupid.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 26, 2018, 03:11:13 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mike-pompeo-confirmed-secretary-of-state-senate-vote-1.4636716

Mike Pompeo, who thinks the Iran nuclear deal should be blown up (or at least "fixed") and thinks Edward Snowden should be killed, has been confirmed by the Senate to be US Secretary of State, 57-42.

He was advanced out of committee, 11-10, after Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who had harshly criticized him in hearings, voted to advance him.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00084

No Republican Senator voted against Pompeo (though Sen. McCain (R-AZ) did not vote). In addition, Democratic Sens. Donnelly (D-IN), Heitkamp (D-ND), Jones (D-AL), Manchin (D-WV), McCaskill (D-MO), and Nelson (D-FL), along with Independent Sen. King (I-ME), voted to confirm Pompeo.

His former deputy at the CIA, Gina Haspel, who may be facing EU-wide arrest if prosecutors in Germany receive a warrant, has been nominated as his replacement as CIA Director.

EDIT: Seen from a conservative nut on another forum as the entirety of his comment: "Good."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 26, 2018, 05:31:07 pm
Don't look too harshly at this.  Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did.  And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.

Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 26, 2018, 05:52:39 pm
Don't look too harshly at this.  Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did.  And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.

Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.

Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 26, 2018, 05:54:32 pm
Don't look too harshly at this.  Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did.  And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.

Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.

Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.

I wonder if skepticism of the polls is playing a part. Remember how many predicted a Clinton landslide?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 26, 2018, 06:22:06 pm
Don't look too harshly at this.  Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did.  And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.

Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.

Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.

I wonder if skepticism of the polls is playing a part. Remember how many predicted a Clinton landslide?

The results there were within the margin of error.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 26, 2018, 07:18:41 pm
Don't look too harshly at this.  Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did.  And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.

Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.

Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.

I wonder if skepticism of the polls is playing a part. Remember how many predicted a Clinton landslide?

The results there were within the margin of error.


This. FiveThirtyEight had Trump at a 25% chance of winning. That's the same percentage as rolling a D4 and coming up with a 1.

Trump supporters have a very predictable relationship with polls. Remember when the Rasmussen poll had Trump at 51% approval? Well, they were championing it as "proof" that Trump was actually popular, despite every other major poll having him at 45%, at best, with the FiveThirtyEight aggregate putting him at 40.1%. When a poll says something they like, then the poll is true. When a poll says something they don't like, well, let's just say that if I had a dollar for every time I saw a Trump supporter say something along the lines of "those same polls said Hillary was guaranteed to win," I could buy a video card in the current Bitcoin destroyed market.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on April 26, 2018, 08:28:12 pm
Don't look too harshly at this.  Most people are thinking he won't really last as long as Tillerson did.  And even if he does, a Democratic Congress will be the first to successfully impeach Trump and Peance has to fill his own cabinet.

Ironbite-also 5 of the 7 Democrats are living in Trump landslide states and are trying to limit campaign damage.

Except that Trump is sinking in popularity even in those states. Voting against his picks and campaigning on how Trump broke his promises (get out of war, drain the swamp) and you're holding him to those promises has, I think, a better chance of being successful than voting with Trump.

I wonder if skepticism of the polls is playing a part. Remember how many predicted a Clinton landslide?

The results there were within the margin of error.


This. FiveThirtyEight had Trump at a 25% chance of winning. That's the same percentage as rolling a D4 and coming up with a 1.

Trump supporters have a very predictable relationship with polls. Remember when the Rasmussen poll had Trump at 51% approval? Well, they were championing it as "proof" that Trump was actually popular, despite every other major poll having him at 45%, at best, with the FiveThirtyEight aggregate putting him at 40.1%. When a poll says something they like, then the poll is true. When a poll says something they don't like, well, let's just say that if I had a dollar for every time I saw a Trump supporter say something along the lines of "those same polls said Hillary was guaranteed to win," I could buy a video card in the current Bitcoin destroyed market.

And even a 51% approval rating is hardly worth bragging about. Certainly not enough to call somebody "popular."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 26, 2018, 08:28:19 pm
It ain't BitCoin destroying GPUs, anymore.  Now, its machine learning!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 02, 2018, 06:39:35 pm
I'm getting nervous about the mid terms. 538 has Trumps popularity going up. He's still only at 41 percent, but its been increasing at a steady pace since January.
Are people actually liking Trump now or are they just getting more desensitized to him being president? Like the initial shock is over?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 02, 2018, 07:16:13 pm
Bear in mind, the GOP's numbers are still abysmal - they're polling badly, we're polling great, and Trump's numbers have been hanging at around 41 or 40% consistently.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on May 04, 2018, 02:06:16 am
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991992302267785216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2018%2Fmay%2F03%2Ftrump-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-campaign-money&tfw_creator=smithinamerica&tfw_site=guardian

I. Am Not. My Lawyer. I. Wrote this!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 08, 2018, 01:56:56 pm
Why is Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal? Everyone from generals, to members of congress to other countries that are partnered in the deal are saying it's a bad idea to pull out of it, but I can't see why Trump wants to pull out of it so badly other than the fact that Obama did it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 08, 2018, 02:03:56 pm
Why is Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal? Everyone from generals, to members of congress to other countries that are partnered in the deal are saying it's a bad idea to pull out of it, but I can't see why Trump wants to pull out of it so badly other than the fact that Obama did it.

That's exactly why he's pulling out of it. Obama did it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 08, 2018, 02:18:18 pm
This fucking president is a nightmare how his approval ratings are so high is beyond me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 08, 2018, 03:23:22 pm
This fucking president is a nightmare how his approval ratings are so high is beyond me.

Because he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his base wouldn't abandon him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 08, 2018, 03:38:37 pm
That's about all he's got going for him right now.  His base.  A base that couldn't get a Republican voted in Alabama.

Ironbite-granted Roy Moore was a cock sucking pedophile but he was a Republican.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 08, 2018, 04:48:11 pm
That's about all he's got going for him right now.  His base.  A base that couldn't get a Republican voted in Alabama.

Ironbite-granted Roy Moore was a cock sucking pedophile but he was a Republican.

Luther Strange would almost certainly have beaten Doug Jones. Roy Moore was a special mix of awful.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 15, 2018, 04:41:32 pm
Anyone else surprised that the North Koreans are backing out of talks now due to South Korean and US military drills?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 15, 2018, 05:57:04 pm
Who even thought those should be going on is my question.

Ironbite-oh right.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on May 15, 2018, 09:42:08 pm
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/21/trump-vs-the-deep-state (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/21/trump-vs-the-deep-state)

Dear god, this is a read. Warning, very long article, but it basically goes into detail about how Trump and his administration is basically dismantling the whole government and replacing it all with people personally loyal to Trump. Lots of detail. The long and short of it is basically what we already know, that Trump is sidelining people who either disagreed with him or just don't agree with him enough and putting in their place people who are personally loyal to him and are willing to trumpet that loyalty, and how it's producing big problems. But it's still fascinating and a little shocking to actually read it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on May 16, 2018, 05:09:25 am
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/21/trump-vs-the-deep-state (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/21/trump-vs-the-deep-state)

Dear god, this is a read. Warning, very long article, but it basically goes into detail about how Trump and his administration is basically dismantling the whole government and replacing it all with people personally loyal to Trump. Lots of detail. The long and short of it is basically what we already know, that Trump is sidelining people who either disagreed with him or just don't agree with him enough and putting in their place people who are personally loyal to him and are willing to trumpet that loyalty, and how it's producing big problems. But it's still fascinating and a little shocking to actually read it.

Bloody hell... :o
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 16, 2018, 05:50:57 am
Much as I hate to be the Godwin guy, it does remind me of what was said in my history class;

"the job of any German officer or politician in the Third Reich was to take facts and occurrences, and make them align with Hitler's perspective."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 16, 2018, 08:57:36 am
And his supporters would accuse us of building an echo chambre.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 16, 2018, 06:19:25 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00096
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00097

The Senate has exercised its authority under the Congressional Review Act to look to overturn the FCC's decision to end net neutrality.

The vote was 52-47... in favour of overturning the FCC decision.

Every Democratic and Independent Senator voted for the motion. Additionally, three Republican Senators voted for the motion, Sens. Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), and Kennedy (LA). Sen. McCain (R-AZ) did not vote.

The motion now moves to the House. If it passes that chamber, it must be signed (or have no action taken on it) by Pres. Trump to overturn the FCC decision.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 16, 2018, 07:15:44 pm
While I highly applaud the Senate I don't see either the house or Trump accepting this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 16, 2018, 07:46:21 pm
While I highly applaud the Senate I don't see either the house or Trump accepting this.

I really hope the Dems make (or have made) this an election issue.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 16, 2018, 10:07:48 pm
Which was the whole point of the CRA.

Ironbite-they know it has no chance in the House but are doing it anyway.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 17, 2018, 01:51:19 am
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kremlin-used-nra-to-help-trump-in-2016-says-senate-intelligence-committee

Hmm...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on May 17, 2018, 02:15:10 am
While I highly applaud the Senate I don't see either the house or Trump accepting this.

I really hope the Dems make (or have made) this an election issue.

My states strong Democrat, my congresspeople all support NN. That's one of the good things about the politicians up here. But if I was in a swing state I'd be helping with voting out any republican siding with Ajit Pai and Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 17, 2018, 05:57:52 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00101

Gina Haspel, who ran a CIA black site at which prisoners were subjected to enhanced interrogationtortured, and then destroyed the tapes of said torture to cover up what was done, and who refused to say during her confirmation hearings in committee that she thought torture was wrong, has been confirmed as CIA Director, 54-45.

Sens. Flake (R-AZ) and Paul (R-KY) voted against her confirmation. Sens. Donnelly (D-IN), Heitkamp (D-ND), Manchin (D-WV), Nelson (D-FL), Shaheen (D-NH) and Warner (D-VA) voted to confirm her. Sen. McCain (R-AZ) did not vote. The vote was otherwise along party lines, with both independent Senators voting against.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 17, 2018, 06:17:00 pm
Oh Warner......why?

Ironbite-oh right you got an apology.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 17, 2018, 08:36:38 pm
Ironically, if German does issue a warrant for her arrest over war crimes, she will not even be able to visit some of the CIA blacksite torture prisons that she is tasked with overseeing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 17, 2018, 09:28:21 pm
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html

I know this doesn't have to do with Trump, and more the GOP. But the lengths that congressmen will go to protect the money they receive from Oil companies astounds me to the point where they will make shit up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 18, 2018, 02:14:31 am
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html

I know this doesn't have to do with Trump, and more the GOP. But the lengths that congressmen will go to protect the money they receive from Oil companies astounds me to the point where they will make shit up.

Amend the Constitution to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and Bellotti v. First National Bank. Wouldn't be the first time the US Constitution was amended to reverse the Supreme Court. (The 11th Amendment was added to overturn Chisholm v. Georgia.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 18, 2018, 08:50:00 am
That's actually the whole point of the Amendment process.  To overturn the Supreme Court decisions.  It's why the SCOTUS very rarely contradicts itself regardless of what laws are thrown at it.  Even if you throw a million anti-Roe vs. Wade laws at it, SCOTUS will refuse to even hear the cases because it doesn't contradict itself.

Ironbite-its why anti-abortion laws die so often.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on May 20, 2018, 05:20:19 am
That's actually the whole point of the Amendment process.  To overturn the Supreme Court decisions.  It's why the SCOTUS very rarely contradicts itself regardless of what laws are thrown at it.  Even if you throw a million anti-Roe vs. Wade laws at it, SCOTUS will refuse to even hear the cases because it doesn't contradict itself.

Ironbite-its why anti-abortion laws die so often.

We're so very lucky anti-abortion lawmakers are as stupid as they are, otherwise they would have learned by now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on May 20, 2018, 06:15:19 am
That's actually the whole point of the Amendment process.  To overturn the Supreme Court decisions.  It's why the SCOTUS very rarely contradicts itself regardless of what laws are thrown at it.  Even if you throw a million anti-Roe vs. Wade laws at it, SCOTUS will refuse to even hear the cases because it doesn't contradict itself.

Ironbite-its why anti-abortion laws die so often.

I've heard the Supreme Court can contradict itself and create a new interpretation but it only does it if the interpretation is old enough. If I recall right some people were worried around the election that Roe vs Wade is getting to the age where this might be possible.

... aand with some google-fu I confirmed this. Brown vs Board of Education created a new interpretation that the "separate but equal" racial segregation doctrine is unconstitutional. This directly overturned Plessy vs Ferguson that had created the doctrine.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 20, 2018, 12:36:52 pm
I'd have to look up the relevant cases but in the 1940s SCOTUS sometimes overturned itself within a few years or even months. For instance, they ruled that schools could compel students to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, rejecting a Free Exercise argument from a Jehovah's Witness... and a few years later reversed themselves on Free Expression grounds (which is actually stronger, because it means you don't need any sort of reason to refuse to stand for the Pledge or the anthem or salute the flag or whatever).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 20, 2018, 03:10:52 pm
I'm not gonna say that SCOTUS doesn't reverse itself on occasion but the argument has to be pretty hard.  Take for example the above example.  The original interpretation was on religious ground.  1940 was a very shaky time for religion.  Meanwhile expression was just coming into vogue and was the new sexiness so that got through.  Sadly, anti-abortion idiots keep trying the same old shit day in day out and it doesn't past the test. 

Oh so tomorrow, Trump's ordering DoJ to see if the FBI planted operatives in his campaign in order to....do Political Purposes.  So that's gonna be fun.

Ironbite-he's gone tin-pot on us.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on May 21, 2018, 01:37:42 am
Scientists study Trump Voters have confirmed that they are not motivated by economic issues but because they are afraid of white men losing their power in society.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/heres-actually-drives-trump-supporters-may-shock/

Also scientific studies find that water is wet and fire is hot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on May 21, 2018, 10:43:01 am
Scientists study Trump Voters have confirmed that they are not motivated by economic issues but because they are afraid of white men losing their power in society.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/heres-actually-drives-trump-supporters-may-shock/

Also scientific studies find that water is wet and fire is hot.

I'd like to take a look at this study.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 21, 2018, 02:25:26 pm
https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-attitudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 21, 2018, 02:48:45 pm
Lana: Let me see this study, so I can whitewash some racists!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 21, 2018, 06:46:57 pm
I linked The Dynamic Paragon of Reverse Anal to a fivethirtyeight article, citing a Harvard study I believe, that said the exact same thing. Lana ignored it for a month before saying "you will just alienate republican moderates by saying racism was a strong factor among people voting for Trump."

Reagan took that exact position toward South African apartheid. Reagan's policy only served to prolong apartheid, normalize it among the white moderates, and send a message to the world that America tacitly condoned such racism. Fuck your "what about the mawdawitts" argument.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on May 21, 2018, 07:16:26 pm
Lana: Let me see this study, so I can whitewash some racists!

I linked The Dynamic Paragon of Reverse Anal to a fivethirtyeight article, citing a Harvard study I believe, that said the exact same thing. Lana ignored it for a month before saying "you will just alienate republican moderates by saying racism was a strong factor among people voting for Trump."

Reagan took that exact position toward South African apartheid. Reagan's policy only served to prolong apartheid, normalize it among the white moderates, and send a message to the world that America tacitly condoned such racism. Fuck your "what about the mawdawitts" argument.

Quote from the study:

Quote
It is notable that many attitudes and attributes identified as possible explanations for Trump’s support among white working-class voters were not significant independent predictors. Gender, age, region, and religious affiliation were not significant demographic factors in the model. Views about gender roles and attitudes about race were also not significant.

(emphasis mine)

If you trust this study, which of course you shouldn't necessarily, being a racist has not been found to correlate with voting for Trump (among white working class voters).

(insert all necessary disclaimers that hasn't been found significant doesn't mean the effect doesn't exist only that the study couldn't find it, selecting for specifically white working class voters who might already be racist and disproportionately trump voters might swamp the effect, etc.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on May 21, 2018, 07:20:49 pm
How does that sit with this:

Quote
Fears about cultural displacement. White working-class voters who say they often feel like a stranger in their own land and who believe the U.S. needs protecting against foreign influence were 3.5 times more likely to favor Trump than those who did not share these concerns.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on May 21, 2018, 07:30:15 pm
How does that sit with this:

Quote
Fears about cultural displacement. White working-class voters who say they often feel like a stranger in their own land and who believe the U.S. needs protecting against foreign influence were 3.5 times more likely to favor Trump than those who did not share these concerns.

*shrug* Xenophobia and racism are connected but not identical.

Or racist xenophobes are more likely to admit to one than the other, who knows.

Or maybe the worry about "cultural displacement" is also capturing people who resent progressive culture more generally and miss the days when it was acceptable to be a homophobe in public?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on May 21, 2018, 09:06:33 pm
No one's worried about Trump directing the commerce department to fix the jobs situation for ZTE?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 21, 2018, 09:48:33 pm
No one's worried about Trump directing the commerce department to fix the jobs situation for ZTE?

I mean, yeah. ZTE is likely spying on Americans, and certainly is in violations of U.S. sanctions. However, Trump is gonna give into Chinese demands regarding ZTE because he's an idiot and doesn't realize that blows in a trade war can come from a great many places. He's scared that China will tariff the shit out American wheat, corn, soy, pork, and beef.* These products are grown in red states and Trump wants to protect "his people." The problem is that the man is short-sighted and impulsive; he will happily sabotage our national security because security threats are more attenuated than the immediate imposition of tariffs to American products. Hard to believe that this could likely have been avoided by simply not starting a trade war.

*American Agri-business is, quite frankly, amazing. I believe that we are top five in all of them, and top in Corn, Wheat, and Pork. When people say "America doesn't 'make' anything" tell them to frig off. And, of course, free trade is amazing for these products, which I must bring up vis-a-vis the pending Chino-American trade war.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on May 21, 2018, 10:14:17 pm
Do you think it related to trying to stop the Trade war or his own personal venality?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 21, 2018, 10:24:59 pm
Do you think it related to trying to stop the Trade war or his own personal venality?

I think he's so set on "winning" this trade war that he doesn't realize, or he's undervaluing, the attendant security risks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on May 21, 2018, 10:31:29 pm
Do you think it related to trying to stop the Trade war or his own personal venality?

I think he's so set on "winning" this trade war that he doesn't realize, or he's undervaluing, the attendant security risks.

So unrelated to the $500 million loan to his property in Jakarta?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 21, 2018, 10:39:00 pm
Do you think it related to trying to stop the Trade war or his own personal venality?

I think he's so set on "winning" this trade war that he doesn't realize, or he's undervaluing, the attendant security risks.

So unrelated to the $500 million loan to his property in Jakarta?

Well, I wasn't even aware of that. Seems par for course with this president.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on May 21, 2018, 10:40:42 pm
It does really seem rather dicey:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-zte-order-after-china-gave-millions-to-trump-organization-tied-project-2018-5?r=US&IR=T (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-zte-order-after-china-gave-millions-to-trump-organization-tied-project-2018-5?r=US&IR=T)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 22, 2018, 06:43:41 pm
He actually can't give ZTE a break at all.  That's in the hands of the House.

And they kinda gave the Orange Piss Pot the finger on that. (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/17/house-panel-backs-zte-sanctions-in-rebuke-of-trump-550140)

Ironbite-but this is quid pro quo and I don't think Trump knows how badly he fucked up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 22, 2018, 06:44:54 pm
Does he ever?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 22, 2018, 07:09:03 pm
Seen on why Republicans blocked Garland:

Quote
The Constitution says that the President may nominate anyone to the bench, but the nominee receives the appointment only with the "Advice and Consent of the Senate". The Senate advised the President to either nominate someone who shared Justice Scalia's political philosophy or wait until after the coming election. The President declined the advice, and so the Senate declined consent.

President Obama did nominate somebody to fill the seat. Republicans rejected the nominee by declining to take action on the nomination. The Senate has rejected nominees through inaction for two hundred years (http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2016/02/16/the-longest-confirmation-battle-in-history/).

The idea that the rule of law was "perverted" here is -- to put it in the most charitable possible terms -- legally absurd. The progressive reading of the Garland/Gorsuch saga completely erases the "advice and consent" clause from the Constitution. The Senate did its constitutional duty in refusing to approve the imprudent Garland nomination.

What really happened here is that the Republicans violated a perceived behavioral norm that judicial nominees with good credentials ought to be approved by the Senate regardless of ideology. These norms are not legally binding, but it may be prudent to follow them. However, Republicans (correctly) believe that the Democrats violated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination) that norm in 1988, trampled it half to death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies) from 2002-2005, and finally threw it in the garbage (http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2013/11/22/no-republicans-have-not-blocked-82-obama-nominees/) in 2014. They retaliated in kind. The Gorsuch appointment settles a debt that was created by Teddy Kennedy when he walked out on the Senate floor to give his "Robert Bork's America" speech.  It wasn't pretty, but I don't see that Republicans had any viable choice -- a political party can't unilaterally norms the opposite party has discarded. 

Nor, for that matter, do I think it was particularly prudent to follow that particular norm in the first place. Mere politesse should give way when the fate of the country is at stake, and the Democrats figured that out 28 years before the Republicans. The rule of law must be upheld; the rule of unwritten 1960s-era senatorial etiquette may be discarded.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 22, 2018, 07:33:45 pm
So they stole a seat and it lead to stripping away of employee's rights.

Ironbite-that make that right?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 22, 2018, 07:38:02 pm
So they stole a seat and it lead to stripping away of employee's rights.

Ironbite-that make that right?

Oh, the poster in question thinks the law at issue in the recent case should be changed, but he also thinks that because there was no conflict with the Constitution the Court had no grounds to overturn the law.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 22, 2018, 09:05:24 pm
Alright if that's how it is, I don't want to fucking hear them bitching when the Dems do it to them as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 22, 2018, 09:21:38 pm
Alright if that's how it is, I don't want to fucking hear them bitching when the Dems do it to them as well.

Don't worry, they will. After all, the Democrats bitched over Garland.

Where I really don't want to hear them bitching is if the Democrats push through health insurance reform with even less process than the Republicans used to try to repeal the ACA (until they actually did eviscerate it in their tax-increase/reparations/fuck-blue-states bill). Someone remind me: how many hearings were held on the ACA?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 23, 2018, 12:30:04 am
Alright if that's how it is, I don't want to fucking hear them bitching when the Dems do it to them as well.

Don't worry, they will. After all, the Democrats bitched over Garland.

Where I really don't want to hear them bitching is if the Democrats push through health insurance reform with even less process than the Republicans used to try to repeal the ACA (until they actually did eviscerate it in their tax-increase/reparations/fuck-blue-states bill). Someone remind me: how many hearings were held on the ACA?

 Democrats won't touch healthcare for 50 years following the results of this past decade. Republicans were whipped into a frenzy because Obama was gonna kill grandma via death panels. Meanwhile, democrats bitched and didn't vote because "it wasn't good enough." Republicans won the House, Senate, state governorships, state legislatures, and put that backfired wish that Rush Limbaugh made on a cursed monkey's paw in the White House.

Democrats best bet is tax reform, giving actual breaks to the middle class and working class, while closing loopholes on the wealthy, and undoing the damage from Trump's tax bill. Of course, I fully anticipate the same result from tax reform that we got from the ACA: Democrats lose because they demand perfection, republicans win because their voters vote republican no matter what.

The pendulum will of course swing left in the next few years, but the Overton Window has only moved to the right under President Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on May 23, 2018, 11:06:42 pm
In other news, a judge ruled that Trump can't block people on Twitter:

http://thehill.com/regulation/389021-judge-rules-trump-cant-block-users-on-twitter (http://thehill.com/regulation/389021-judge-rules-trump-cant-block-users-on-twitter)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 24, 2018, 10:13:52 am
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/politics/trump-north-korea/index.html Also in other news it seems that Trump has cancelled his meeting with Kim Jun Un. While I wish there was a way to bring peace to the Korean peninsula. It brings a smile to my face knowing all of those right wing idiots that jumped at the gun and said Trump should get the noble peace prize for unifying Korea and denuclearizing them are probably standing around scratching their heads.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 24, 2018, 11:40:22 am
Hey I know this brings a smile back to your face but here's the rub.  It means we could go back to war with North Korea, nuke the planet, and end all life as we know it.  Also there's a bunch of western journalists who are in North Korea to cover them dismantling the mountain they were using for nuke tests that Trump may have just left in a lurch.

Ironbite-so yeah.....he just made a huge stupid.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 24, 2018, 12:25:02 pm
I wasn't aware of the reporters in the country at the moment. Yeah that is really really stupid. I hope they can leave the country with no problem.
I don't trust North Korea. I don't think they are dismantling their nuclear program. They're probably just going to move their test site to somewhere else.
As for going back to war with North Korea, I never thought we were never out of war with North Korea so I'm assuming things are just going to go on as they were.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on May 27, 2018, 09:16:36 am
Quote
...let us be clear-eyed and tough-minded in assessing what’s happened to our country — and why. How else can we salvage it from the likes of “A Trumper” who says Trump was needed to “get things back in order” after the “terrible job” done by President Obama?

He wrote: “We’re sick of paying welfare to so many of your brothers who don’t know what work and integrity mean. I hope you keep writing these articles and reminding my White Christian brothers that we did the right thing and we need to re elect Trump.”
I have two words for those progressives who think it’s possible to “reason” with that:

You first. (https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trump-supporters-speak/)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on May 27, 2018, 07:31:06 pm
Am I missing something, or is he saying it's okay to generalize 60 million people based on a relative handful of emails to one columnist?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 28, 2018, 01:19:49 am
No, you are not getting the point. That is not a handful of emails, it's thousands of emails to one columnist and we have already seen that there are millions of messages like that going to people who the Trump-fans see as enemies.

These people are the loudest Trump supporters and more than a tiny minority. The others either have their heads stuck up their assess or fully accept them as the representatives of their cause because there's no way otherwise to miss all this hate they spew.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on May 29, 2018, 01:12:26 am
No, you are not getting the point. That is not a handful of emails, it's thousands of emails to one columnist and we have already seen that there are millions of messages like that going to people who the Trump-fans see as enemies.

The columnist said "hundreds", not thousands:

Quote
I have, however, heard from hundreds like “Matthew,” who worries about “immigrants” and “Gerald,” who thinks people of color have an “alliance” against him.

(emphasis added)

That is not a small difference. It's an entire order of magnitude. Even if we take Mr. Pitts at his word and assume that all of the emails he talks about are what he claims them to be, and that each one was sent by a different Trump supporter, they still represent a very small portion of all Trump voters, less than 0.1%. Moreover, the sampling method (unrequested emails sent to one columnist) is woefully inadequate, or at least it seems that way to me.

These people are the loudest Trump supporters and more than a tiny minority. The others either have their heads stuck up their assess or fully accept them as the representatives of their cause because there's no way otherwise to miss all this hate they spew.

Maybe they're the loudest because the media focuses on them the most. You don't even have to believe the media is trying to smear Trump supporters to consider the possibility. Focusing on angry, belligerent extremists is good for ratings.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 29, 2018, 02:06:15 am
Kid. Have you ever been on the internet? The media is not exaggerating the hate from Trump supporters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on May 29, 2018, 02:20:05 am
While Lana is not prepared to accept this rather anecdotal exposition our g.i.r.l. is also not prepared to accept the statistical studies either.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on May 29, 2018, 10:34:49 am
Kid. Have you ever been on the internet? The media is not exaggerating the hate from Trump supporters.

I have. And I've talked to quite a few Trump supporters. How many have you talked to?

While Lana is not prepared to accept this rather anecdotal exposition our g.i.r.l. is also not prepared to accept the statistical studies either.

Unlike you, who accepted the statistical study that said most Trump supporters (or at least white working-class ones) aren't racist.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on May 29, 2018, 05:53:45 pm
And another thread devolving into Lana tirelessly defending the right wing while accusing anyone sick of their shit of intolerance to the poor right wingers.

Almost feels like a pattern.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 29, 2018, 06:54:21 pm
Episode VI: Return of the Liberals.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 30, 2018, 12:27:44 am
That elderly fuck does not know when to quit. His son is quite the vile racist, his organization is coming apart at the seams...and he's still hungry for what is "owed".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on May 30, 2018, 03:06:26 am
I'd love to see him actually win in 2020. Not that pretty much anything the democrats could throw out there wouldn't be a vast improvement over Trump, but it'd be really cool to see him defeated by the one guy who isn't gargling lobbyist cock.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 30, 2018, 09:31:53 pm
I really hope he doesn't run again. I may have supported him during the 2016 primaries, but can't we get some younger blood in there? I can't imagine that the Democrats can't put someone against Trump that isn't as old as the dinosaurs. It doesn't help matters that he was never popular among minority voters. He would be more likely to get the black vote than Trump, but that's not saying much.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 30, 2018, 09:54:30 pm
I really hope he doesn't run again. I may have supported him during the 2016 primaries, but can't we get some younger blood in there? I can't imagine that the Democrats can't put someone against Trump that isn't as old as the dinosaurs. It doesn't help matters that he was never popular among minority voters. He would be more likely to get the black vote than Trump, but that's not saying much.

No, Sanders would easily win and has decent name recognition to make it through both narrow and wide Democratic fields. Demographically, he would probably get 45-55% in a two-to-three-person race due to strong support in white, Midwest Caucus-states. It also helps that his Millennial base could amount to a support-floor of 30% in a six-to-ten-person race.

Trump would also lose because Trump is a wanker who can't get the black vote because he's a wanker. Like seriously, African-Americans would support Bernie. African-Americans favored Obama in 2008 and Hillary in 2016; they're not wankers. And, of course, Bernie wouldn't have to deal with that pesky "Bernie or Bust" attitude that we're still feeling the hangover from.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 30, 2018, 10:19:21 pm
I really hope he doesn't run again. I may have supported him during the 2016 primaries, but can't we get some younger blood in there? I can't imagine that the Democrats can't put someone against Trump that isn't as old as the dinosaurs. It doesn't help matters that he was never popular among minority voters. He would be more likely to get the black vote than Trump, but that's not saying much.

To be honest, I would rather see someone like Tulsi Gabbard run, but Sanders has massive name recognition now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 31, 2018, 01:45:49 am
Sanders has the same issue that Hillary has. There's already negative PR campaign against him. If he chooses to run the GOP (and foreign influence) can easily build up their anti-Sanders message on top of the old stuff.

...Which is made worse by the same forces helping Sanders win the primary because he is the most "destructive" candidate for the Democrats while it is also questionable if he can win against a GOP candidate.

Also, he really is old, you guys are better off finding a younger candidate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 31, 2018, 09:32:39 am
Sanders has the same issue that Hillary has. There's already negative PR campaign against him. If he chooses to run the GOP (and foreign influence) can easily build up their anti-Sanders message on top of the old stuff.

...Which is made worse by the same forces helping Sanders win the primary because he is the most "destructive" candidate for the Democrats while it is also questionable if he can win against a GOP candidate.

Also, he really is old, you guys are better off finding a younger candidate.

I absolutely think there are better candidates, but if I had to make a bet, this is Bernie's to lose.

But, barring an act of god, he won't lose.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on May 31, 2018, 10:01:49 am
And Trump is pardoning (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/trump-dinesh-dsouza-pardon/index.html) felon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza#Election_campaign_finance_conviction) Dinesh D'Souza (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza).

The list is now Joe Arpaio, Scooter Libby, and Dinesh D'Souza. In essence, you break the law for conservative causes, and you'll likely get a pardon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 31, 2018, 10:04:36 am
Don't miss what is important. Trump promised to have a meeting with Kim and then had a meeting with Kim Kardassian. Mission accomplished. MAGA. Take that commies. Woo. /deadpan voice
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 31, 2018, 10:29:21 am
And Trump is pardoning (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/trump-dinesh-dsouza-pardon/index.html) felon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza#Election_campaign_finance_conviction) Dinesh D'Souza (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza).

The list is now Joe Arpaio, Scooter Libby, and Dinesh D'Souza. In essence, you break the law for conservative causes, and you'll likely get a pardon.

Don't forget Jack Johnson.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on June 02, 2018, 12:28:43 am
D'souza's movies are only good for riffing and he's a snake oil salesman. What's next for him? An official propaganda minister position?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 02, 2018, 06:59:48 am
D'souza's movies are only good for riffing and he's a snake oil salesman. What's next for him? An official propaganda minister position?

You know dictators are never so obvious. The U.S.S.R. called their propaganda minister the Pravda (meaning "Truth") and Goebbels position, while mentioning propaganda, did so in a time when the word simply meant "information" before negative connotations.

D'Souza would take a more subtle name, like Fake News Watch Dog or The Truth Decider.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 05, 2018, 11:57:53 am
Regardless, Trump's made it very clear that he considers his political allies above the law.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 10, 2018, 12:36:27 am
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/09/politics/mccain-statement-trade/index.html

McCain to allies: 'Americans stand with you, even if our president doesn't'

...Is a nice headline but it is not really based on reality. Trump is knowingly and intentionally pissing off all of USA's allies and friends and has shown to be untrustworthy. He signed a deal and then broke it immediately! How can you trust a nation when the president can't keep his word for 24 hours?

And you can't really claim that the other politicians in USA would still be trustworthy when they still support the president fully. Trump has a majority and despite McCain's claim the GOP is refusing to go against Trump which really does leave Trump in charge of what USA does WHICH MAKES THE COUNTRY UNRELIABLE TO ALLIES!

You're going to have to prove that Trump-lackeys have no majority at least to prove that USA would at least lift a finger to help her friends in need. Currently there is no guarantee of that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 10, 2018, 12:35:15 pm
Well, it is McCain. He made his reputation on meaningless platitudes, so it's no surprise that he gives one in this case
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 13, 2018, 01:22:41 pm
...Aaand Cohen is co-operating with the prosecutors: https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/trumps-personal-lawyer-michael-cohen-will-cooperate-federal-prosecutors-report/

Is this what he meant when he said that "attorney lawyer privilege is dead?" *giggle*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 13, 2018, 04:38:19 pm
The bag man flipped guys.

Ironbite-the Trumps' worst nightmare just came true.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 15, 2018, 11:00:45 am
Did not see this coming but now that it has been mentioned I can totally see him do it:

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/trump-expected-withdraw-us-un-human-rights-council-report/

Meanwhile Norway is asking for more US military in their country and Russia is threatening them over it. I don't understand how Norway still thinks that USA is trustworthy but I understand their concern.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 15, 2018, 01:05:08 pm
Fox & Friends did a live show on the White House lawn, so Donald Trump went out to speak with them.

Quote
Yeah, I would have [Kim Jong-un]. Yeah, I think it's something that could happen, yeah. Hey, he's the head of a county, and I mean he is the strong head. Don't let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 15, 2018, 02:32:59 pm
Not even hiding it.

Ironbite-and Hilary would've done the same damn thing right?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 15, 2018, 03:38:39 pm
Not even hiding it.

Ironbite-and Hilary would've done the same damn thing right?

Are you addressing me or the MAGA crowd?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 15, 2018, 04:49:50 pm
TAKE A FUCKING GUESS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on June 15, 2018, 05:55:41 pm
TAKE A FUCKING GUESS!

Wow, what crawled up your ass and died?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 16, 2018, 02:49:51 pm
I think people aren't paying enough attention to USA possibly LEAVING THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL!

Am I the one taking crazy pills or the rest of the world? Why hasn't Trump been tackled to the ground and carried out of the White House (or Mar a Lago as the case may be) already? His successor is going to spend years just fixing the mistakes this one president has managed to do.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 16, 2018, 02:51:27 pm
The UN human rights council is a joke anyway.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on June 17, 2018, 03:34:52 am
Well Fox is basically the republican party propaganda wing. I don't think Hillary would be so blatant if someone in the media she liked was on the lawn. I'd imagine it would be more likely they'd beg her to let them in but she'd be too busy screwing over the poor to deal with any of them.

And as for the other topic I'm not shocked. Trump wants to pull out of pretty much everything vaguely international because to him it means AMerica isn't number 1. It's total bs but par for the course with him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 17, 2018, 04:01:24 am
I don't think Trump even wants necessarily to pull out of everything international. He wants to pull out of everything Obama did.

The Paris climate accord was one of Obama's best accomplishments (even if it was too little, too late). So Trump withdraws from it.

The Iran nuclear deal was one of Obama's best accomplishments. So Trump withdraws from it, and then tries to claim that the deal he's made with NK is good, even though it's probably going to be something along the same lines as the Iran deal, only weaker.

The ACA was Obama's signature domestic policy accomplishment (never mind that it was a complete turd compared to what every developed country has). So Trump starts attacking it as he can through executive orders, and Congressional Republicans use the fact that Roberts upheld the mandate under the taxation clause rather than the commerce clause to repeal the penalty... which now has states suing over the constitutionality of the mandate now that there's no penalty (so it can no longer be a tax) and trying to get the whole thing invalidated with the support of the US Department of Justice.

Trump has two guiding "philosophies": be a racist, sexist ass, and undo everything Obama did.

And he basically thinks he's a king, which is why he hates leaders like Merkel, Macron, and Trudeau, because they actually respect democracy and the notion that the voters could turf them at the next election. Trump just wants to be absolute-monarch-for-life and thinks anyone who isn't is weak. It's why he likes Putin, Kim, and Xi so much--they're strong because they've found ways to be in power perpetually.

EDIT: For another example, look at the TPP. Obama was for it. Trump railed against it on the campaign trail (which may well have swung enough votes in the rust belt toward him). When Trump gets into office he withdraws from the TPP. But he was never really actually opposed to it, because a) now that NAFTA is being renegotiated some of the most atrocious parts of TPP are getting in there--but that's a Trump "accomplishment" and b) now that the other parties to the TPP have reworked it to account for the US not being in the deal Trump suddenly wants back in since it's no longer Obama's TPP.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 17, 2018, 06:05:10 pm
I think it's absolutely disgusting that the Trump administration has put a policy in order that separates parents from their children at the border.  Then goes on to say how they don't like that policy but they can't do anything about it because it was a law made by the democrats which is a flat out lie. Because the population is dumb enough to believe that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 17, 2018, 07:31:33 pm
I think it's absolutely disgusting that the Trump administration has put a policy in order that separates parents from their children at the border.  Then goes on to say how they don't like that policy but they can't do anything about it because it was a law made by the democrats which is a flat out lie. Because the population is dumb enough to believe that.

Is this lie so shameless that the non-Fox News press point it out when reporting the story? On the clip I've seen there is at least one reporter shouting in the background calling out the lie.

I think the main goal of this is to give those in the Republican base who might feel bad about the child abuse an excuse to ignore the issue. They naturally buy it willingly and scream "fake news!" to anyone who tries to break this comforting piece of fiction.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 18, 2018, 12:47:35 pm
What's pissing me off though is that if the Trump administration recognizes this as inhumane and want to point fingers at democrats and say it was "there law" then why are they doing nothing to stop it?
It's because it's the Trump administrations policies and Jeff Session's zero tolerance stance that is creating this, and they have no intention to back down from it. It's why the DHS secretary came out today and said were not apologizing for this cruel act, and want to leave it up to Congress to change the laws, as if to say stop us if you dare.

I really hope the majority of Americans are smart enough to see through this bullshit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 18, 2018, 03:37:52 pm
DHS Secretary didn't just come out and say they weren't apologizing for the policy.  She came out and said there was no policy at all.

Ironbite-a very "these are not the children you're looking for" moment.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 18, 2018, 07:32:47 pm
Well, I can see the ads already;

"Republican Senator X Y made excuses for and abetted Donald Trump in the heinous crime of separating immigrant families and interning their children. Do not support this man."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 18, 2018, 07:47:08 pm
That's basically what the GOP is doing right now.  And the thing is....it'd be so simple to just say no to this dick bag and save their seats.

Ironbite-they don't want to do that for some reason.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 18, 2018, 08:08:50 pm
That's basically what the GOP is doing right now.  And the thing is....it'd be so simple to just say no to this dick bag and save their seats.

Ironbite-they don't want to do that for some reason.

Mark Sanford.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 19, 2018, 03:43:16 am
So, apparently those thousands of children that US authorities have taken from their parents and locked up in "tent cities" or cages are just child actors hired by the Democrats.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392774-ann-coulter-calls-immigrant-children-child-actors

I bet you didn't think of that, did you?

Man, those Democrats must have spent a lot of money on this. Hiring thousands of kids who are crisis actors, hiring thousands of people to pretend to be ICE employees, bribing Republicans to defend this hoax even though it is all just made up by the Democrats... What a convoluted plot this turned out to be...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on June 19, 2018, 05:45:11 am
Wow Ann Coulter is just so foul.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 19, 2018, 03:12:24 pm
CHILD ACTORS!  THAT BABY YOU SEE CLINGING TO HER MOTHER!?  ACTOR!  ACTOR!

Ironbite-ACTOR!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on June 19, 2018, 04:16:26 pm
Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 19, 2018, 05:30:51 pm
Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.

Seriously?

If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on June 19, 2018, 05:46:08 pm
WORLD WAR ONE NEVER HAPPENED!  THEY WERE ALL A BUNCH OF ACTORS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on June 19, 2018, 06:11:38 pm
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!

Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.

Seriously?

If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?

Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 19, 2018, 08:41:12 pm
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!

Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.

Seriously?

If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?

Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?

Oh, you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 19, 2018, 09:34:44 pm
I always thought she looked like a horse. Does that make me Equinosogynistic?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on June 20, 2018, 05:09:03 am
She looks like the worst creature of all. A conservative Republican.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 20, 2018, 06:02:37 am
...And Trump saw Coulter on TV and is now blindly repeating her comment.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/trump-suggests-immigrant-kids-hes-holding-hostage-crisis-actors/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on June 20, 2018, 11:36:05 am
...And Trump saw Coulter on TV and is now blindly repeating her comment.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/trump-suggests-immigrant-kids-hes-holding-hostage-crisis-actors/

"Mueller should be investigating this! ...Instead of me."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 20, 2018, 03:34:13 pm
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!

Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.

Seriously?

If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?

Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?

Yeah there's no, absolutely no, pardoning that.  Just no.

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!  The Orange Piss Pot has decided to sign an EO keeping the families together.  In concentration camps.  After a judge told Obama he couldn't do that.  At all.

Ironbite-YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 20, 2018, 04:41:39 pm
But I thought he had no power at all I thought it was all the democrats fault and that they had to change the laws?
I thought the children were paid actors?
I thought nothing was actually happening at all and it was all fake news?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 20, 2018, 05:56:51 pm
https://twitter.com/passantino/status/1009220051172495361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-773412632594637281.ampproject.net%2F1529449959701%2Fframe.html

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
I mean, look, I read today about a ten-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who was taken from her mother and put in a cage--

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
Womp, womp.

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
--I read about a--did you say "Womp womp" to a ten-year-old with Down Syndrome being taken from her mother and--

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
What I said is you can pick anything you want to but the bottom line--

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
How dare you. How dare you!

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
--is very clear: when you cross the border illegally--

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
How absolutely dare you, sir!

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
--you have given up the right--

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
How dare you!

When your reaction to a ten-year-old with Down Syndrome being separated from her mother is "Womp womp" I can only conclude that you are an immoral rules-lawyering piece-of-shit cretin who qualifies as a human being only on physiological grounds.

And said immoral rules-lawyering piece-of-shit barely-human cretin was Trump's campaign manager at one point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 20, 2018, 06:14:50 pm
Womp Womp.

Ironbite-that's the sound bite that'll bite Trump right in his taint.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 20, 2018, 06:39:11 pm
https://twitter.com/passantino/status/1009220051172495361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-773412632594637281.ampproject.net%2F1529449959701%2Fframe.html

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
I mean, look, I read today about a ten-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who was taken from her mother and put in a cage--

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
Womp, womp.

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
--I read about a--did you say "Womp womp" to a ten-year-old with Down Syndrome being taken from her mother and--

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
What I said is you can pick anything you want to but the bottom line--

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
How dare you. How dare you!

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
--is very clear: when you cross the border illegally--

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
How absolutely dare you, sir!

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
--you have given up the right--

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
How dare you!

When your reaction to a ten-year-old with Down Syndrome being separated from her mother is "Womp womp" I can only conclude that you are an immoral rules-lawyering piece-of-shit cretin who qualifies as a human being only on physiological grounds.

And said immoral rules-lawyering piece-of-shit barely-human cretin was Trump's campaign manager at one point.

1. Lawyers are excellent people. Nascar drivers on the other hand...
2. I'm pleasantly surprised that you agreed with Zac Petkanas in this. Zac sweepingly shut-down the debate about whether this was good policy or even good morals to take the high-ground and condemn Lewandowski ("How dare you"). I would figure that you would argue that Zac should have engaged in dialogue with Mr. Lewandowski to explain to the latter the error of his ways.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 20, 2018, 06:53:03 pm
There's a point at which someone is so utterly evil that it is not worth trying to communicate with them.

EDIT: Also, Petkanas does go beyond just repeating "How dare you" later on.

EDIT #2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrt7q6QKF5o

(Note: Lewandowki and Petkanas are talking over each other.)

Quote from: Corey Lewandowski
--rights of this country. We are a country with borders, we are a country of laws. And when you choose to cross this country illegally, your parents can understand this, they understand something very clearly: when you cross the border illegally, when you commit a crime, you are taken away from your family and that's how this country works. You go to any country in the world--

Quote from: Zac Petkanas
We have infants that are being taken from their mothers. We have infants that are being stolen from their mothers and put into cages, and you go "Womp womp"? This just exemplifies... How dare you, sir. How dare you. She has Down Syndrome and she was taken from her mother. How--

The moderator was trying to cut in, as well.

Quote
Nobody can hear when you both talk, so... All right, Zac. Hold on, Corey. Let's get Zac--
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 21, 2018, 01:46:53 am
Guess who saw another chance to be a horrible person?

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/america-died-ann-coulter-cries-bitter-tears-report-trump-will-end-baby-jail-policy/

This is all a contest for Coulter and she is furious that "the left" got something that they wanted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on June 21, 2018, 03:53:18 am
"America is dead because children won't be separated from their parents" - a family values Republican
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 21, 2018, 07:53:31 am
Oh Coulter....you are just dangling from the edge of the abyss and instead of pulling yourself up, you're planning on which spot you're gonna land on.

Ironbite-infants being actors you heinous bitch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on June 21, 2018, 03:17:27 pm
If she wasn't a hateful creep I'd almost feel sorry for Ms. Coulter.  The kind of hateful bullshit she spouted when she first burst into the scene twenty or so years ago was shocking and attention grabbing then, but in the age of Trump people (chief among them Trump itself) saying stuff like that is Tuesday.  So to get some attention, she has to amp the hateful creep comments up to even more absurd levels to stand out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 22, 2018, 04:33:35 am
Good news and bad news.

Bad News:

A manager in one of Trump's concentration camps who was in charge of children had previously been fired from his job due to possession of child pornography.

Good News:

Though he lost his job he was not found guilty. The charges had been dropped because the statute of limitations ran out before he made it to court.


...Oh wait.

https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/man-arrested-for-possessing-child-pornography-hired-to-manage-children-at-migrant-detention-center/

Quote
    Ernesto Padron is a former Border Patrol agent who was forced to resign from the agency in 2010 after being charged with possession of child pornography, which is a second-degree felony. Padron’s prosecution dragged on and the charges were only dismissed years later due to a massive case backlog which resulted in the statute of limitations being allowed to expire, according to the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office...

    ...Padron’s child pornography charges were “eventually” discovered by higher-ups and he was immediately suspended from his position. Padron was later axed entirely due to mass-layoffs in May 2017. Prior to his suspension and eventual firing, Padron worked at Southwest Key’s Casa Padre detention center as a case manager for unaccompanied immigrant children...

    ...It is presently unclear how long Padron was employed by Southwest Key before his suspension, but according to Texas Monthly, he was still employed and working there as of last year...

    ...According to Wednesday’s report, state regulators have repeatedly sanctioned Southwest Key for failing to properly vet their employees at child detention centers across the Lone Star State...

I know that there's this "innocent until proven guilty" thingy but this still looks bad. Also bad is the fact that the concentration camp wasn't aware of the charges against the guy because they aren't doing proper background checks on people who are in charge of imprisoned children.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 22, 2018, 10:04:26 am
Background checks for something that was designed to just enrich the Orange Piss Pot's pockets?  ARE YOU MAD!?

Ironbite-I know I am but are you?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on June 22, 2018, 07:10:17 pm
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!

Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.

Seriously?

If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?

Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?

Saying that a cis woman "looks mannish" as a way to insult her is transmisogynistic. You know who else is a woman who "looks mannish"? Me. Because, y'know, that extended period where I had lots of testosterone in my bloodstream had side effects. I kind of object to my appearance being used as an insult, for some reason.

Beyond that, that specific phrase has a history of being used to imply Ann Coulter "is really a man". Not because people believed it, of course, but as a reflection of the idea that being a trans woman is shameful and disgusting and so it is a convenient attack on someone you don't like.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 22, 2018, 07:34:33 pm
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!

Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.

Seriously?

If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?

Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?

Saying that a cis woman "looks mannish" as a way to insult her is transmisogynistic. You know who else is a woman who "looks mannish"? Me. Because, y'know, that extended period where I had lots of testosterone in my bloodstream had side effects. I kind of object to my appearance being used as an insult, for some reason.

Beyond that, that specific phrase has a history of being used to imply Ann Coulter "is really a man". Not because people believed it, of course, but as a reflection of the idea that being a trans woman is shameful and disgusting and so it is a convenient attack on someone you don't like.

Pretty much. It mind-boggles me that Lana, a trans-woman, does not understand that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 22, 2018, 08:22:10 pm
HAH!

Ironbite-it's funny because Lana is Dynamic Paragon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on June 22, 2018, 08:49:38 pm
THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!

Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.

Seriously?

If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?

Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?

Saying that a cis woman "looks mannish" as a way to insult her is transmisogynistic. You know who else is a woman who "looks mannish"? Me. Because, y'know, that extended period where I had lots of testosterone in my bloodstream had side effects. I kind of object to my appearance being used as an insult, for some reason.

Beyond that, that specific phrase has a history of being used to imply Ann Coulter "is really a man". Not because people believed it, of course, but as a reflection of the idea that being a trans woman is shameful and disgusting and so it is a convenient attack on someone you don't like.

OK, I get it now. Thank you for explaining it to me. I'm sorry I offended you, and I won't use that kind of language again.

THERE WAS NO TITANIC! IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY HOLLYWOOD TO SELL MOVIES!

Wow, attacking children to promote her agenda? That's low even for Mann Coulter.

Seriously?

If you're going to insult people, can you do so in a way that isn't dripping with casual transmisogyny?

Pardon my ignorance, but how is saying that a cis woman looks mannish transmisogynistic?

Saying that a cis woman "looks mannish" as a way to insult her is transmisogynistic. You know who else is a woman who "looks mannish"? Me. Because, y'know, that extended period where I had lots of testosterone in my bloodstream had side effects. I kind of object to my appearance being used as an insult, for some reason.

Beyond that, that specific phrase has a history of being used to imply Ann Coulter "is really a man". Not because people believed it, of course, but as a reflection of the idea that being a trans woman is shameful and disgusting and so it is a convenient attack on someone you don't like.

Pretty much. It mind-boggles me that Lana, a trans-woman, does not understand that.

When did I ever say I was trans? In fact, I specifically said I wasn't:

The idea that you can be trans without having gender dysphoria or wanting to transition seems strange to me, but then again, when it comes to trans people, I'm an outsider looking in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 22, 2018, 08:50:11 pm
HAHAHAH!  LANA THINKS WE DON'T HAVE MEMORIES!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on June 22, 2018, 10:15:53 pm
HAHAHAH!  LANA THINKS WE DON'T HAVE MEMORIES!

If you're so sure, then prove it. Show me where I said I was trans. And I'm sure that even if you manage to apparently find something, it can easily be debunked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 27, 2018, 02:22:33 pm
Kennedy is reitiring. The Conservatives, particularly the Trump-wing, will dominate SCOTUS for decades.

I hope everyone that cried about how Hillary would be “just as bad” or that Trump would be “better for progressive in the long-run” are content. Because they are the reason why we can’t have nice things.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 27, 2018, 02:47:41 pm
Kennedy is reitiring. The Conservatives, particularly the Trump-wing, will dominate SCOTUS for decades.

I hope everyone that cried about how Hillary would be “just as bad” or that Trump would be “better for progressive in the long-run” are content. Because they are the reason why we can’t have nice things.

I've predicted before--and am now saying it again--that as soon as one party or the other has a House majority and 67 in the Senate (note: I'm not saying this will happen, just that if it does) they will sweep the federal bench clean of their ideological opponents. In particular, the Dems would kick Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and whoever replaces Kennedy off SCOTUS (they might let Roberts stay since he did uphold much of the ACA, though not in a way they liked, and because of his argument there's a chance the whole thing could be struck down since the individual mandate is no longer a mandate-with-penalty, which is what Roberts seized on to find it constitutional under the taxation clause and what allowed the penalty to be repealed with a simple majority in the Senate). And if they also have the Presidency at that time they will of course fill the federal bench with their own people.

But then anyone who thinks the US judiciary is nonpartisan and just "calls balls and strikes" is kidding themselves.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 27, 2018, 03:29:19 pm
Thanks to Gerrymandering, the Democrats will never have 67.  Never.  It just won't happen.

Ironbite-best they can get is 60 and hope 5 Republicans jump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 27, 2018, 03:41:10 pm
Thanks to Gerrymandering, the Democrats will never have 67.  Never.  It just won't happen.

Ironbite-best they can get is 60 and hope 5 Republicans jump.

The Senate, not the House. What blocks them in the Senate is voter suppression legislation (and apathy/disenchantment in the Democratic base), not gerrymandered maps.

Personally I'm keeping a close eye on places like NE-2nd.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 27, 2018, 07:58:21 pm
Thanks to Gerrymandering, the Democrats will never have 67.  Never.  It just won't happen.

Ironbite-best they can get is 60 and hope 5 Republicans jump.

The Senate, not the House. What blocks them in the Senate is voter suppression legislation (and apathy/disenchantment in the Democratic base), not gerrymandered maps.

Personally I'm keeping a close eye on places like NE-2nd.

What is the Senate but Gerrymandering based on states? It is Gerrymandering that just happens to be approved by the Constitution. Fucking Wyoming gets the same number of Senators as Cali-fucking-fornia. Playing the "it's voter suppression not gerrymandering" is a weak argument when the whole Senate map is, to a degree, arbitrarily drawn.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 27, 2018, 08:08:18 pm
Thanks to Gerrymandering, the Democrats will never have 67.  Never.  It just won't happen.

Ironbite-best they can get is 60 and hope 5 Republicans jump.

The Senate, not the House. What blocks them in the Senate is voter suppression legislation (and apathy/disenchantment in the Democratic base), not gerrymandered maps.

Personally I'm keeping a close eye on places like NE-2nd.

What is the Senate but Gerrymandering based on states? It is Gerrymandering that just happens to be approved by the Constitution. Fucking Wyoming gets the same number of Senators as Cali-fucking-fornia. Playing the "it's voter suppression not gerrymandering" is a weak argument when the whole Senate map is, to a degree, arbitrarily drawn.

Oh, sure. But it's far, far easier to get the House maps redrawn than either to a) redraw state boundaries or b) alter the vote weighting in the Senate. Far more practical to try to entrench the right to vote rather than change the structure of the Senate (since the latter requires unanimous consent from every state, while the former could for federal elections be done by Congress, per Oregon v. Mitchell, or for all elections by a regular amendment.

I did look once at what the American people thought about which party should control the Senate, on two bases:

1. Senators have votes proportional to their states' populations. Under this framework Democrats would have controlled the Senate continuously for over 30 years.

2. Just looking at a rolling total of votes cast in general elections for Senate (the previous three, since those elections determine the Senate almost in its entirety). Republicans did lead on this basis a few times in recent history (post-WWII, since that's when Wikipedia started having vote totals, the GOP had a vote lead after 1946, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1996, 1998, and 2002), but otherwise it's been Democrats getting more votes.

And anyway on general principle I'd look to entrench the right to vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 27, 2018, 08:53:34 pm
So Justice Kennedy is retiring, which means Trump will pretty much own all of Washington after he puts another extremely conservative judge in his place. If Ruth retires the supreme court will be fucked for a long long time.
I'm being really cynical here but I for some reason don't see the Dems taking back the house this fall and definitely not the Senate. The US is fucked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on June 27, 2018, 09:27:25 pm
Personally, I think the overall views of Generation Z will be a huge deciding factor in the coming years. And I've read conflicting (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-post-millennials-should-scare-the-hell-out-of-the-gop.html) things (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#59f324137878) about them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on June 28, 2018, 12:41:40 am
We wouldn't be facing any Trump nominations (let alone 2 so far, including the upcoming one with Kennedy leaving) if the DNC were more competent at PR and less corrupt. If they listened to people better their wouldn't be any dissaffected voters saying she'd be just as bad. That isn't the problem, it's just a symptom of Hillary and her camp being out of touch with their constituents and easily bought by the highest bidders.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 28, 2018, 01:12:08 am
Oh come the fuck on. So now it's Clinton's fault that the Republicans and Fox news spent 20 years smearing her? Because that's the biggest reason why people hated her.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 28, 2018, 01:24:39 am
Oh come the fuck on. So now it's Clinton's fault that the Republicans and Fox news spent 20 years smearing her? Because that's the biggest reason why people hated her.

Yes. It can't be that she pushed DOMA (and then didn't support same-sex marriage until 2013), voted for the Iraq War, pushed Obama to renege on the deal with Libya, or voted to ban flag-burning that people on the left thought she was a bad candidate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 28, 2018, 01:34:16 am
While all of those are things to criticize, don't give me this shit about it being the reason she was so hated. How much time did Republicans waste with Benghazi and her fucking e-mails? How long were they smearing her and calling her a corrupt corporate shill? Those stances didn't help, but they aren't why she was so unlikable as a candidate. Remember, even Obama had some lousy policies including how he handled whistleblowers and his policies on undocumented immigrants (which, granted, was most likely an attempt to appease Republicans, but seeing as they didn't fucking CARE what he did...). No one is going to tell you that Clinton was a perfect candidate and the Democrats treating her becoming President as a foregone conclusion was just as detrimental as anything she actually did, but don't fucking ignore that Republicans have had it out for her for literal decades.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 28, 2018, 01:40:56 am
Quote
...that people on the left thought she was a bad candidate.

I was specifically talking about those on the left. (And I would note that a higher percentage of Sanders primary voters then voted for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton primary voters did for Obama in 2008.) I did not deny anything about the utter bullshit the GOP and FOX had been spewing about her for decades.

(Although, given her donor profile (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000019), I did not like her links to big corporations.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 28, 2018, 01:51:45 am
Oh come the fuck on. So now it's Clinton's fault that the Republicans and Fox news spent 20 years smearing her? Because that's the biggest reason why people hated her.

Yes. It can't be that she pushed DOMA (and then didn't support same-sex marriage until 2013), voted for the Iraq War, pushed Obama to renege on the deal with Libya, or voted to ban flag-burning that people on the left thought she was a bad candidate.

Bernie opposed same sex marriage up until 2006 at the latest, voted in favor of the largest Wall Street deregulation in our nation’s history (which directly lead to the financial crisis), and has 25 years of problematic votes on gerns.

But, I don’t see the same Don Quixote quest for ideological purity. And for the record, I think these are blips on an otherwise impressive public service resume (much like I see those examples for Clinton). I said Bernie and Hillary voted the same 93% of the time, and while a testament to Hillary’s liberal credentials, it also serves as a defense of Bernie—they agree 93% of the time. I wish you, and others who have since quieted down (Lizard-man) didn’t selectively require such ideological purity. And yeah, that is why we lost 25 years of Supreme Court precedence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 28, 2018, 01:53:55 am
Ignoring that I never said anything about Sanders supporters defecting (which, by the way, while it is true that fewer Sanders supporters defected, 2016 was a much higher stakes election and had a lower turnout than 2008, so that's stuff to consider, as well), I would almost wager that a good number of the people who stayed home, defected to Trump, voted third party, wrote in Sanders, etc. did so because of Republican smear. I mean, people argue that Comey sabotaged the election with his "we found more e-mails" a week before election day. Again, the big reason Clinton was so unpalatable to so many people in the first place, regardless of political affiliation or views was Republican smear. Obama was also heavily supported by corporations, as is virtually every major politician (obviously with Sanders as a major exception), to say nothing of being upset at a Democrat being a corporate shill when the Republican party exists.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 28, 2018, 02:54:32 am
Whenever a Justice Democrat needs to feel better about his or her position, out come the donor lists and shouts of "CORPORATE WHOOOOOORE!" and "YOU ARE NOT A GOOD PROGRESSIVE!!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 28, 2018, 02:57:35 am
I'm just going to point out that Clinton got as many votes as Obama did in 2012.

The claims that a lot of people hate her seem like exaggerations and part of the highly divisive type of politics in USA. Her loss was more about the silly way USA gives more voting power to people in specific states.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 28, 2018, 04:10:06 am
Whenever a Justice Democrat needs to feel better about his or her position, out come the donor lists and shouts of "CORPORATE WHOOOOOORE!" and "YOU ARE NOT A GOOD PROGRESSIVE!!"

And their voting records.

But opposing money in politics is a popular position: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/center-for-public-integrity-2017-08-31

Also:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189

To correct myself on something: the one time the Flag Desecration Amendment came to a vote in the Senate while Hillary Clinton was a member of that body, she voted against it (and it was within one vote of passage). I retract my remark about her voting to ban flag burning; however all else I have said stands.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on June 29, 2018, 02:47:46 am
the Democrats treating her becoming President as a foregone conclusion was just as detrimental as anything she actually did.

This is exactly the mistake I dislike about them the most. We probably agree a lot more than we disagree about what Clinton and the Democrats problems were. They thought that she was a shoe-in in the general and so they got cocky and started treating Bernie Sanders and his supporters like garbage because they'd basically been taken over by Hillary Clinton fanatics (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774)

They managed to beat The Bern out with this technique but underestimated how rabid and excitable the Trump base was, among other mistakes.

But what they did to Sanders was basically an even worse and more intense version of the "Obama Boys" thing the Clinton people were pushing back then (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774) and so instead of looking more organic like it used to, it and the emails thing [the real email thing, not the dumb pizzagate thing about her emails] made it obvious that there was a lot of undue astroturfing on her camps part similar to what the Koch's fund the republicans to say about democratic opposition to them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 29, 2018, 07:38:53 am
Well, glad your principals and delusions are there for you; cause SCOTUS certainly won’t be.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on June 30, 2018, 12:35:00 am
You say that like having principals is a bad thing.

Anyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee-two-women-july-9/index.html

Very progressive of him.

In other news: the Governator is going after Trumpy over energy policy
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arnold-schwarzenegger-calls-out-trumps-energy-policy-in-new-facebook-video/

The UN voted no on Trump's pick to send to the International Organization for Migration
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/politics/ken-isaacs-migration-united-nations/index.html

And still more tax cuts planned. Is the only thing he can think of on the economic policy just cutting taxes?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/29/trump-calls-for-another-round-of-tax-cuts-further-reductions-to-corporate-tax-rate/?noredirect=on
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 30, 2018, 12:43:27 am
You say that like having principals is a bad thing.

Anyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee-two-women-july-9/index.html

Very progressive of him.

Like how he put a war criminal who destroyed evidence that she oversaw torture in charge of the CIA and talked up her being the first female CIA Director?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 30, 2018, 03:05:53 am
You say that like having principals is a bad thing.

A lot of voters, particularly in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, had "principles." As a result, we didn't get an uninspiring liberal, we got a man who slashed corporate tax at the expense of the poor, who has curtailed gender, racial, and queer equality through executive order, who tried to take health care from 32 million people, who will appoint at least 2 judges and secure a conservative Supreme Court for most of the rest of our lives, who just declared a multi-front trade war against our top 5 trade allies, while fellating Putin every chance he gets (wants Russia in the G-7, refuses or dawdles to impose sanctions against Russia, hell when asked who he supports for the World Cup he gives a non-committal answer before immediately praising Russia for doing a "good job" on "venue").

See what your "principles" got you. And to kick this dead horse, way to play a red herring. You know that I wasn't talking about being a principled person, but about this selective purity test that only seemed to get played against Hillary in the last election, and against Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick, and Cory Booker (https://newrepublic.com/article/144289/democrats-still-no-idea-talk-black-politicians). It is an insidious form of sexism and racism to demand ideological purity from black people and women, but then to grant Bernie countless free passes and blind eyes: he has accepted "big money" including from the NRA, he previously had an A+ NRA rating, he said--on national television--as recently as 2006 that he supported "Hillary Clinton's" crime bill and opposed gay marriage, he voted for the largest Wall Street Deregulation ever. Where is his ideological purity test? *Crickets*

This double standard exists, and it comes from somewhere: naivety, cult of personality, or maybe just simple racism and sexism. I don't know, and broad, uniform statements hardly apply so easily to an entire group of people. I just want people to start looking at the bigger picture than on minutia: Booker, Patrick, Harris, Clinton, and Bernie would all very be liberal presidents (and to be fair, Bernie is slightly to the left than the others, albeit nominal), unlike who they run against. And to take this full circle, Anthony Kennedy.

Anyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!

Very progressive of him.

Oh you sweet summer child.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 30, 2018, 03:07:35 am
Really makes me glad I don't have those principles.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 30, 2018, 03:46:04 am
I have to wonder if you've noticed how much shit Joe Manchin, Joe Crowley, Steny Hoyer, Chuck Schumer, and Andrew Cuomo get (or have gotten) from progressives.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 30, 2018, 04:17:59 am
I have to wonder if you've noticed how much shit Joe Manchin, Joe Crowley, Steny Hoyer, Chuck Schumer, and Andrew Cuomo get (or have gotten) from progressives.

Again, big picture vs. minutia. You just named a few white men and hoped I would not know much about them beyond that. Now, I said earlier that Bernie, Harris, Booker, and others, were sufficiently liberal and that their differences minor. To put this in perspective, we can look at how often they voted alongside Trump during the last 18 months. Sanders (10.8%) is the 4th most liberal, followed immediately Cory Booker (12.2%), Edward Markey (12.3%, and Kamala Harris (14.9%), respectively. By contrast, Schumer scores 24.3% (middle of the democratic pack) and Manchin is sitting on a 60.8% (last). While this does not track state level representatives, like Cuomo, it's pretty known that he has a number of issues, I vaguely recall him wanting to privatize social security. Nevertheless, aggregating sites like on the issues push him considerably further towards the center than any of those I've named. Finally, Hoyer isn't disliked for his politics, but because of his actions: he asked one of those Bernie type candidates to back out of a primary because his opponent was believed to do better.

So, three of those clowns are moderates (to varying degrees, of course) and one just got caught saying something upsetting on tape. The former are justified in criticisms of insufficient liberality (and, of course, the criticisms always fall short of disqualifying support for the candidate, unlike, say, Hillary). The latter, Hoyer, doesn't bother me at all: if people are upset that the guy was asked or pressured to step down, they can get out and vote for him, because votes matter. Fancy that.

ETA: And again, to bring this full circle, we all have considerable evidence that Bernie, Kamala, Deval, Cory, and Hillary are liberal. But, you know who won't be liberal; Trump's SCOTUS appointment. Abortion rights sure were nice while they lasted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 30, 2018, 06:22:08 am
Clinton was better than Trump. Harris, Booker, Patrick, Gillibrand and Cuomo would all be better than Trump. On those points I make no argument.

However, with the ideological sorting of the parties essentially complete (the last high-profile switch was probably Arlen Specter), that will be true of any Democrat versus any Republican, and therefore the focus must necessarily shift to nomination contests.

(Incidentally, I noticed that you excluded Crowley; his score is 17.5%. However, many of the criticisms of him were over his apparent corruption--and not just his overall donor profile (https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00001127&cycle=2018), but who he took, or at least solicited, money from (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/19/joe-crowley-gop-lobbyist-bgr-fundraiser/). And before you say "Sanders and NRA money", this was as of two weeks ago, not over two decades.)

When contending for a nomination, then, is it legitimate to point to your opponent's record as an argument for why you are the candidate more deserving of the nomination? For that matter, is it legitimate to challenge incumbents at all? (For myself, I very much like how candidate nominations in the US work, and really wish we had something like it here.)

I would also note that Sanders took a ton of shit from people in his "cult of personality" when he said he opposes BDS.

(On Andrew Cuomo, probably the biggest definite problem there was the Moreland Commission.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 30, 2018, 06:26:25 am
I judt find it confusing that the people with "principles" will rather vote for Trump or not vote at all rather than voting for candidates who are closer to the failed candidate that they originally wanted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on June 30, 2018, 06:29:45 am
You say that like having principals is a bad thing.

A lot of voters, particularly in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, had "principles." As a result, we didn't get an uninspiring liberal, we got a man who slashed corporate tax at the expense of the poor, who has curtailed gender, racial, and queer equality through executive order, who tried to take health care from 32 million people, who will appoint at least 2 judges and secure a conservative Supreme Court for most of the rest of our lives, who just declared a multi-front trade war against our top 5 trade allies, while fellating Putin every chance he gets (wants Russia in the G-7, refuses or dawdles to impose sanctions against Russia, hell when asked who he supports for the World Cup he gives a non-committal answer before immediately praising Russia for doing a "good job" on "venue").

See what your "principles" got you. And to kick this dead horse, way to play a red herring. You know that I wasn't talking about being a principled person, but about this selective purity test that only seemed to get played against Hillary in the last election, and against Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick, and Cory Booker (https://newrepublic.com/article/144289/democrats-still-no-idea-talk-black-politicians). It is an insidious form of sexism and racism to demand ideological purity from black people and women, but then to grant Bernie countless free passes and blind eyes: he has accepted "big money" including from the NRA, he previously had an A+ NRA rating, he said--on national television--as recently as 2006 that he supported "Hillary Clinton's" crime bill and opposed gay marriage, he voted for the largest Wall Street Deregulation ever. Where is his ideological purity test? *Crickets*

This double standard exists, and it comes from somewhere: naivety, cult of personality, or maybe just simple racism and sexism. I don't know, and broad, uniform statements hardly apply so easily to an entire group of people. I just want people to start looking at the bigger picture than on minutia: Booker, Patrick, Harris, Clinton, and Bernie would all very be liberal presidents (and to be fair, Bernie is slightly to the left than the others, albeit nominal), unlike who they run against. And to take this full circle, Anthony Kennedy.

The way you talk about principals rather unintentionally it seems revealed more than you think it does.

I have not seen Hillary go through anything that the white men Dpareja listed hadn't. And not to mention that Bernie Sanders himself was often put through purity tests alongside the other democratic candidates of 2016 when BLM protested his rally and he let the activists take over the mic he was scheduled to speak on. A lot of what you're regurgitating is strawmen against progressives made up by the (center-right) DNC.

Bernie was a better choice overall because he was more inspiring, and gave off the vibe the people could trust him to represent our interests. Even if he held positions certain subgroups of voters wouldn't fully agree on. You think Bernie didn't get heavy scrutiny though? Really? Were we watching the same election?

It really feels like you care more about loyalty to a party that would just as soon sell you out if people to the right of them paid them enough money.

Quote
Anyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!

Very progressive of him.

Oh you sweet summer child.

You know what I mean. Hillary was not the more progressive choice just because she was female. She and her supporters had blanket labeled progressives as sexist for not being team #ImWithHer.

I judt find it confusing that the people with "principles" will rather vote for Trump or not vote at all rather than voting for candidates who are closer to the failed candidate that they originally wanted.

A lot of us did, that's where 3rd party candidates like Jill Stein came in. Some may have voted Trump because they were duped by his "Blue Collar Billionaire" charade and that's unfortunate.

That being said 3rd parties and aren't the reason Hillary lost. Her campaign and her rabid supporters were.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on June 30, 2018, 10:19:20 am
Voting for candidates that have no chance of winning (literally any third party candidate in the US Presidential Election) in a FPTP voting system is effectively voting for the candidate you find more vile of the two in the big parties. Because it's a vote that the less-bad one did not receive. Are they exclusively responsible? No. But they are partially responsible, and if you voted for them, so are you. Because that's the biggest failing of FPTP. You have to vote for mediocrity to ensure that evil does not win. That's just how it works. You vote for whoever you actually like in the primary, but if they lose, you suck it the fuck up and vote for whoever has a D by their name to keep the Republican from winning and dragging us backwards.




Note: There are some congressional districts, and even a handful of senate seats that you can maybe vote for a third-party candidate because they have a legit shot. But the most a third party candidate has ever been in a recent presidential election is a fucking spoiler.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on June 30, 2018, 02:25:36 pm
Oh my. The fallacies and red herrings are strong. I must use the force logic.

The way you talk about principals rather unintentionally it seems revealed more than you think it does.

I have not seen Hillary go through anything that the white men Dpareja listed hadn't. And not to mention that Bernie Sanders himself was often put through purity tests alongside the other democratic candidates of 2016 when BLM protested his rally and he let the activists take over the mic he was scheduled to speak on. A lot of what you're regurgitating is strawmen against progressives made up by the (center-right) DNC.

Bernie was a better choice overall because he was more inspiring, and gave off the vibe the people could trust him to represent our interests. Even if he held positions certain subgroups of voters wouldn't fully agree on. You think Bernie didn't get heavy scrutiny though? Really? Were we watching the same election?

It really feels like you care more about loyalty to a party that would just as soon sell you out if people to the right of them paid them enough money.

No. A lot of what I am arguing is what people argued on here ad nausea years ago. They said Hillary would be Republican-lite, or just as bad, or that Trump would rile up progressives and bring about a revolution sooner, or that Trump himself was more progressive. Since Hillary and Trump weren't in office, these arguments that they made were hypothetical, counter-factual, and could not be argued. Now, years later, I could really go for some Republican-lite, and so could anyone who enjoys the right to contraception, right to abortion, same-sex marriage, racial equality (particularly as interpreted through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment), labor-rights, fairly drawn election districts, overturning citizens united, and a fair tax code. Trump said he would appoint judges to overturn the disastrous Obergefell decision, and now he can.

Hillary is still being subjected to this selective purity on this board. Hell, whenever I bring her up, or whenever she's spotted in the New York woods and Dpareja is upset that she's fucked off the grid, Hillary is inevitably labeled a "milquetoast establishment democrat" because of a spurious review of her record. In contrast, those white men that Dpareja mentioned are only brought up as whataboutism. Essentially, "what about these inapposite criticisms that progressives leveled against these people for reasons largely unrelated to their record." Whataboutism is powerful.

And to clarify, AGAIN, I am not arguing Bernie was bad, but that he, like everyone else, isn't perfect. So these arguments about Bernie being "better" or "more inspiring" or more "truth"-ful are just red herrings. I am using him to highlight the selective purity test that one candidate in the last election (and a few non-white, non-penised, individuals who are likely to run in 2020) are being subjected to. I never said "vote D no matter what" or that we should prioritize blind loyalty. I said that these criticisms leveled against her, and others, are unfair, and anyone with 2 brain cells should be able to piece together that a Hillary presidency would lead to more progressive, and ultimately better, policy than a Trump presidency. But Hillary isn't president; she never will be. The most we can do is learn that lesson for 2020 when we hear this nonsense again that Kamala Harris isn't sufficiently liberal for these young, white men that voted for Bernie. Now stop strawmanning.

Quote from: QueenofHearts
Anyway back on topic he says July 9th is going to be when he names the new pick, and it could be a woman!

Very progressive of him.

Oh you sweet summer child.

You know what I mean. Hillary was not the more progressive choice just because she was female. She and her supporters had blanket labeled progressives as sexist for not being team #ImWithHer.

You caught me, I totally said that Hillary was more progressive cause vagina, such as right here:

(and to be fair, Bernie is slightly to the left than the others, albeit nominal).... And to take this full circle, Anthony Kennedy.

Oh, wait, no I didn't. You're a liar that strawmanned what I actually said. I made similar claims about Bernie being to the left of Hillary (and otherss) dozens of other times that I don't care to look up. So, try again.

And Dpareja, I left out Joe Crowley because it was 3 A.M and I had a bout of insomnia. You typed five names, I remembered four while typing my point. Don't look into it too hard.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 30, 2018, 06:53:08 pm
he has accepted "big money" including from the NRA, he previously had an A+ NRA rating, he said--on national television--as recently as 2006 that he supported "Hillary Clinton's" crime bill and opposed gay marriage, he voted for the largest Wall Street Deregulation ever. Where is his ideological purity test? *Crickets*

A couple of these claims need some checking. I had hoped someone else would have done it since I don't really care to involve myself in this debate.

the highest rating Sanders has had from NRA was a C- (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/20/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-nra-report-card-d-minus-most-recent/) and the most common one has been an F. NRA didn't give any money to him, they had an $18 000 ad campaign against his opponent (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-has-been-largely-ve/) in his first House election since the Republican representative in question had voted for the assault weapon ban and as a result NRA saw Sanders as the lesser evil. Whether this ended up being true is debatable since while Sanders has a mixed record with gun legislation in general (12 votes for control, 13 against) he has consistently voted for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

When it comes to gay marriage it's a bit difficult to get an exact reading on Sanders's past. While opposing anything restricting it he has been very careful with his words and timing when supporting it. (http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/) The one time in 2006 when he  said he doesn't think Vermont should legalise gay marriage it was qualified statement: "not right now, not after what we went through." This is immediately after he helped shoot down a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual only so it seems he wanted to wait for emotions to settle down from this confrontation first. IMO doesn't sound like a reason I would agree with but taken on a face value and in the context of his history on this issue it just sounds like a careful politician. There is an open letter from '70s where he is explicitly calling for gay rights but after that he seems to have been more sensitive to political winds. In the context of a purity test you can take this however you want but I felt this point needed a bit of clarification.

If my opinion on the issue has any weight I think the blindness for Sanders's faults is mainly due to people seeing him as a personalization of the idea of challenging the Democratic party establishment. When you get into a position like this where people form an emotional attachment to you it's difficult for them to see your faults. With there being actual unfair and dishonest attacks at him and his past it's easy for his supporters to dismiss also honest and factual criticism as part of "mainstream media / Democratic establishment bias". There is a slightly creepy personal attachment people often form to the politicians they support if they are seen as a representative of an idea. This was true also with Hillary and I've observed it in Finnish politics, too, with candidates like Pekka Haavisto.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on July 01, 2018, 04:48:55 am
Yeah I'm not gonna dig myself deeper into this argument unless Queen wants to take it over to Flame & Burn because this is getting off-topic from Trump fucking things up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 05, 2018, 05:25:24 pm
Scott Pruitt is out. Gotta drain that swamp. Create the swamp then drain it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 05, 2018, 05:26:37 pm
Yeah but the guy who replaced him is pretty much in bed with the coal industry.

Ironbite-but I guess kicking out a paranoid loon was pretty good.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on July 05, 2018, 05:56:44 pm
Good riddance to that slimeball.

In other news, Trump's backpedaled on Roe v. Wade. He says he won't bring it up with SCOTUS nominees (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-wont-bring-up-roe-v-wade-with-supreme-court-nominees/). Not surprising, given his notorious inconsistency.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 05, 2018, 06:36:26 pm
Yeah but the guy who replaced him is pretty much in bed with the coal industry.

Ironbite-but I guess kicking out a paranoid loon was pretty good.

I think pretty much anyone who will work for this presidency isn't going to be a good candidate or even a good person.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 06, 2018, 01:57:35 am
Good riddance to that slimeball.

In other news, Trump's backpedaled on Roe v. Wade. He says he won't bring it up with SCOTUS nominees (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-wont-bring-up-roe-v-wade-with-supreme-court-nominees/). Not surprising, given his notorious inconsistency.

Bets on the GOP Senate confirming anyone who doesn't at least say to McConnell in private that Roe is dead the moment they're on the bench and hear a case?

EDIT: As for Pruitt, apparently he said in his resignation letter that Trump's election was "God's providence".

Honestly, at this point, given the apparent determination of the current US administration to destroy the environment (and Congress's complicity), I think there's an argument to be made that the rest of the world would be justified in invading the US and overthrowing its current regime on self-defence grounds.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 07, 2018, 05:45:21 am
https://nordic.businessinsider.com/trump-personal-cellphone-call-canada-justin-trudeau-2018-7?utm_source=reddit.com&r=US&IR=T

A few things about this:

a) Trump has been making calls to foreign leaders on his own phone.

b) He has bypassed the protocol completely.

c) This is also illegal. He has broken a federal law and this is an impeachable crime.

d) That's not going to happen as long as the Republicans are still riding his dick.

e) The calls made on a civilian phone may have been compromised.


Furthermore, there were three theories about this on Reddit:

1) Trump is just really stupid and accidentally broke the laws and bypassed all his advisors.

2) Trump is not only really stupid but also shady and this was an attempt to go off the record due to nefarious reasons.

3) Trump is not stupid but he is shady. This was a way he could leak out national secrets to people who are listening to his calls and use "lol didn't know that there was an FSB van parked on the street next to me" as a defense because he is just pretending to be stupid.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 07, 2018, 09:55:51 am
Why isn't this being widely reported? Holy shit. This is worse than the private email server.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 07, 2018, 12:39:10 pm
Why would they report it? After all it's not like there was any real danger, like someone bringing phone surveillance equipment near the White House?

https://nypost.com/2018/06/01/feds-reportedly-find-surveillance-tech-around-white-house/

Oops...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 07, 2018, 03:25:14 pm
Apparently he's been taking the calls in private, and when asked by heads in the white house about what was discussed during the phone calls he doesn't give very much information.
"It was a very amicable call." Is what he said about a call to Trudeau.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 07, 2018, 03:38:57 pm
.....got to wonder how bad we've been compromised by now.

Ironbite-and how the GOP is gonna spin this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 07, 2018, 03:46:15 pm
Ironbite-and how the GOP is gonna spin this.

"But. Her. Emails."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 07, 2018, 04:14:29 pm
So here's a fun trend:

With Trump slapping tariffs on goods coming from other countries (like Canada and China), those countries are, of course, enacting retaliatory tariffs. (Though I think they should also threaten to revoke pharmaceutical patents and entertainment copyrights.)

But they're doing it in a way that targets goods primarily produced in states that supported Trump and districts that have Republican representatives in Congress, particularly vulnerable incumbents. Agriculture in particular is taking a big hit.

It'll be interesting to see how this might impact upcoming elections--and if the Democrats can capitalize.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 08, 2018, 12:30:27 am
Speculations on the SCOTUS nomination from a Republican who voted for Trump largely because of the extant vacancy and the possibility of replacing Kennedy and/or Ginsburg:

Looks like it's either going to be Brett Cavanaugh of the DC Circuit, Amy Comey Barret of the Seventh Circuit, or Raymond Ketheledge of the Sixth Circuit.

From everything I've seen and read, there's no wrong answers here, though the narrow margin in the Senate could make for some interesting political theater.

Who do you think it will end up being and why?

My money is on Ketheledge, because I see him as the pick the all 50 GOP Senators can get behind, and the only thing better than getting Dem Senator to vote for a nominee in this setting is watching all 49 Dems vote no and it not mattering.

--

"They say trolling liberals is not a party platform, but [he] here proves otherwise."

Personally I'd love to see what would happen if Democratic Senators stood up on the floor, started talking at length about all the shitty SCOTUS decisions already made (in which Kennedy joined Roberts et al--let's remember that Kennedy, on the whole, was a corporate hack who happened to agree with liberals on abortion and LGBT issues, which is definitely better than anyone Trump will put in but let's not pretend he was some great saviour), and refused to yield the floor for anything short of being physically dragged from the room.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 09, 2018, 10:47:31 pm
And the winner is Kavanaugh. Show of hands, who's surprised that Trump picked another far right wing hack? No one? That's what I fucking thought.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 09, 2018, 11:47:47 pm
Betting game: final Senate confirmation vote?

I say 53-46, the entire GOP (minus McCain), plus Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 10, 2018, 03:46:16 am
At least he didn't choose the utter lunatic the religious loons wanted.

Apparently the guy's been disavowed by the entire religious right because he's not their kind of lunatic due to views on abortion, same sex marriage and some other stuff.

Sure he's a conservative judge, but from one analysis more like Judge Roberts than Antonin Scalia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 10, 2018, 03:55:53 am
At least he didn't choose the utter lunatic the religious loons wanted.

Who was that? (I wasn't paying too much attention to the rumours of who he might choose.)

As for who the Democrats should target to try to block this (assuming they can hold their entire caucus, and I can name six off the top of my head who might flip--Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, Tester, McCaskill, and Nelson), I'd look at Collins and Murkowski (because of Kavanaugh's stance on abortion), Paul (because of Kavanaugh's time in GWB's administration), and Heller (because he's extremely vulnerable).

It'd be really interesting to see what might happen if the vote looks to be 49 for, 50 against, because then the GOP can't win unless McCain shows up. But would McCain show up and vote in favour to let Pence break the tie, or would he show up and vote against to stick his thumbs in Trump's and McConnell's eyes again? (My money would be on the former.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on July 10, 2018, 04:00:32 am
I've given up on the Supreme Court. Just another far right branch of government. I certainly won't be taking their rulings with any seriousness.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 10, 2018, 04:17:51 am
Amy Barrett.

She was the religious right's poster girl. They were saying she was God's anointed one for the Supreme Court.

So just knowing THAT, I know she's a complete and total fucking lunatic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 10, 2018, 04:30:58 am
Amy Barrett.

She was the religious right's poster girl. They were saying she was God's anointed one for the Supreme Court.

So just knowing THAT, I know she's a complete and total fucking lunatic.

How do you determine which adjective (if any) to omit when talking about other Republicans?  :P
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 10, 2018, 04:48:51 am
I just know that we got off lucky with this guy.

Keep in mind, Kavanaugh is a guy who a lot of the really conservative types hate because the way his dissent in a case involving Obamacare was worded allowed the Obamacare penalty to be codified as a tax.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-picked-the-wrong-judge/2018/07/09/d356f84a-83de-11e8-8589-5bb6b89e3772_story.html

This loon, from the opinions section at Washington Post, brings up the Obamacare thing as a point against Kavanaugh from the right wing perspective.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 10, 2018, 12:00:15 pm
Making the ACA constitutional (mostly) under the Taxation Clause was what allowed the GOP to repeal the penalty through reconciliation, which now means that, since there's no penalty for the mandate, it's arguably unconstitutional, quite possibly in its entirety.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 10, 2018, 08:57:44 pm
he has accepted "big money" including from the NRA, he previously had an A+ NRA rating, he said--on national television--as recently as 2006 that he supported "Hillary Clinton's" crime bill and opposed gay marriage, he voted for the largest Wall Street Deregulation ever. Where is his ideological purity test? *Crickets*

A couple of these claims need some checking. I had hoped someone else would have done it since I don't really care to involve myself in this debate.

the highest rating Sanders has had from NRA was a C- (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/20/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-nra-report-card-d-minus-most-recent/) and the most common one has been an F. NRA didn't give any money to him, they had an $18 000 ad campaign against his opponent (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-has-been-largely-ve/) in his first House election since the Republican representative in question had voted for the assault weapon ban and as a result NRA saw Sanders as the lesser evil. Whether this ended up being true is debatable since while Sanders has a mixed record with gun legislation in general (12 votes for control, 13 against) he has consistently voted for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

When it comes to gay marriage it's a bit difficult to get an exact reading on Sanders's past. While opposing anything restricting it he has been very careful with his words and timing when supporting it. (http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/) The one time in 2006 when he  said he doesn't think Vermont should legalise gay marriage it was qualified statement: "not right now, not after what we went through." This is immediately after he helped shoot down a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual only so it seems he wanted to wait for emotions to settle down from this confrontation first. IMO doesn't sound like a reason I would agree with but taken on a face value and in the context of his history on this issue it just sounds like a careful politician. There is an open letter from '70s where he is explicitly calling for gay rights but after that he seems to have been more sensitive to political winds. In the context of a purity test you can take this however you want but I felt this point needed a bit of clarification.

If my opinion on the issue has any weight I think the blindness for Sanders's faults is mainly due to people seeing him as a personalization of the idea of challenging the Democratic party establishment. When you get into a position like this where people form an emotional attachment to you it's difficult for them to see your faults. With there being actual unfair and dishonest attacks at him and his past it's easy for his supporters to dismiss also honest and factual criticism as part of "mainstream media / Democratic establishment bias". There is a slightly creepy personal attachment people often form to the politicians they support if they are seen as a representative of an idea. This was true also with Hillary and I've observed it in Finnish politics, too, with candidates like Pekka Haavisto.

Thing is, I'll admit you're right on a lot if it. The gun stuff I went from memory and botched it, albeit Politifact even notes several problematic positions he took on guns over the years, particularly on more prominent legislation. My larger position, though, was simply that Bernie is not perfect, and demanding ideological purity from one candidate (particularly a pragmatic, uninspiring politician) while not demanding it of others, is incredibly short-sighted, and it cost us our only real shot at a liberal Supreme Court for decades. It is not unrealistic that I could be living out my retirement before the Court gets a liberal majority, and as I've noted more than I care to remember, it matters in a lot of different policy areas.

And, again, abortion was nice while it lasted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 10, 2018, 11:12:33 pm
Let's just hope the next statement like that doesn't have the phrase "any semblance of democracy" in place of "abortion." I'm bloody worried about the direction the US is taking under Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 10, 2018, 11:40:24 pm
Let's just hope the next statement like that doesn't have the phrase "any semblance of democracy" in place of "abortion." I'm bloody worried about the direction the US is taking under Trump.

You think the US has any semblance of democracy left? Buckley, Bellotti and Shelby County between them effectively dismantled real democracy in the US.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 11, 2018, 12:04:48 am
And this is why I prefer the TVTropes forums over this for political discussion.

Every time Trump looked like he was getting us into a fight overseas, everyone on here just went nuts predicting armageddon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 11, 2018, 12:17:50 am
Let's just hope the next statement like that doesn't have the phrase "any semblance of democracy" in place of "abortion." I'm bloody worried about the direction the US is taking under Trump.

You think the US has any semblance of democracy left? Buckley, Bellotti and Shelby County between them effectively dismantled real democracy in the US.
Well Russia has "elections" too I guess.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 11, 2018, 01:26:24 am
Let's just hope the next statement like that doesn't have the phrase "any semblance of democracy" in place of "abortion." I'm bloody worried about the direction the US is taking under Trump.

You think the US has any semblance of democracy left? Buckley, Bellotti and Shelby County between them effectively dismantled real democracy in the US.
Well Russia has "elections" too I guess.

Oh, the US isn't as bad as Russia, I'll concede that. But when you compare it to much of Western Europe, or Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, it's clear that the US does not measure up.

Plus, it fails one of the biggest red-flag tests that international elections monitors look for: are elections run by partisan officials? In the US, the answer is a resounding "YES" because elections are run by state Secretaries of State, who are (usually) partisan. (Contrast here, where one of the very few exclusions from the right to vote--otherwise nearly absolute for citizens; I think the only other bars are age and residency, which you can get around if you go physically to where you last lived in Canada--is the head of the elections agency, along with the deputy head.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 11, 2018, 01:31:53 am
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/gop-strategist-warns-bad-things-will-flow-rancher-pardons-trump-giving-oxygen-ultra-right-militia/

Trump has pardoned the crazy militia that had an armed standoff with the authorities.

...Because of course he did.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 11, 2018, 03:48:04 pm
Actual domestic terrorists?  Fine people.  People who've been unjustly jailed?  How's their skin tone?

Ironbite-god he's the worst.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 11, 2018, 04:50:32 pm
Correction: the pardoned people were poachers who started a destructive wildfire to get rid of the evidence of their crime. They're not from the Bundy mob but did serve as the inspiration for Bundy and his weird revolt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 11, 2018, 05:34:34 pm
Correction: the pardoned people were poachers who started a destructive wildfire to get rid of the evidence of their crime. They're not from the Bundy mob but did serve as the inspiration for Bundy and his weird revolt.

The real kicker is that when they were first sentenced, the judge ignored the mandatory minimum sentence for what they did (5 years) and gave the dad 3 months and the son 1 year.

And they were still terrorists, they repeatedly threatened the federal employees working on the federal land next to theirs.

Apparently mandatory minimums apply if you're a black kid caught with pot but not if you're a white conservative domestic terrorist.

EDIT: Though the mandatory minimum was imposed when the government appealed.

EDIT #2: Meanwhile, Trump told Angela Merkel that Germany is controlled by Russia because Germany buys gas from Russia.

Merkel, of course, grew in East Germany.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 11, 2018, 06:30:26 pm
The apology tour the next president is going to have to make is going to be considerable.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 11, 2018, 06:31:48 pm
The apology tour the next president is going to have to make is going to be considerable.

And the shit said person will get from the GOP will be MASSIVE.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on July 12, 2018, 02:37:59 am
The apology tour the next president is going to have to make is going to be considerable.

And the shit said person will get from the GOP will be MASSIVE.

Of course, because its not like Trump ever did anything egregious that should be apologized for! Those silly liberals and their international diplomacy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 14, 2018, 02:03:59 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwiOTJQzQ3s

A trial lawyer discusses why focusing on abortion is a losing strategy in the attempt to block Kavanaugh.

(For instance, he's blocked the EPA (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/what-would-kavanaugh-mean-for-the-environment/564830/) from being pragmatic because Congress is dragging its heels on updating environmental protection laws.)

EDIT: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-deceit-that-was-the-bc-liberals-case-for-power/

Surprise, surprise: the "business experience" "fiscally responsible" centre-right party in my province massively fucked shit up and a bunch of socialists have to fix it.

I wonder if we'll see an article like this if the populist left takes over the Democratic Party and starts digging into mismanagement in the US under the near-complete Republican rule (at both the federal and state levels).

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raMR3mqzqqQ

Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner now works for a firm that issues high-interest loans (at payday loan rates) of essentially any amount, and then sues the first time a payment is missed.

Also, Anthony Kennedy's last ruling is one that lets employees freeload on unions completely. There was already a rule in place mandating that unions keep money they use for bargaining with employers separate from money they use for political lobbying, and non-union employees at unionized workplaces had to pay into the former fund (since they saw a direct benefit from the union's work there) but not the latter. Now the Supreme Court, with "swing vote" Anthony Kennedy siding with the wingnuts, has ruled that, in fact, employees don't have to pay anything at all... but unions still have to bargain on their behalf.

Fuck you, Anthony Kennedy, you corporatist dick.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 16, 2018, 01:55:37 pm
So yeah, Trump is really shitty at making himself look not guilty of collusion.
He's like there's no collusion yet I'm going to stand up here at this podium and kiss Putin's ass meanwhile I just went on a European tour where I shit on all of my allies just like Putin would want me to.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 16, 2018, 03:16:41 pm
Guys I'm starting to think I'm just paranoid and that Trump didn't collude with Russia.

Ironbite-but everyone else who helped got him elected did.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on July 16, 2018, 03:27:42 pm
Rand Paul says he's worried about Kavanaugh (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/16/concerned-rand-paul-isnt-sure-how-hell-v). And it looks like he's not alone among Republican senators.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 16, 2018, 04:24:28 pm
Guys I'm starting to think I'm just paranoid and that Trump didn't collude with Russia.

Ironbite-but everyone else who helped got him elected did.

But Trump just committed Treason today. Putting his faith in Russia and the KGB instead of his own CIA who have been telling him repeatedly that Russia interfered with our election and will continue to do so. If he loves Russia so much maybe he just shouldn't be allowed back in the United States.

Of course congress is not going to do anything about this and this will just be another piece of shit swept under the rug.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 16, 2018, 04:45:59 pm
Rand Paul says he's worried about Kavanaugh (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/16/concerned-rand-paul-isnt-sure-how-hell-v). And it looks like he's not alone among Republican senators.

The GOP need not worry about Rand Paul. He's a lot of bark and absolutely no bite. If he's the deciding vote (say because the Dems manage to hold their own caucus, even though some Senators, like Jones, are already talking about flipping (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/09/dem_sen_doug_jones_will_take_independent_look_at_trump_scotus_nominee_open_to_voting_yes.html)) he's almost certain to vote to confirm.

Guys I'm starting to think I'm just paranoid and that Trump didn't collude with Russia.

Ironbite-but everyone else who helped got him elected did.

Whether or not Trump himself was involved in active collusion, there's still lots of financial ties between the Trumps and Russian oligarchs (who are themselves controlled by Putin). That's enough for Putin to exert undue (read: any) influence on Trump whether or not Trump himself colluded.

As for Russia attempting to hack US voting systems, this is why you need hand-marked paper ballots. (Make them machine-read for faster initial counting, but you need to retain the originals for manual recounts in any races that are even slightly close. Also, make sure any machines used in the tabulation are never connected to the Internet.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 16, 2018, 05:31:48 pm
As for Russia attempting to hack US voting systems, this is why you need hand-marked paper ballots. (Make them machine-read for faster initial counting, but you need to retain the originals for manual recounts in any races that are even slightly close. Also, make sure any machines used in the tabulation are never connected to the Internet.)

You're just talking crazy now, what about those poor internet providers that won't get any business, or those poor voting machine manufacturing companies who will be restricted on what they can make. What about those poor old people that have to count ballots without getting paid. Won't you think of the corporations?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 16, 2018, 11:18:45 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGu15nx8sTM

Sacha Baron Cohen got a bunch of Republicans (elected, formerly elected, or heads of GOP-leaning lobby groups) to say they support giving preschoolers guns. (With the exception of Matt Gaetz, who apparently has a dash of common sense.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 17, 2018, 04:03:55 pm
He walked back his comments at the Helsinki press comments.  Claimed he misspoke.  Oh yeah Trump, you sure did.

Ironbite-also seems to have embroiled us in an unknown deal with Russia to deal with security.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 17, 2018, 04:16:27 pm
Would and Wouldn't are two very important words to make a clear distinction between.
He's so full of shit, and the only reason why he's saying this is because he's surprised most American's hate what he did.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 17, 2018, 04:26:32 pm
That or Kelly sat him down in Air Force One and spent 2 hours screaming at him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 18, 2018, 05:43:31 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRMW4knpiUo

I guess Trump mispoke here as well while praising Putin...

EDIT: Just remembered this as well: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/11/politics/president-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-election-meddling/index.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 23, 2018, 01:12:49 am
Great, now our Twitter and chief is instigating shit with Iran now? Can't there be any fucking good news in politics these days?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 23, 2018, 01:15:07 am
Mueller is making good progress.

A GOP politician debating Tim Kaine claimed that, unlike Obama Trump, at least is tough on Russia and caused the crowd to burst into laughter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 23, 2018, 02:49:17 am
Great, now our Twitter and chief is instigating shit with Iran now? Can't there be any fucking good news in politics these days?

It's the same pattern as with NK: instigate shit, have everyone really worried, get credit when you do "peace talks" to bring things back to where they were before you were talking crap.

Hopefully it's finally been driven into his half a brain cell that killing the Iran deal was a really, really, really bad idea (whether by Mattis or Putin or somebody) and so he's doing this as a way to bring back the Iran deal and get credit for it himself instead of its being Obama's thing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 23, 2018, 09:21:12 am
I don't trust it. Pompeo has said that he wants to invade Iran for a while now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on July 23, 2018, 10:26:36 am
And he's got John "Regime Change in Iran" Bolton as his national security advisor.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on July 24, 2018, 08:08:22 pm
Twitter is apparently blocked in Iran. Nt that Rouhani won't be able to see it, because he will. That's just a funny observation I've seen floating around the internet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 24, 2018, 09:37:37 pm
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/398372-trump-admin-to-propose-blocking-californias-clean-car-standards?amp&__twitter_impression=true

The federal administration of the party of "states' rights" (let's just ignore what that term meant for literally centuries) and "local government is better" has decided that it knows better than the California state government and that California does not have the right as a state to try to keep its air clean.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 25, 2018, 03:58:31 pm
There's a few reasons why this is an important fight.  Number one, if they do this, it guts the Clean Air Act to the point where smog in China will look like light fog.  Two, it's a punishment for California not being in line with the rest of Trumpville and not deifying our Glorious Leader like the god among politicians he truly is.  And three, auto manufacturers really really really wanna make cars that belch black smoke but can't because as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation.

Ironbite-it's ingenious how petty this move really is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 25, 2018, 04:46:23 pm
I expect my state to fight this as much as possible, and subvert it every step.

It would really please me to hear tell of countries escalating their tariffs that target the red states.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 25, 2018, 04:56:25 pm
I expect my state to fight this as much as possible, and subvert it every step.

It would really please me to hear tell of countries escalating their tariffs that target the red states.

Ask and ye shall receive.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steel-tariff-maple-syrup-toilet-paper-1.4730440

Quote
"This list was clearly drawn strategically to exert maximum pain politically for the president," said Maryscott Greenwood of the Canadian American Business Council.

"The idea is, you look at a map of the congressional districts of the United States, you look at which members of Congress are in leadership positions and then you look at the big industries in those districts and then you draw up your list accordingly," she said. "And this list was clearly drawn up with this in mind."

And don't forget, another lobby pushing Trump to punish California is the fossil fuel industry. If cars have to have better fuel economy standards, they sell less gas.

It's almost like these sorts of companies have undue influence in the federal government...

I wonder why that could be...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Lana Reverse on July 25, 2018, 05:02:49 pm
Trump, a hypocrite? Say it ain't so! /s
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 25, 2018, 06:18:57 pm
Trump, a hypocrite? Say it ain't so! /s

It's not Trump, it's the entire GOP. They pay lip service to federalism and then run roughshod over it when they're in charge.

(Now, some GOP supporters would say that Democrats are even worse on the matter, but I've asked for specific examples of this from some highly engaged Republican voters and so far, crickets--just claims that Democrats abhor federalism.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on July 29, 2018, 09:41:06 pm
Now Trump is threatening to shut down the US government unless the democrats pay for his stupid wall.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-border-wall-mexico-shut-down-government-democrats-congress-a8468621.html

Whatever happened to mexico paying for it?  Maybe he should tell them he'll shut down the US government if they don't.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 29, 2018, 10:11:34 pm
He's an idiot. Go ahead and shut down the government months before an election to get funding for a wall that only 38 percent of Americans approve of. Democrats aren't going to budge.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 30, 2018, 05:54:06 am
This is just making the "Mexico is going to pay for it!" claim seem even sillier.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 30, 2018, 02:06:16 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/economic-efficiency-backlash-1.4762498

A take on why people are voting for economic inefficiency.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 30, 2018, 04:21:38 pm
OH I'M SO GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE ECONOMY AGAIN AS TO WHY THE GOP IS GONNA NOT GET SWEPT!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/coke-boosts-prices-trump-tariffs_us_5b5e78c8e4b0b15aba9a1e85?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Ironbite-fuck off with that noise.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 30, 2018, 05:04:43 pm
Yeah but how much is a can of coke going to go up? A dollar? 50 cents? two dollars? six tenths of a cent?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on July 30, 2018, 05:55:17 pm
So rather unsurprisingly, it appears that there was a meeting with Donald Trump before Little Donny, Cohen and Manafort met with russians at Trump Tower. The suggestion now is that that:

1. Collusion is not a crime;

2. Trump wasn't at the meeting (was aware of it beforehand though).
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/north-america/giuliani-just-obliterated-the-goal-posts-on-trump-russia-collusion-20180731-p4zuiy.html (https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/north-america/giuliani-just-obliterated-the-goal-posts-on-trump-russia-collusion-20180731-p4zuiy.html)

Unfortunately none of this will matter until after Don finishes being President  (unless the GOP get fucked harder than an ex-cop on his first day in prison in the midterms) becuase the GOP have shown that provided they have Tax cuts there is no bar low enough for the demeaning of the US Executive that they are not willing to accommodate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 30, 2018, 06:41:36 pm
I'm really surprised they haven't jettisoned him by now after they got the Tax Scam.  You get everything else with President Pence minus the ongoing Russian thing. 

Ironbite-makes me wonder how many other politicians Putin owns and what he's got on the GOP as a whole.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 30, 2018, 06:54:42 pm
I'm really surprised they haven't jettisoned him by now after they got the Tax Scam.  You get everything else with President Pence minus the ongoing Russian thing. 

Ironbite-makes me wonder how many other politicians Putin owns and what he's got on the GOP as a whole.

Part of the reason they haven't jettisoned him is because they're trying to cut taxes even more, by allowing people to take into account inflation when determining the original price of an asset they're selling. (Basically, if you buy stock for $100 and sell for $500, but inflation has made $100 then equal to $300 now, you would only realize a capital gain of $200 rather than $400.) This, of course, is basically only beneficial to the rich.

Apparently Bush Jr.'s administration considered doing this but they thought it would be illegal without enabling legislation from Congress.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 31, 2018, 08:40:44 am
Watching Rudy Linguini burn Trump's defense down with his own incompetence and flips it makes me wonder if they are doing this intentionally...

Is it too crazy to think that at this point the most destruction that Putin can get out of Trump is to have him tear up the country as he is losing his presidency? Intentionally sabotage his defense and stir up his fanatical supporters into frenzy so that the country is in complete turmoil for years to come?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 31, 2018, 10:06:13 am
So Trump tweeted: "Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!"

Is he pretty much admitting that he colluded? It's like he's saying Sure I could have colluded but if I did it's not a crime, but look over here Hillary COLLUDED lock her up! Well it's a crime if she did it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 31, 2018, 10:17:38 am
Guiliani is touting the same "collusion is not a crime" claim.

Which is intentionally beside the point. The reason they were colluding with Russia was to get help from a foreign power during elections and that is illegal.

So the whole "collusion isn't illegal" is like saying that driving a car isn't illegal when you are accused of running over someone with a car.

The real story is that this is the point where they can no longer deny that collusion happened and are forced to move the goalposts.

EDIT: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/spoke-gibberish-omarosa-reveals-trumps-mental-decline-obvious-not-denied/

Not surprised. For the record, Finland had a president who in his last days was as bad or worse off than Trump (I'm just glad that Twitter wasn't a thing back then because this was a guy who, before he lost his mind, penned actual physical letters to people so that he could call them "godddamn fuck ups.") and our government tried to cover it up as well while he was physically incapable of doing his job.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 07, 2018, 10:26:10 pm
So at 99 percent of the vote reported, it looks like the Republicans are going to win Ohio's 12th district. By a mere .8%. This was a county that Trump won by 11% in 2016. Even though the democratic party lost, this is a crushing blow to the Republicans and a bad sign for them come November.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 07, 2018, 10:30:41 pm
It helps to keep in mind that yes this was a deeply red area...a deeply red area that they now won by merely .8%.

It does not say good things for the seats held in more contentious areas.

I am hoping here in California we can kick Dana Rohrabacher out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on August 08, 2018, 12:02:14 pm
Remember how there was no need for putting any protection on Mueller's investigation because Trump had shown no signs of wanting to stop it?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/lindsey-graham-trump-brought-ending-russia-probe-about-20-times-n898501

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 08, 2018, 12:57:49 pm
It's been blindingly obvious that Trump wants to stop the Mueller investigation, it's just that Ryan and McConnell, despite saying it should be allowed to continue, have blocked all votes in the House and Senate respectively on motions or bills that would protect it.

Mueller's a seasoned prosecutor, though, and he's taken steps to protect his work by farming out parts of it to other teams not necessarily under Trump's control. (For instance, I think he's been working with the New York Attorney General on matters that can be tried under that state's criminal law.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 08, 2018, 03:46:25 pm
Oh Trump really would love it if everyone stopped questioning every single thing he does.  He really would.  Because he's a would be dictator and needs that.  But that's not how being a President works and Trump is no president.  At all.

Ironbite-The GOP should've jettisoned him the second they got their tax cuts instead of seeing how far they could go.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 08, 2018, 03:52:30 pm
The GOP is scared of Trump. He has an 85 percent approval rating in his party. They have to suck his dick to get elected.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 08, 2018, 04:32:27 pm
The GOP is scared of Trump. He has an 85 percent approval rating in his party. They have to suck his dick to get elected.

Exactly. Look at Mark Sanford. He'd been one of the most consistent voices in speaking out against Trump (and he's on the low end for GOP Representatives in voting with Trump, at 71.1%, lower than any GOP Senator--Paul is the lowest at 74%--and all but four other GOP Representatives--Ros-Lehtinen, Massie, Amash, and Jones) and he lost his primary to someone who said that it was the Year of the Woman and the Year of Trump (contradictory much?). Jeff Flake (83.3% Trump) and Bob Corker (83.6% Trump) are also vocal and aren't even running again.

The GOP doesn't have to suck Trump's dick to get elected, they have to suck his dick to win their primaries, and then figure out how to win in the general when the voters have a far lower approval of Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 08, 2018, 04:54:58 pm
It seems the GOP is caught in a Catch 22 - first they have to appeal to some of the most disgusting, abhuman wastes of skin obsessed with Trump, and then they have to appeal to people who don't like Trump - which requires coming off as two-faced, shifting positions and denying previously held positions.

In other words, the same things that got Mitt Romney eviscerated in 2012.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 08, 2018, 07:03:54 pm
And the reason they're losing special elections left and right and having races that should be in the bag for them come up as super competitive.

Ironbite-Ohio-12 for instance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 09, 2018, 12:15:04 am
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/americans-views-media-2018-08-07

Ipsos released a poll about Americans' views of the press (and other matters). Notably, they asked about their agreement or disagreement with a few statements.

"Freedom of the press is essential for American democracy." -- 83% of Republicans, 93% of Democrats, and 84% of Independents agreed, 5%, 1%, and 4% respectively disagreed.

"Reporters should be protected from pressure from government or big business interests." -- 57%, 85% and 69% agreed, 18%, 4%, and 8% disagreed.

"Most news outlets try their best to produce honest reporting." -- 29%, 68%, and 46% agreed, 56%, 15%, and 31% disagreed.

"Freedom of speech is one of the values that makes America great." -- 89%, 93%, and 88% agreed, 4%, 2%, and 4% disagreed.

"It should be easier to sue reporters who knowingly publish false information." -- 85%, 63%, and 67% agreed, 4%, 14%, and 7% disagreed.

"The president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior." -- 43%, 12%, and 21% agreed, 36%, 74%, and 55% disagreed.

"News and reporters are necessary to keep the Trump administration honest." -- 39%, 83%, and 57% agreed, 35%, 4%, and 18% disagreed.

"Reporters should be shielded from prosecution by the Trump administration" -- 25%, 75%, and 50% agreed, 44%, 9%, and 22% disagreed.

"Most news outlets have a liberal bias." -- 80%, 23%, and 47% agreed, 5%, 35%, and 19% disagreed.

"The mainstream media treats President Trump unfairly." -- 79%, 11%, and 41% agreed, 9%, 75%, and 36% disagreed.

"The news media is the enemy of the American people." -- 48%, 12%, and 26% agreed, 28%, 74%, and 50% disagreed.

"President Trump should close down mainstream news outlets, like CNN, the Washington Post, and The New York Times." -- 23%, 8%, and 10% agreed, 49%, 86%, and 71% disagreed.

"When jobs are scarce, employers should prioritize hiring people of this country over immigrants." -- 82%, 41%, and 64% agreed, 5%, 21%, and 12% disagreed.

"America needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful." -- 62%, 74%, and 67% agreed, 16%, 8%, and 10% disagreed.

"The American economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful." -- 46%, 82%, and 68% agreed, 29%, 6%, and 15% disagreed.

"Traditional parties and politicians don't care about me." -- 71%, 64%, and 79% agreed, 13%, 11%, and 7% disagreed.

"The mainstream media is more interested in making money than telling the truth." -- 84%, 33%, and 58% agreed, 6%, 44%, and 18% disagreed.

"I am proud to be an American." -- 94%, 73%, and 73% agreed, 2%, 11%, and 9% disagreed.

Insert alarmist rhetoric here.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 21, 2018, 05:10:42 pm
Manofort's guilty on 8 charges.

Ironbite-Cohen just spilled the beans on Trump....BEST PEOPLE!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 21, 2018, 05:54:25 pm
Cohen's pleaded as well. Fucking hell how many criminals can you get together in one administration?

The big question is Manafort going to flip or is Trump going to pardon him. (Having said that Manafort seems to be one of the few people who have taken an old school approach to their criminality. That is if you get caught you do the time and don't squeal. If you do that it will be all waiting when you get back out).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 21, 2018, 06:21:29 pm
"But these charges aren't related to Russia!"

1: Yes they are.
2: Even if they weren't, what you're saying is that these criminals should get away with it because the charges aren't exactly what Meuller is ostensibly investigating.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 21, 2018, 06:35:54 pm
Who's saying these charges aren't related to Russia?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 21, 2018, 07:30:26 pm
Trump of course.

Ironbite-and the Orange Piss Pot's supporters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 21, 2018, 08:02:57 pm
Can someone sum up how they are related? Not saying they aren't I just want to be educated on the matter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 21, 2018, 09:57:44 pm
Mueller's authority ranged far beyond just Russia.

As for pardons, Trump should be careful what he wishes for. If he pardons people, they can then be compelled to testify under oath with no 5th Amendment protections (since they can't face criminal charges).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 22, 2018, 08:14:09 pm
So bets on how long until Manafort is pardoned? I'd give it a few months, tops.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 22, 2018, 08:23:04 pm
Yeah a pardon opens up all types of trouble though.  Such as being able to be questioned intensely over any dirty crimes that might have been done.

Ironbite-also Manafort's facing State charges that can't be pardoned so....
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 22, 2018, 08:25:04 pm
I mean, you say that stuff as if Trump understands what his pardons mean.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 22, 2018, 09:11:44 pm
Trump sounds like he is in the mafia praising Manafort for 'not breaking'.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 23, 2018, 01:33:27 pm
Just a few excerpted quotes from a Trump interview today:

"Even my enemies say that Jeff Sessions should have told you that he was going to recuse himself and then you wouldn't have put him in."

"The immigration laws are horrible. We're doing an incredible job."

"You know when you have bad laws you can do good. But you can do a lot better if you had good laws."

"I don't know how you can impeach somebody who's done a great job."

"I tell you what, if I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor."

 "So I give myself an A-plus."

"The only thing I'm I'm doing badly on is the press doesn't cover me fairly."

"I would say I would honestly give myself an A-plus and so would many other people."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 23, 2018, 05:11:14 pm
God damn he believes his own hype.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 23, 2018, 05:54:08 pm
No he doesn't. He just knows that impeachment is a political process.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 24, 2018, 12:35:17 am
Trump is doing what so, SO many fictional villains do - if you defeat me, the consequences will be more than you can handle! You NEED me!

The answer is always "no, we don't."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 24, 2018, 06:00:03 pm
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/24/politics/trump-pompeo-north-korea/index.html

So Trump is calling off talks with North Korea, citing they aren't making enough progress with negotiations. Anyone surprised by this? Anyone? Remember when Republicans were all like North Korea will denucularize because Trump met with Kim Jung Un one time and called him a good guy, and every other sane person was like nothing will come of this?
I bet Pompeo was taken by surprise. I bet he didn't even know until someone showed him Trump's Tweet, that he most likely probably typed out when he was taking a shit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 25, 2018, 12:35:51 am
You know, I actually have 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% sympathy for Trump, because all his troubles are because he decided to run for President--if he'd never done that, he probably could have skated along with his criminal activities for the rest of his life, since the US "justice" system lets rich people get away with most anything.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on August 26, 2018, 05:15:16 am
Isn't this the 20th time he's flip flopped on talking to them vs not talking to them?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on August 26, 2018, 03:25:58 pm
You know, I actually have 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% sympathy for Trump, because all his troubles are because he decided to run for President--if he'd never done that, he probably could have skated along with his criminal activities for the rest of his life, since the US "justice" system lets rich people get away with most anything.

But look at how fast he's bringing along the "revolution."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 28, 2018, 07:56:33 pm
Oh look at our little Donny using fear tactics to scaring people into voting for the GOP like a big boy. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/trump-evangelicals-midterms/index.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 05, 2018, 07:41:05 am
Trump had a "practice testimony" with his lawyers to see how he'd do against Mueller if ordered to testify.

Afterwards his lawyers went to see Mueller and re-enacted that scene to prove that the president cannot be asked to testify as he is incapable of telling the truth.

Is this what they refer to as "5D Backgammon?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on September 05, 2018, 08:58:36 pm
I thought John Dowd went to him and just said 'Look he's an idiot, if he gives testimony in front of you he will look like an idiot and it will leak'

Also, the New York Times anonymous Op-Ed piece, who could have written it: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/donald-trump-mystery-op-ed/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/donald-trump-mystery-op-ed/index.html)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 05, 2018, 11:41:59 pm
I think it was more, "We'll lose all credibility on the international stage."

Too late. (Granted this happened--or should have happened--when Obama ordered Gaddafi killed despite Bush promising to leave Gaddafi alone in exchange for his giving up his WMDs.)

The US cannot be trusted to keep its word. It can barely be trusted to stand by its properly-ratified international treaties.

EDIT: As for the mystery op-ed piece, I've heard some speculation that it's Pence, because he's one of the few (maybe the only) administration officials to use the term "lodestar".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on September 06, 2018, 12:13:32 am
I read that piece too.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on September 06, 2018, 12:38:44 am
I think it was more, "We'll lose all credibility on the international stage."

Too late. (Granted this happened--or should have happened--when Obama ordered Gaddafi killed despite Bush promising to leave Gaddafi alone in exchange for his giving up his WMDs.)

The US cannot be trusted to keep its word. It can barely be trusted to stand by its properly-ratified international treaties.

EDIT: As for the mystery op-ed piece, I've heard some speculation that it's Pence, because he's one of the few (maybe the only) administration officials to use the term "lodestar".

I don't blame Obama for that. You can very readily order someone dead when they are killing their own people. Your word should never be that ironclad. As much as people love these idiotic words like honor and loyalty (to one's word or some such), I would rather a Democratic President not be totally beholden to them.

Keeping to your word is meaningless in the face of immediate imperatives such as preventing Gaddafi from going on with his massacres.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 06, 2018, 02:04:00 am
I don't blame Obama for that. You can very readily order someone dead when they are killing their own people. Your word should never be that ironclad. As much as people love these idiotic words like honor and loyalty (to one's word or some such), I would rather a Democratic President not be totally beholden to them.

Keeping to your word is meaningless in the face of immediate imperatives such as preventing Gaddafi from going on with his massacres.
It was nothing to do with the massacres. The US government could not give less of a shit about foreign governments killing and oppressing their own people, so long as it doesn't negatively effect their own interests. The oil exports to Europe were being disrupted by the civil war, that's why NATO got involved. All of the pearl clutching about civilian massacres were just a way to sell it to the public, nothing more than that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on September 06, 2018, 03:48:36 am
I think it was more, "We'll lose all credibility on the international stage."

Too late. (Granted this happened--or should have happened--when Obama ordered Gaddafi killed despite Bush promising to leave Gaddafi alone in exchange for his giving up his WMDs.)

The US cannot be trusted to keep its word. It can barely be trusted to stand by its properly-ratified international treaties.

EDIT: As for the mystery op-ed piece, I've heard some speculation that it's Pence, because he's one of the few (maybe the only) administration officials to use the term "lodestar".

I don't blame Obama for that. You can very readily order someone dead when they are killing their own people. Your word should never be that ironclad. As much as people love these idiotic words like honor and loyalty (to one's word or some such), I would rather a Democratic President not be totally beholden to them.

Keeping to your word is meaningless in the face of immediate imperatives such as preventing Gaddafi from going on with his massacres.

Silly liberal, you should blame Obama for everything!

Stub your toe? Obama did it!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 06, 2018, 10:26:25 am
If Pence did pen that article, he's setting himself up for failure.  Nobody likes Pence in political circles.  He doesn't win elections on a national scale.  Only reason Trump was forced to pick him as VP was because the GOP told him too.

Ironbite-well...that and Manafort.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 06, 2018, 01:01:02 pm
Yah but Pence has said that he believes God talks to him and has chosen him to be the president of USA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 09, 2018, 02:55:55 am
https://youtu.be/EcZit3Ye6Lk?t=11

So Vice put together a compilation of every successful US Supreme Court nominee from O'Connor on being asked about their views on abortion. (They did not include Rehnquist's hearings for his appointment as Chief Justice, though this may perhaps have been because he had already written in Roe and Doe in dissent; the full list is O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts--directly as Chief Justice, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch.)

It's interesting how the further left the justice is (let's not pretend that any of these people are non-ideological and actually just "calling balls and strikes") the more honest they are in answering the question.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 25, 2018, 03:50:52 pm
Trump gave a big speech to the United Nations saying that he's done more in 2 years then any other president in history.\

The seasoned and serious diplomats who understand English laughed.  Then a second later as the translators caught up, everyone else laughed as well.  Trump would shrug it off because he thought they were laughing at a joke he somehow told but I don't think it's gonna be that easy to swallow down as people think.

Ironbite-god Thursday's gonna be fun.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 25, 2018, 05:02:06 pm
He's such a narcissistic immodest shithead. After his time in office I assure you in his first interview he has he'll say he was probably the greatest President America has ever seen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 25, 2018, 05:36:46 pm
If Trump gets impeached and actually convicted by the Senate, he'll be whining about how all the Republicans who voted to remove him from office are actually secret Democrats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on September 25, 2018, 07:04:43 pm
Or that as Republicans their loyalty should be to him first and the country second, or even that he IS the country and by impeaching him they're betraying America.

Not too far off from everything else he's been saying.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on September 25, 2018, 07:09:46 pm
What's better is that his supporters will believe that they are secret democrats, just like Mueller and Rosenstein are democrats despite being lifelong republicans. That's largely because to authoritarian followers there is no difference between their nation and their leader.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 26, 2018, 08:08:04 am
His fans on Reddit are busy trying to claim that the UN laughed WITH the president, not AT him.

They use that translation gap to claim that they instead laughed at his reply.

Also saw someone claim that there can be no translation gap because UN diplomats are highly trained and all have "Ivy league" education in USA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 26, 2018, 11:42:12 am
If they laughed with him than what exactly was the joke? That he accomplished more than any other president ever? Because Trump has said this to thunderous applause at his rallies. Was he joking then as well?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 26, 2018, 03:12:15 pm
Like I said, they built their weak defense on the delay in the laughter. Saying that when Trump replied with "I didn't expect that response" to the initial laughter it was the funniest joke the UN diplomats and politicians had ever heard.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 26, 2018, 03:14:46 pm
I imagine Trump honestly didn't expect laughter.

As for the delay, do these people honestly not know what an interpreter is?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 26, 2018, 03:17:49 pm
Like I said, they claim that it is impossible that foreign diplomats wouldn't speak English because "everyone needs to speak English when dealing with foreigners and they've likely got Ivy league education."

...Because USA has the only universities I guess?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 26, 2018, 03:58:35 pm
Yeah Oxford?  What the hell is that?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 27, 2018, 12:53:22 pm
Trump is apparently furious that nobody told him how credible Dr. Blasey would come across.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 27, 2018, 01:34:47 pm
I think Kavanaugh's gonna be withdrawn.  I mean there's an outside chance of this but if Flake really wants to spit in Trump's eye, he can.

Ironbite-but then again, Trump's an idiot who desperately wants to be told he can play and have no consequences so....
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 27, 2018, 01:39:08 pm
If they withdraw Kavanaugh (and I'm not sure they will), he'll be replaced by, probably, Amy Coney Barrett--and she is, if anything, even worse than Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 27, 2018, 01:50:18 pm
But she doesn't come in in time to decide the cases that Trump desperately needs decided on.  So there's that.

Ironbite-of course, she doesn't come with the sexual assault baggage so I guess it's because she's a woman is the only reason for the circus?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 27, 2018, 02:12:19 pm
If McConnell wants to rush Barrett he easily could.

Move to bring Barrett to the floor without a positive recommendation from the Judiciary Committee.

Kill the filibuster for such motions when the Democrats inevitably filibuster.

Move again, pass.

Move cloture, pass.

Move the nomination, pass.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 27, 2018, 09:52:54 pm
You know, I'd love to call my senator about this, but Ron Johnson doesn't take phone calls. Because he knows he's a partisan hack who doesn't actually represent the people.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 27, 2018, 11:54:29 pm
Kevin Jackson, a FOX News contributor, on Twitter:

Quote
.#ChristineBlaseyFord academic problems came from her PROMISCUITY!

Dang girl, stop opening your legs and OPEN A BOOK!

#TeamKJ

Quote
It wasn't challenged, because Leftist women are skanky for the most part.

More will be sued and made to pay for this.

Quote
I disagree. Feminists are their own worst enemies, and enemy of women.

Also, they want men to NEVER be believed. I'm not succumbing.

TO HELL with the notion that women must be believed no matter what. Lying skanks is what these 3 women are, and we ALL know more

#TeamKJ

Quote
.#Democrats latest Great Feminist Hope against #Kavanaugh admits to attending 10 gang-bangs where Kavanaugh "waited his turn"

Something tells me #Swetnick wasn't at these parties for the DRINKS

#DraggingBottomOfBarrel

#TeamKJ
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on September 28, 2018, 01:22:07 am
And that got him fired.

Apparently Mr. Kavanaugh went on the news and had a huge nervous meltdown.

He and his friends according to a new report called themselves a certain student's "suicide squad", dedicating themselves to slutshaming her and driving her to suicide. He and his friends marked up the yearbook with their remarks and all of them were disgraceful. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/09/25/business/25YEARBOOK6/25YEARBOOK6-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

The one furthest to the left is him.

At this point I retract all prior statements - for all the lunatic right wringing about Amy Coney Barrett being the Chosen One or some crap like that, even SHE would be better than a grown up version of Bryce Walker except somehow even eviler.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 28, 2018, 05:51:05 pm
Well, the FBI's going to look into it and probably do what they did with Anita Hill: interview people and issue a summary report.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 28, 2018, 06:53:54 pm
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 28, 2018, 07:15:48 pm
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.

Well, the Democrats' next move, really, is to kill the legislative filibuster and do what FDR didn't: expand the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 29, 2018, 02:12:40 am
The amount of Republican tears if that happens is going to be something extraordinary.

EDIT: So Trump told FBI to do an investigation but the Kavanaugh appointment is trucking on (towards an inevitable disaster.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on September 29, 2018, 08:03:53 am
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.

Well, the Democrats' next move, really, is to kill the legislative filibuster and do what FDR didn't: expand the Supreme Court.

Oh, I wish I were in Canada with whatever legal dope you got
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 29, 2018, 11:09:52 am
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.

Well, the Democrats' next move, really, is to kill the legislative filibuster and do what FDR didn't: expand the Supreme Court.

Oh, I wish I were in Canada with whatever legal dope you got

I'm not saying they will, and I'm not saying they should.

As for up here... go see the Constitution Act, 1982, s. 41(d). That's one of the provisions that keeps the courts up here from becoming politicized.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on October 01, 2018, 03:04:23 pm
And then they'll confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme court despite any findings and well be stuck with him for the next forty years with roe v wade over turned.

Well, the Democrats' next move, really, is to kill the legislative filibuster and do what FDR didn't: expand the Supreme Court.

Oh, I wish I were in Canada with whatever legal dope you got

I'm not saying they will, and I'm not saying they should.

As for up here... go see the Constitution Act, 1982, s. 41(d). That's one of the provisions that keeps the courts up here from becoming politicized.

You’re cute when you ignore ratfuckery.

I.e. Much like gerrymandering, norms and mores, moreso than rules and procedure, that reign in partisanship. Your system, just as much as ours, is susceptible to partisanship; you’ve  just been lucky enough to avoid it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on October 01, 2018, 05:14:34 pm
You’re cute when you ignore ratfuckery.

I.e. Much like gerrymandering, norms and mores, moreso than rules and procedure, that reign in partisanship. Your system, just as much as ours, is susceptible to partisanship; you’ve  just been lucky enough to avoid it.

Case in point Doug Ford, Ontario's drug dealer turned mini trump.  For the Non-Canadians, right in the middle of Toronto's municipal election he announced he would slash the size of the city council, basically to spite his enemies there and unfairly advantage the right.  When a judge ruled this illegal because it prevented the election from being fair, Ford broke the norms of Canadian politics by using the notwithstanding clause that lets the government ignore the courts.  The law is meant for emergency situations only, but Doug busts it out of over trivial matters to rig the system and hurt people he doesn't like.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 01, 2018, 06:32:21 pm
That won't come back and bite him in the ass.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 01, 2018, 06:42:03 pm
It actually might not; his caucus doesn't even have a plurality of Toronto's MPPs.

But yes, our system is very prone to partisan fuckery, and we'd avoided it before this I think, in part, because everyone realized that the moment one of them did violate the norms, everyone would feel free to do it, including the next government to take power in said jurisdiction. Whether Ford's opened the floodgates remains to be seen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 02, 2018, 05:24:57 pm
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/trump-scary-time-for-young-men-metoo/index.html

So it's really become a war of the sexes. Do they not care about women voters at all? Clearly putting a judge in the supreme court who could over turn Roe V Wade and is accused of sexual assault, along with having a president who is also equally as sleezy is just alienating more and more women voters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 02, 2018, 07:17:23 pm
It doesn't matter to them.  All that matters is putting minorities in their places.

Ironbite-cause they need to put a halt to all forms of progress lest they get left in the dust.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 02, 2018, 07:19:28 pm
As long as they can hold a third of the Senate they can block any attempt by the Democrats to get rid of their SCOTUS justices, and as long as they can hold a legislative house in a quarter of the states they can block any Constitutional amendment.

It's more important to entrench white male conservative power on the Supreme Court for a long time than it is to win in 2018, or 2020, or any election for the next while.

Outside of expanding the Supreme Court, pretty much the only chance the Democrats have of knocking that off is to hope that Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg die while there's a Democratic President and a Democratic-controlled Senate (or, if there's a split that blocks it, that that's the result the next time the two are controlled by the same party).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 02, 2018, 07:25:14 pm
The US really need to introduce a retirement age for their Supreme Court. 70 or 75 should be old enough to mean that you should retire.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 02, 2018, 07:35:55 pm
SCOTUS nothing.  Congress should have term and age limits.

Ironbite-solve a lot of the crap we're seeing right now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on October 02, 2018, 08:06:53 pm
SCOTUS nothing.  Congress should have term and age limits.

A nice idea. But, as much as Congress is flawed, I like the idea of experienced and knowledgeable politicians more so than I like the idea of "new blood." Additionally, if people really cared about Congressional term limits, they could just vote in primaries, field a challenger, vote for the opposing candidate(s), or not vote at all.*

*None of which will happen because are a democracy: we are free to be as lazy and stupid as we want to be.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 02, 2018, 08:31:18 pm
SCOTUS nothing.  Congress should have term and age limits.

A nice idea. But, as much as Congress is flawed, I like the idea of experienced and knowledgeable politicians more so than I like the idea of "new blood." Additionally, if people really cared about Congressional term limits, they could just vote in primaries, field a challenger, vote for the opposing candidate(s), or not vote at all.*

*None of which will happen because are a democracy: we are free to be as lazy and stupid as we want to be.

Whereas SCOTUS appointments are for life and shouldn't really be capable of impeachment except for the most egregious offences to avoid political interference. That necessary independence is a pretty good basis for only appointing those people who are beyond reproach and not actively partisan.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on October 02, 2018, 09:26:12 pm
SCOTUS nothing.  Congress should have term and age limits.

A nice idea. But, as much as Congress is flawed, I like the idea of experienced and knowledgeable politicians more so than I like the idea of "new blood." Additionally, if people really cared about Congressional term limits, they could just vote in primaries, field a challenger, vote for the opposing candidate(s), or not vote at all.*

*None of which will happen because are a democracy: we are free to be as lazy and stupid as we want to be.

Whereas SCOTUS appointments are for life and shouldn't really be capable of impeachment except for the most egregious offences to avoid political interference. That necessary independence is a pretty good basis for only appointing those people who are beyond reproach and not actively partisan.

A nice idea, in theory.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 02, 2018, 09:41:51 pm
The Republicans will never nominate someone nonpartisan again. They're deathly afraid of nominating another David Souter.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 02, 2018, 09:49:09 pm
If you want to fix congress, take the money out of politics. Ban lobbying, enact publicly funded election campaigns for all candidates and ban politicians from working in the private sector when they leave office (though compensate them with a generous pension). Make it so politicians must answer solely to their voters rather than donors, and things will improve immensely.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 02, 2018, 10:24:00 pm
Funnily enough all of those things have to be approved by the very people the status quo benefits.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 02, 2018, 11:00:21 pm
Indeed. No doubt the pricks will run the entire country into the ground before they fix it. In fact, I believe it's happening right now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 02, 2018, 11:36:25 pm
SCOTUS nothing.  Congress should have term and age limits.

A nice idea. But, as much as Congress is flawed, I like the idea of experienced and knowledgeable politicians more so than I like the idea of "new blood." Additionally, if people really cared about Congressional term limits, they could just vote in primaries, field a challenger, vote for the opposing candidate(s), or not vote at all.*

*None of which will happen because are a democracy: we are free to be as lazy and stupid as we want to be.

Whereas SCOTUS appointments are for life and shouldn't really be capable of impeachment except for the most egregious offences to avoid political interference. That necessary independence is a pretty good basis for only appointing those people who are beyond reproach and not actively partisan.

A nice idea, in theory.

Well the reason they get life appointments is to inure them from political interference. Although I recognise that non-partisan Supreme Court Judges is more hope than present reality. I just find it abhorrent that people can accurately predict the split of the high Supreme court on particular cases based solely off their politics, without any apparent connection to what the law is.


Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 06, 2018, 09:06:47 pm
And the Supreme Court's officially stacked. Fuck Donald Trump and the Republican fascists behind him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 06, 2018, 09:17:44 pm
It's very hard to feel hopeful and optimistic during this current state of things. Trump keeps getting his agenda through. Seeing his smug face on tv makes me so fucking angry. I can't even listen to what he has to say. Watching the polls everyday for the upcoming election churns my stomach in knots. It feels like a nightmare I can't wake up from. I just need some kind of good news.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 06, 2018, 11:07:22 pm
It's very hard to feel hopeful and optimistic during this current state of things. Trump keeps getting his agenda through. Seeing his smug face on tv makes me so fucking angry. I can't even listen to what he has to say. Watching the polls everyday for the upcoming election churns my stomach in knots. It feels like a nightmare I can't wake up from. I just need some kind of good news.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/chicago-police-vandyke-murder-verdict-1.4852421

The police officer who shot Laquan McDonald was convicted of one count of second-degree murder and sixteen counts of aggravated battery, one per shot fired.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on October 08, 2018, 06:29:29 pm
And the Supreme Court's officially stacked. Fuck Donald Trump and the Republican fascists behind him.

I've said it once, I'll say it again (and not to you, of course): elections have consequences and abortion rights were nice while they lasted.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 08, 2018, 09:50:58 pm
Have shares in coat hanger companies risen yet?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 08, 2018, 10:33:27 pm
But there were those people who were like "Oh Trump is just saying that he doesn't really mean it." I hope they're scared.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 08, 2018, 10:46:54 pm
Whether Trump meant it or not is irrelevant. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan sure as hell meant it.

(Incidentally, I ran some numbers. Four of the current US Supreme Court justices were confirmed by Senators representing less than half the population of the US according to the census used for apportioning the House in the Congress in which the justice in question was confirmed, considering each Senator to represent half of their state's population. The four in question are Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. If anyone wants numbers I can post them.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 08, 2018, 11:56:31 pm
And the Supreme Court's officially stacked. Fuck Donald Trump and the Republican fascists behind him.

I've said it once, I'll say it again (and not to you, of course): elections have consequences and abortion rights were nice while they lasted.

Given how close the election ultimately was, the whole thing could have been changed by a few people who stayed at home because they were pissed about Bernie not getting the nomination. Or by Comey announcing the re-opening of the email investigation. Or russian sponsored wikileaks.

You know what would have stemmed the impact of these things. Compulsory voting.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on October 09, 2018, 12:39:29 am
Or just being automatically registered as a voter on your 18th birthday. It would not only make voting easier but it would also make vote suppression more difficult.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 09, 2018, 01:00:51 am
But the Republicans can't have that. They benefit too much from low voter turn out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 09, 2018, 01:16:41 am
Never mind that voter ID laws are arguably an unconstitutional poll tax.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 09, 2018, 12:22:43 pm
So Niki Haley resigned from her position today stating "America is respected now." I didn't realize talking down to your allies treating them like shit, dropping out of deals the country has made, losing trust and palling around with Dictators equals respect.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 09, 2018, 01:14:10 pm
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:

1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.

2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.

3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on October 09, 2018, 02:51:36 pm
Have shares in coat hanger companies risen yet?

Gains to coat hanger stock peaked on November 9, 2016 and constituted the lions share of that days rally following the “Trump Slump”
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 09, 2018, 03:48:37 pm
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:

1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.

2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.

3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.

Oh I'm sure she'll run for President in 2024. No one is going to challenge Trump in 2020. He may be one of the most hated presidents in recent times but he is the most loved president by the Republican party.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 09, 2018, 04:28:50 pm
Anyone who challenges him that's an elected official is calling for their throats to be cut.

Ironbite-probably see a few other "billionaires" try to unseat him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 09, 2018, 06:04:13 pm
Bill Gates 2020?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 09, 2018, 06:08:41 pm
So Niki Haley resigned from her position today stating "America is respected now." I didn't realize talking down to your allies treating them like shit, dropping out of deals the country has made, losing trust and palling around with Dictators equals respect.

Do you think Trump might have sacked her because she won't feed the mushroom.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 09, 2018, 06:28:28 pm
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:

1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.

2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.

3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.

Oh I'm sure she'll run for President in 2024. No one is going to challenge Trump in 2020. He may be one of the most hated presidents in recent times but he is the most loved president by the Republican party.

Anyone who challenges him that's an elected official is calling for their throats to be cut.

Ironbite-probably see a few other "billionaires" try to unseat him.

Anyone trying to challenge Trump from within the Republican Party will not succeed.

What might happen is that Haley and/or Kasich make runs as independent candidates, focusing on their particular regions where they can draw off votes (from anti-Trump Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for the Democratic candidate but can sleep at night voting third-party for a Republican they would be fine having as President--never mind that there are basically no policy differences between them), and effectively ensure that the Democratic candidate wins states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably also Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida--who knows, maybe even Texas.

Both would, at that point, have been out of any elected positions for a good time at that point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on October 09, 2018, 06:33:08 pm
So Niki Haley resigned from her position today stating "America is respected now." I didn't realize talking down to your allies treating them like shit, dropping out of deals the country has made, losing trust and palling around with Dictators equals respect.

Do you think Trump might have sacked her because she won't feed the mushroom.

He didn't call her "fat" or "low-IQ," so I do not believe so.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 09, 2018, 06:39:13 pm
So Niki Haley resigned from her position today stating "America is respected now." I didn't realize talking down to your allies treating them like shit, dropping out of deals the country has made, losing trust and palling around with Dictators equals respect.

Do you think Trump might have sacked her because she won't feed the mushroom.

He didn't call her "fat" or "low-IQ," so I do not believe so.

He did say we've had a 'very special relationship'. Edit: Although he never says that the day they leave or to their face, he waits a few days and then it starts, once they are safely far enough away.

She might be bailing to avoid being completely drained by the dignity vampire.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 09, 2018, 06:56:45 pm
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:

1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.

2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.

3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.

Oh I'm sure she'll run for President in 2024. No one is going to challenge Trump in 2020. He may be one of the most hated presidents in recent times but he is the most loved president by the Republican party.

Anyone who challenges him that's an elected official is calling for their throats to be cut.

Ironbite-probably see a few other "billionaires" try to unseat him.

Anyone trying to challenge Trump from within the Republican Party will not succeed.

What might happen is that Haley and/or Kasich make runs as independent candidates, focusing on their particular regions where they can draw off votes (from anti-Trump Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for the Democratic candidate but can sleep at night voting third-party for a Republican they would be fine having as President--never mind that there are basically no policy differences between them), and effectively ensure that the Democratic candidate wins states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably also Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida--who knows, maybe even Texas.

Both would, at that point, have been out of any elected positions for a good time at that point.

I think you're being a little too hopeful. I don't think they have any intentions of running as independents or leaving the Republican party. Republicans won't vote for them over Trump and Democrats won't vote for them either so there would be no point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on October 09, 2018, 06:58:44 pm
Co-incidence?

Nikki Haley's resignation comes one day after an ethics watchdog requested an investigation into her acceptance of free flights on private jets (https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-resign-investigation-flights-free-private-jets-2018-10)

Quote
United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley's abrupt resignation on Tuesday came one day after an ethics watchdog group requested the State Department's inspector general investigate her acceptance of seven free flights aboard private jets from a trio of South Carolina businessmen.

Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, listed the flights on her 2017 financial disclosure and asserted that each qualified for an exception based on her relationships with the businessmen.

But the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in its complaint that Haley's financial disclosure did not provide enough information to make the assertion that the flights between New York, Washington, DC, and three South Carolina cities qualified for the exemption.

Those flights were most likely worth tens of thousands of dollars, CREW suggested.

Watchdog Group Calls For Probe Of Nikki Haley Flights Funded By Businessmen (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/watchdog-group-calls-for-probe-of-gift-flights-for-nikki-haley_us_5bbc3517e4b0876edaa12d30)

Quote
“By accepting gifts of luxury private flights, Ambassador Haley seems to be falling in line with other Trump administration officials who are reaping personal benefits from their public positions,” Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the group, said in a statement. “Our ethics laws are clearly written to prevent even the appearance of corruption and improper influence.”

At a “minimum,” Bookbinder said, Haley should have been sensitive to the appearance of accepting pricey gifts from businessmen — especially at a time when other Trump officials have been caught in scandals for lavish travel.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 09, 2018, 07:00:34 pm
I've heard about a few possible scenarios:

1. Haley is going to get a job within the administration in the new year, to show that the Republicans aren't anti-woman or anti-minority (she's the daughter of Indian immigrants). Quite possibly for 2020 they'll kick Pence to the curb and run a Trump-Haley ticket.

2. She's setting up for a run of her own, probably challenging Trump in the 2020 primaries. She probably can't win, though--the Republicans have too many winner-take-all contests.

3. She's setting up for an independent run, trying to bleed just enough of the Republican vote (particularly in the South) to keep Trump out. Kasich might do the same thing with the Rust Belt.

Oh I'm sure she'll run for President in 2024. No one is going to challenge Trump in 2020. He may be one of the most hated presidents in recent times but he is the most loved president by the Republican party.

Anyone who challenges him that's an elected official is calling for their throats to be cut.

Ironbite-probably see a few other "billionaires" try to unseat him.

Anyone trying to challenge Trump from within the Republican Party will not succeed.

What might happen is that Haley and/or Kasich make runs as independent candidates, focusing on their particular regions where they can draw off votes (from anti-Trump Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for the Democratic candidate but can sleep at night voting third-party for a Republican they would be fine having as President--never mind that there are basically no policy differences between them), and effectively ensure that the Democratic candidate wins states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and probably also Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida--who knows, maybe even Texas.

Both would, at that point, have been out of any elected positions for a good time at that point.

I think you're being a little too hopeful. I don't think they have any intentions of running as independents or leaving the Republican party. Republicans won't vote for them over Trump and Democrats won't vote for them either so there would be no point.

Kasich at least seems to be gearing up for a Presidential run in 2020, and I think he knows that he has literally no chance of winning the Republican nomination as long as Trump hasn't been impeached and convicted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 09, 2018, 08:18:29 pm
Kasich is always gearing up for a Presidential run.  Of the elected officials, he's bout the only one who would try and Primary Trump.  Haley, not so much.

Ironbite-would be interesting to see though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 09, 2018, 08:30:50 pm
Kasich is always gearing up for a Presidential run.  Of the elected officials, he's bout the only one who would try and Primary Trump.  Haley, not so much.

Ironbite-would be interesting to see though.

But at the same time I think he knows he has no chance in the Republican primaries. I wouldn't be surprised if he does an independent run.

EDIT: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410610-rand-paul-on-political-climate-i-really-worry-that-someone-is-going-to-be?__twitter_impression=true

Rand Paul is worried that someone will be killed in the current political climate. I would remind the Senator from Kentucky that someone was: Heather Heyer.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 11, 2018, 10:14:18 am
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-john-kelly-fire-white-house-olivia-nuzzi-pence-pompeo-oval-office-a8578486.html

TL;DR There's now a claim that Trump has tried to fire Kelly but doesn't know how to do it. Kelly is the one Trump calls when he needs to fire someone, but when he tries to fire Kelly, the chief of staff ignores the president and eventually Trump just kinda gives up.

Honestly, this all sounds unbelievable but it wouldn't be the craziest story from Trump administration and it is known that Trump is kinda of a coward about laying off people and can't really do it face to face. Besides, way too many times crazy stories have been confirmed when it comes to Trump so it's hard to disregard anything as obviously fake.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 11, 2018, 02:46:14 pm
Gee the man who had no problem yelling You're Fired on TV could possibly be a fucking coward in real life?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 17, 2018, 02:36:28 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/khashoggi-column-1.4863809

Neil MacDonald on how Trump's election has exposed what the world's really like.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 20, 2018, 04:32:32 pm
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/412114-catholics-and-exorcists-pray-for-kavanaugh-to-counteract

In a case of "crazy begets crazy", a bunch of witches are planning a ceremony to put a hex on Brett Kavanaugh, and a bunch of Catholics are planning an exorcism to counteract it.

Or something like that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on October 22, 2018, 02:39:44 am
I'm gonna say spooky magic words to curse McRapey of the Court Supreme, that'll sure teach him a lesson.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 22, 2018, 10:36:59 am
Then I'm gonna use my magic words to stop those spooky magic words from cursing Mcrapey in the supreme court. That will learn them that their magic words have no place here.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 22, 2018, 10:47:47 pm
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-admin-planning-to-basically-pretend-that-transgender-people-dont-exist/

In the latest assault on reality by the Trump administration, they're planning to declare that transgender people don't exist.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 24, 2018, 04:44:28 pm
So with pipe bombs mailed out to Barack Obama, the Clintons, George Soros, and CNN is everyone going to ignore how dangerous Trump's rhetoric is becoming? It's funny how they were sent to all of the right's bogeymen.

Remember Democrats are the angry ones.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 24, 2018, 04:51:54 pm
But pounding your fists on the table where the Senate Majority Leader and the Secretary of Transportation are eating is going too far.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 24, 2018, 05:02:14 pm
This happening right before the midterms...

The right wing is coming unhinged at just the right moment. This is extensively bad PR for the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 24, 2018, 05:04:57 pm
Yet the Republicans are improving in the polls. Call me pessimistic but I have a bad feeling the Democrats won't get enough seats to take back the house.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 24, 2018, 06:05:15 pm
House yes.  Senate is another uphill battle.

Ironbite-might not take it this year but 2020 they'll probably clean up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 24, 2018, 06:09:10 pm
You're confident they'll take back the house?

Oh and it looks like Maxine waters and the office of Eric Holder/Debbie Wasserman schultz were also sent bombs as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 24, 2018, 06:22:50 pm
After today?  Yeah, kinda am.

Ironbite-Senate's looking more dicey though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 24, 2018, 06:47:02 pm
But don't you know that all these attempted bombings are just false flags?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 24, 2018, 07:14:40 pm
I'm sure by tomorrow the assholes will be claiming that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 24, 2018, 07:23:13 pm
Today, as they were happening live on air, you had people claiming that.

Ironbite-the alt-right is deranged.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 24, 2018, 07:33:55 pm
And the RNCC is running ads attacking Soros.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 25, 2018, 01:15:42 am
Rush Limbaugh is among those claiming that the bombs are a false flag operation, because of course he is.

Meanwhile Alex Jones continues doing what he always does, but this time literally rather than metaphorically:

 https://m.imgur.com/TDQhjUc
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 25, 2018, 12:37:17 pm
So now they're saying Joe Biden was sent one too as well as Robert De Niro? Why Robert De Niro? I've never heard Trump say anything bad about De Niro.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 25, 2018, 04:01:39 pm
Doesn't matter to these idiots.

Ironbite-Hollywood elite is Hollywood elite.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 25, 2018, 04:16:25 pm
I wonder if we're going to see one sent to Caitlyn Jenner (addressed, of course, to "Bruce Jenner").
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 25, 2018, 06:46:33 pm
Alex Jones is the guy who went into a computer store and started ranting about AI Tentacles. He's an all purpose nutbar.

Rush Limbaugh's little "Sandra Fluke is a slut" thing destroyed him.

More or less we're seeing human garbage trying to claim a spot in the mainstream again.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 26, 2018, 11:37:13 am
Corey Booker and James Clapper were sent bombs as well but an arrest was made in Florida. Incoming comments of a lone wolf attacker by the right wing and total denial of right wing terrorism.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 26, 2018, 11:44:11 am
Wouldn't be surprised if news comes out that there were more sent, or planned to be sent, to people like Harris, Gillibrand, Sanders, Warren, and Pelosi.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 26, 2018, 11:57:09 am
They have found the guy.  A total Barrack Obama supporter.

Ironbite-from Bizzaro world.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 26, 2018, 02:30:12 pm
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/181026125735-03-tarp-off-screengrab-1026-closer-exlarge-169.jpg)

Yup total right wing nutcase.

Trumps own supporters at his rallies are calling this fake news, and Trump refuses to talk to the victims. But remember it's the media that caused all of this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 05, 2018, 07:05:46 pm
First they came for the trade unionists, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Muslims, (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-35036567/outcry-as-donald-trump-calls-for-us-muslim-ban) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Muslim.

Then they came for the Hispanics, (https://www.apnews.com/6cb0dae384cd45ddb9efe49a6aab1789) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not Hispanic.

Then they came for the activists, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/27/charlottesville-james-alex-fields-charged-heather-heyer) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not an activist.

Then they came for the transgender people, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/21/trump-administration-define-transgender-out-of-existence-new-york-times) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not transgendered.

Then they came for the homosexuals, (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/attack-gay-end-homophobic-hate-crime-higher-sentences-education) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a homosexual.

Then they came for the media, (https://thehill.com/homenews/media/412929-cnn-package-addressed-to-brennan-report) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not in the media.

Then they came for the leftists, (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/24/660161491/u-s-intercepts-suspicious-packages-addressed-to-clinton-and-obama) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a leftist.

Then they came for the blacks, (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/29/us/kroger-shooting-hate-crime/index.html) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not black.

Then they came for the Jews, (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/28/us/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting/index.html) and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

When they come for you, will there be anyone left to speak for you?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 07, 2018, 04:34:26 pm
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is out.

Trump is going to have to dig up some dead politician from CSA to get a more conservative replacement for him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 07, 2018, 04:37:43 pm
Or just nominate Lindsay Graham for the perilousness special election fight.

Ironbite-Mueller better have something good to stop Trump from firing him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 07, 2018, 05:13:40 pm
I find it hard to believe that Mueller doesn't have any contingency plans. There's no way in hell that he'd be blind sided by an attempt to remove him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 07, 2018, 05:18:01 pm
 Im assuming Mueller has known this was coming. The whole country knows it was coming. Seems Trump wanted to make sue he had the Senate before doing anything.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 07, 2018, 09:12:35 pm
I think Mueller had already been farming out the prosecutions to other offices that aren't as easy for Trump to shut down. Still an utter disaster for rule of law if it happens, of course.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 08, 2018, 01:12:54 am
I find it hard to believe that Mueller doesn't have any contingency plans. There's no way in hell that he'd be blind sided by an attempt to remove him.
I've seen mentioned that the contingency is that the States will start similar investigations for some of the crimes that came up in the investigation because the president would not be able to stop those investigations even if the crimes they can charge his campaign with are not as severe.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 08, 2018, 07:41:50 am
I think Mueller had already been farming out the prosecutions to other offices that aren't as easy for Trump to shut down. Still an utter disaster for rule of law if it happens, of course.


That's what they said about Watergate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on November 08, 2018, 08:47:42 am
Well, I for one believe the House will employ Mueller to finish his work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 08, 2018, 09:37:40 am
That's the thing that kills me.  If Trump fires Mueller, any committee in the House can subpoena him and there ain't a damn thing Trump can do.  He's literally banking on spinelessness and Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff have not only spines, they have iron in said spines.

Ironbite-he doesn't think long term at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 08, 2018, 10:14:10 am
He clearly doesn't I think a lot of what he does is chaotic and spur of the moment it's probably a nightmare to work for him. He just does something and doesn't think of the consequences.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 08, 2018, 10:18:42 am
One of the non-GOP supreme justice members is in a hospital. At this point the best Trump can do is come up with an unconstitutional solution to his problems and trust that the supreme court will vote along party lines.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 08, 2018, 10:28:49 am
That's the thing that kills me.  If Trump fires Mueller, any committee in the House can subpoena him and there ain't a damn thing Trump can do.  He's literally banking on spinelessness and Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff have not only spines, they have iron in said spines.

Ironbite-he doesn't think long term at all.

He's a businessman, they're hardwired to not think long-term.  Momentary gains outweigh long-term stability.  Doesn't help that he's bad at business.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 08, 2018, 01:29:29 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/populist-momentum-1.4895803

Quote
It is difficult, if not impossible, to unring the bell of populism once it has taken hold.

This week's U.S. midterm election results, in which Democrats regained control of the House but were dealt a stiff setback in the Senate, proved less a blue wave than a light misting; hardly the wholesale repudiation of President Donald Trump that some had hoped for. Despite a respectable House win, it appears voters were not clamouring for a return to "business as usual" governance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 08, 2018, 02:15:39 pm
Again, extreme gerrymandering, a strong economy and more democratic senate seats in red states up for grabs made it difficult for Dems to win the Senate. The fact that they took the house despite all of that is amazing, and they gained five governors.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 08, 2018, 02:30:09 pm
Again, extreme gerrymandering, a strong economy and more democratic senate seats in red states up for grabs made it difficult for Dems to win the Senate. The fact that they took the house despite all of that is amazing, and they gained five governors.

I know. (I actually did a little thought experiment to redistribute the US states into ones with roughly even populations, you end up with 25 states and a geographically gigantic state in the Upper Midwest.)

But meanwhile a lot of progressive ballot initiatives passed, even in said red states where you had Donnelly, McCaskill, and Nelson losing.

EDIT: Well, I should say, Donnelly and McCaskill, despite Florida being under GOP control and having two Republican Senators the margin of victory was so narrow that it's still a swing state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 08, 2018, 03:08:11 pm
Nelson also isn't conceeding and is demanding a recount so that seat might remain democrat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 08, 2018, 03:19:10 pm
Stacey Abrams is also refusing to concede and considering all of the bullshit Republicans have been trying to pull in Georgia, might actually have a chance if they actually count the provisional ballots (granted, my hopes are low, Republicans cheated HARD in Georgia).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 08, 2018, 03:49:12 pm
I think Georgia also does its races the same way Louisiana does, so if even after a recount neither Sec. Kemp nor state Rep. Abrams has an outright majority there will be a runoff.

And I think there's not a final count in Arizona yet either, so that seat could still flip.

Still, it means the federal courts will continue to be remade and all those young conservative ideologues will be able to block anything the Democrats might pass if they regain full control.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 08, 2018, 09:43:11 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/populist-momentum-1.4895803

Quote
It is difficult, if not impossible, to unring the bell of populism once it has taken hold.

This week's U.S. midterm election results, in which Democrats regained control of the House but were dealt a stiff setback in the Senate, proved less a blue wave than a light misting; hardly the wholesale repudiation of President Donald Trump that some had hoped for. Despite a respectable House win, it appears voters were not clamouring for a return to "business as usual" governance.

Something tells me even if the Democrats take the Senate and even more of the House, if they didn't do so with a platform made by Bernie or the Democratic Socialists or the "real left" instead of the "Center Right" the Democrats allegedly are, you'd still complain.

Just face it - you are deeply associated with Messianic Politics.

You want a populist messiah to "fix" all the problems you see in America's Democracy. Those who seek a Messiah will never receive one.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 08, 2018, 10:20:47 pm
Something tells me even if the Democrats take the Senate and even more of the House, if they didn't do so with a platform made by Bernie or the Democratic Socialists or the "real left" instead of the "Center Right" the Democrats allegedly are, you'd still complain.
Ideally, yes. Not accepting corrupt politicians is very much a good thing. After all, the big ol' D next to their name is rather meaningless if they still take lobbyist money in exchange for doing their bidding. The end result won't be much different than if the Republicans are in charge. You need folks who refuse corporate money to win, because they're the only ones who'll actually do all of those lovely reforms like universal healthcare and higher education, living wage and most ideally, campaign reform instead of just making empty promises.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 08, 2018, 11:02:47 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/populist-momentum-1.4895803

Quote
It is difficult, if not impossible, to unring the bell of populism once it has taken hold.

This week's U.S. midterm election results, in which Democrats regained control of the House but were dealt a stiff setback in the Senate, proved less a blue wave than a light misting; hardly the wholesale repudiation of President Donald Trump that some had hoped for. Despite a respectable House win, it appears voters were not clamouring for a return to "business as usual" governance.

Something tells me even if the Democrats take the Senate and even more of the House, if they didn't do so with a platform made by Bernie or the Democratic Socialists or the "real left" instead of the "Center Right" the Democrats allegedly are, you'd still complain.

Just face it - you are deeply associated with Messianic Politics.

You want a populist messiah to "fix" all the problems you see in America's Democracy. Those who seek a Messiah will never receive one.

Hey, remember what happened the last time the Democrats had a huge (257 seats) House majority and a Senate supermajority (58 + 2 independents)? Oh, right, they passed the Republican health care proposal, lost the House, lost too many state legislatures, got gerrymandered to the point where they need to win the House vote by 5 or 6 points to get a bare majority, lost the Senate, lost the Presidency, and now have five wingnut ideologues sitting on the Supreme Court with well over a hundred on the lower courts. And at least three of those "center-right" Democrats* got their asses handed to them in what should have been a wave election--and in which many progressive ballot initiatives passed quite easily, sometimes in the same states. (See: Missouri.)

The issue isn't the platform on which they take the House, Senate and/or Presidency. It's what they do once they have them.

*There were arguably five who were easy pickings for the Republicans in a normal year: Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill, and Tester. Heitkamp, Donnelly, and McCaskill lost. Manchin won, but by twenty points less than he did in 2012. Tester's margin, meanwhile, only dropped by about a point, and Tester is quite good on one issue in particular: corruption.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlTfjcJ77ls

Richard Ojeda, who posted the best improvement of any candidate over their party's 2016 Presidential candidate in the comparable race--Hillary Clinton lost WV-3 by 49 points, he lost by around 13 or 14--is running for President in 2020.

Honestly, I thought he'd take on Sen. Capito.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 12, 2018, 10:16:12 pm
Nah.  Seems he's got a bone to pick with Trump and honestly, he might actually be the guy to unseat the Orange Piss Pot.\

Ironbite-but we'll see what the rest of the field looks like.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 12, 2018, 10:22:19 pm
Nah.  Seems he's got a bone to pick with Trump and honestly, he might actually be the guy to unseat the Orange Piss Pot.\

Ironbite-but we'll see what the rest of the field looks like.

If he can make it through the Democratic primary--voting for Trump in 2016, whatever his reasons and however critical of him he is now, will hurt him.

I think he's more likely to have the sort of effect Larry Lessig did--Lessig pushed the issue of money in politics to greater prominence in the 2016 primary, Ojeda will probably force the other candidates to adopt a more firebrand populist stance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on November 13, 2018, 12:01:02 am
I'm certainly not about to vote for him in the primary. The last thing we need is a Trump voter as the Democratic candidate in the general election - can you imagine how bad that would be? Trump can just respond to any criticism of him with "and you voted for me", and he'll win the public opinion battle in a landslide.

Give us someone else, please.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 13, 2018, 01:05:34 am
He may be a good democrat for West Virginia but nationally he would be terrible for a few reasons:
1. The media would paint him as Trump lite. Democrats won't get excited to vote for someone that's just like Trump. It will be like 2004 all over again.
2. He's anti abortion. So you've already alienated women voters especially now that women are turning out to vote in record numbers for Democrats, and want someone to stand for them.
3. He's pro gun. There's nothing wrong with being pro gun per say. But a lot of young voters are getting sick of the NRA and their bull shit.
4. He voted for Trump and Mccain and George W Bush.

Democrats don't need a populist candidate. They need someone that inspires and excites them. Not someone that creates fear and uncertainty. Democrats fall in love Republicans fall in line.  If you're going to put a right of center Democrat on your ticket than wave goodbye to most of your voters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 13, 2018, 02:05:31 am
He may be a good democrat for West Virginia but nationally he would be terrible for a few reasons:
1. The media would paint him as Trump lite. Democrats won't get excited to vote for someone that's just like Trump. It will be like 2004 all over again.
2. He's anti abortion. So you've already alienated women voters especially now that women are turning out to vote in record numbers for Democrats, and want someone to stand for them.
3. He's pro gun. There's nothing wrong with being pro gun per say. But a lot of young voters are getting sick of the NRA and their bull shit.
4. He voted for Trump and Mccain and George W Bush.

Democrats don't need a populist candidate. They need someone that inspires and excites them. Not someone that creates fear and uncertainty. Democrats fall in love Republicans fall in line.  If you're going to put a right of center Democrat on your ticket than wave goodbye to most of your voters.

Which is why I suspect he'll drop out of the Presidential race and look to challenge Sen. Capito.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on November 15, 2018, 08:42:15 pm
This is a year old story but this is the first time I encountered it and it serves as another reminder of the damage the Republican congress did. Satellites critically important to studying the effects of climate change in the Arctic have a limited lifespan so the next one was waiting to be launched. The congress decided that the storing expenses are too high so they ordered it dismantled. (https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/05/donald-trump-accused-blocking-satellite-climate-change-research) Thanks to this the earliest date the next satellite can be expected to be ready for launch is in 2023 while the three satellites that were still operating when the article was written were already all past their shelf life. Luckily there is no hurry with the climate research, right?

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 15, 2018, 08:51:44 pm
Meanwhile, Dem governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is promising Amazon a taxpayer funded helipad for their executives. https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202 (https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202). Niam and Ironbite, take note. This is why the difference between corporatist Democrats and populist Democrats is really fucking important. The former, despite the D in front of their names, are functionally no different to the Republicans.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 15, 2018, 09:17:15 pm
Yes, there is a lot of stuff we corporate darklords are bad with, but to say we're functionally no different from the party that's okay with White Nationalists, who has had a "political pedophile" run under their ticket, has had multiple outright Nazis run for office under their ticket, and who has stolen elections, disenfranchised millions, and would openly pine for a Gilead-like dystopia...

...that comes off as incredibly, incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Giving Amazon a Helipad for their executives =/= "I'm Okay With Nazis".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 15, 2018, 09:22:13 pm
Yes, there is a lot of stuff we corporate darklords are bad with, but to say we're functionally no different from the party that's okay with White Nationalists, who has had a "political pedophile" run under their ticket, has had multiple outright Nazis run for office under their ticket, and who has stolen elections, disenfranchised millions, and would openly pine for a Gilead-like dystopia...

...that comes off as incredibly, incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Giving Amazon a Helipad for their executives =/= "I'm Okay With Nazis".

Correct.

But shit like what Gov. Cuomo is promising turns off the Democratic base.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 15, 2018, 09:29:16 pm
Yeah it does and therefore he shouldn't do it.  But I'll take his ass over whatever is in the GOP right now.

Ironbite-lesser evil is still the lesser of two evils after all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 15, 2018, 09:52:08 pm
And you don't see Governor Cuomo rolling over for President Trump.

Me personally, I see the appeal of progressive measures, heck I agree with most of them, I just can't stand the insistence on absolutistic morality, purity and such.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 15, 2018, 09:59:25 pm
Now that niam's brought this up, I'm gonna say it.  Purity politics is why the GOP has such a stranglehold on our political systems right now.  Because we on the left have said that nothing short of perfection will do, we've let the right just run anyone and anything they want and win.  Because we're so obsessed with purity.  As long as my guy isn't a slaving slobbering moron, I will happily vote for him because I know for a fact, anyone the Right runs is gonna be 1000000000 times worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on November 15, 2018, 10:21:57 pm
I have to say, I believe the exact opposite is the problem. The fact that voters will ultimately accept what's given to them is why the vast majority of Dems are Republican lite. By holding your guys to an actual standard that's a little higher than merely having a D next to their name, and making it clear to them that taking that sweet, sweet lobbyist money and being a Republican in practice is political suicide is how you actually get proper left wing (or in your guy's case, centrist) candidates in office. Yes, picking your battles is important, but there is such a thing as going too far in the opposite direction, and accepting the same as the other side, but with less racist and/or Bible thumping rhetoric is most definitely that.

That's why not necessarily Republicans, but Elitists in general of all party affiliations, have such a stranglehold on the US and most of the rest of the democratic world.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 15, 2018, 11:15:26 pm
I have to say, I believe the exact opposite is the problem. The fact that voters will ultimately accept what's given to them is why the vast majority of Dems are Republican lite. By holding your guys to an actual standard that's a little higher than merely having a D next to their name, and making it clear to them that taking that sweet, sweet lobbyist money and being a Republican in practice is political suicide is how you actually get proper left wing (or in your guy's case, centrist) candidates in office. Yes, picking your battles is important, but there is such a thing as going too far in the opposite direction, and accepting the same as the other side, but with less racist and/or Bible thumping rhetoric is most definitely that.

That's why not necessarily Republicans, but Elitists in general of all party affiliations, have such a stranglehold on the US and most of the rest of the democratic world.

And this is why I think primaries are one of the best parts of the US system: you can potentially force the parties to accept who you want, not who they want.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 16, 2018, 11:10:12 am
So after getting his nose bloodied during a fight he started, the Orange Piss Pot took away Jim Acosta's press credentials in the dumbest and stupidest way possible.  So CNN sued to get 'em back.  Backing them was a coalition of news media including State Propaganda channel, Faux Noise.  Judge came down with a decision today.

Despite being put on the bench by the Orange Piss Pot, Judge ruled in favor of CNN and the First Amendment. (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html)

Ironbite-a black eye to go with that bloody nose.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 16, 2018, 11:21:48 am
And meanwhile FOX News watchers got really pissy about FOX joining CNN's suit, not getting that if this precedent was set, the next Democratic President could kick out FOX reporters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 16, 2018, 12:53:54 pm
Yeah I put that out on another board.  The Cult of the Orange Piss Pot sure doesn't see long term effects do they?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 16, 2018, 10:11:41 pm
I mean, Trump's bad at the long game, so of course his cultists are, as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on November 22, 2018, 05:40:11 am
I mean, Trump's bad at the long game, so of course his cultists are, as well.

In this case like really did attract like.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 24, 2018, 04:13:59 am
Remember when Guiliani said that "collusion is not a crime?" Remember how Trump-fanclub repeated that phrase everywhere until they got bored?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-appointed-judge-hands-donald-041222326.html?guccounter=1

Oops...

I'm sure they are already claiming that the judge is a triple-secret Clinton-Deepstate plant or something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 24, 2018, 03:29:37 pm
My god it's like he thinks these judges are supposed to be loyal to him, not the law.

Ironbite-he's really really stupid.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 24, 2018, 03:56:13 pm
My god it's like he thinks these judges are supposed to be loyal to him, not the law.

Ironbite-he's really really stupid.

Of course. Remember when he said he didn't have an Attorney General?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 24, 2018, 07:11:08 pm
My god it's like he thinks these judges are supposed to be loyal to him, not the law.

Ironbite-he's really really stupid.

(https://i.imgur.com/rsbBucY.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 27, 2018, 01:07:57 pm
Oh boy oh boy oh boy!

...Turns out that Manafort is dumber than I previously assumed:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/26/paul-manafort-plea-deal-russia-investigation-mueller-lies

That mother-lover has been caught lying after he made the plea deal. Now he's going to be stuck in jail for the rest of his natural life.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 27, 2018, 03:52:32 pm
And Trump can't touch him.

Ironbite-at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 27, 2018, 04:28:43 pm
There's debate whether Trump could pardon Manafort. Depends on what charges he gets apparently. And even if he does accept the pardon it just means that he can't refuse to answer question about the crime that he now admitted doing.

Some seem to think that Trump might pardon him anyway and hope that it makes Manafort seem less reliable now that he's been caught lying again.

EDIT:

(https://i.redd.it/577svu68jz021.jpg)

Interesting theory.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on November 28, 2018, 02:08:40 am
There's debate whether Trump could pardon Manafort. Depends on what charges he gets apparently. And even if he does accept the pardon it just means that he can't refuse to answer question about the crime that he now admitted doing.

Trump can go ahead and pardon Manafort if he wants; the guy's still going to jail.  Mueller made sure of that.  Check out the terms of the plea bargain Manafort agreed to; part of it required pleading guilty to all crimes.  Not just federal, but also state crimes in multiple states (off the top of my head, I know New Jersey and California are included).  Trump can't pardon those.

And notice that Mueller waited until AFTER Donnie Dumbass submitted his written responses to Mueller's questions to reveal that he knew Manafort was lying the whole time?  It's been reported that Manafort was also reporting to Trump's lawyers... What do you think the odds are that Mueller fed Manafort bullshit information for a few months, and waited for Donnie Dumbass to respond based on that bullshit information?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 28, 2018, 02:53:01 am
Another fun fact. When Mueller goes to court to explain how they know that Manafort lied that information will be public. The new replacement-Sessions can't order that information to be kept secret. People are going to hear just what it is that Manafort (and Trump) have lied about and the evidence for it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 28, 2018, 06:45:45 pm
IT'S ALMOST AS IF PUNKING TRUMP IS SUPER EASY AND ANYONE CAN DO IT!

Ironbite-WHO WOULD'VE THUNK IT!?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 29, 2018, 10:40:53 am
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46390368

Trump is not having a good week.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 29, 2018, 11:21:29 am
No he is not.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 29, 2018, 07:31:00 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00250

The US Senate has moved to discharge a joint resolution to direct the President to withdraw US forces from participation in Saudi Arabia's hostilities in Yemen absent approval by Congress.

The motion passed 63-37 as fourteen Republican Senators joined 47 Democratic and 2 Independent Senators to pass it. Those fourteen were Sens. Alexander (TN), Cassidy (LA), Collins (ME), Corker (TN), Daines (MT), Flake (AZ), Graham (SC), Lee (UT), Moran (KS), Murkowski (AK), Paul (KY), Portman (OH), Toomey (PA), and Young (IN).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 29, 2018, 07:53:50 pm
Oh bless Collins black heart.  She's trying to save her seat.

Ironbite-HOW ADORABLE!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 29, 2018, 08:02:09 pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46390368

Trump is not having a good week.

Glad to see it ain't just me.  Orange bastard.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 29, 2018, 08:28:54 pm
Trump is in the middle of the "Hitler Rants" stage of his Presidency.

Everything is crumbling around him and he's left ranting angrily at advisers and presumably we'll eventually get a Trump flavored Downfall movie. (Trumpfall?)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 30, 2018, 12:22:36 am
Oh bless Collins black heart.  She's trying to save her seat.

Ironbite-HOW ADORABLE!

Honestly the one that surprised me is Graham. Guy's a consistent warmonger.

EDIT: Though I think he's also something of an institutionalist, so his objection may be that Congress hasn't voted to authorize the action, not that the US is complicit in war crimes (again).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on December 02, 2018, 01:57:48 am
Two Psychologists did a study finding that Trump fans are very insecure in the the size of their penises.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/29/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-men-secretly-insecure-about-their-manhood/?utm_term=.bd2b9e26f531

Well okay it's more that male Trump fans are much more likely google search for things connected to being insecure in ones masculinity like “erectile dysfunction,” “hair loss,” “how to get girls,” “penis enlargement,” “penis size,” “steroids,” “testosterone” and “Viagra”  even when you adjust for age.  And that men who are insecure in their manhood are loudly supporting Trump to feel better about themselves.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on December 02, 2018, 02:13:43 am
Back in Roman times, when everyone preferred small trouser snakes, I like to imagine the most loud and incompetent emperors were cheered on by men who're insecure about their gargantuan pork swords.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 03, 2018, 11:12:54 pm
Oh bless Collins black heart.  She's trying to save her seat.

Ironbite-HOW ADORABLE!

She can try to save her seat all she damned well wants to.  We all know that in the lead up to the next election, whoever her opponent is is going to plaster Maine with ads about all the times she voted for whatever McConnell told her to, with promises that he'd give her something she wanted.  Which he never would.

You can whine all you want, Collins, but voting for Barto is going to cost you your seat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 04, 2018, 03:29:06 pm
That Kavanaugh speech basically sealed her fate in 2020.  Especially with how the Maine election played out.

Ironbite-might as well resign now so the GOP can try and wedge someone else in there.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 04, 2018, 04:55:23 pm
That Kavanaugh speech basically sealed her fate in 2020.  Especially with how the Maine election played out.

Ironbite-might as well resign now so the GOP can try and wedge someone else in there.

As I've seen noted, Collins (like Manchin) has shown a remarkable ability to defy gravity. The last time she faced an unfavourable environment, after all, was 2008, where Obama won Maine by more than 17 points over McCain, but Collins won by almost 23 points--a 40-point swing. (Under more favourable conditions in 2014, she won by 37, while Obama won by a little over 15 points two years prior.)

She might also have been gambling on a closer Senate (51-49 or 50-50) than actually resulted, which would have given her a lot more influence than she has in a 53-47 Senate. As it is, she (and Lisa Murkowski) are effectively marginalized, as are other GOP Senators who have shown flashes of principle on various issues. (Think John Kennedy on net neutrality, or Rand Paul and Mike Lee on certain foreign policy matters.)

I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see her make an independent run in 2020, figuring that she can't be re-elected as a Republican (even if she can win the primary) and that she couldn't win a Democratic primary if she jumped parties entirely. At least then she'd have a chance of picking up enough second-preference votes in a three-way race (assuming Maine's system is ruled constitutional, since Rep. Poliquin is challenging it in court after he lost on second preferences despite leading on first preferences).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 04, 2018, 05:15:06 pm
I honestly doubt even an independent run in the future is gonna save her.  There's already a PAC dedicated to ousting her.

Ironbite-it'll be interesting to see what crops up in 2020 assuming we get elections then.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 04, 2018, 06:01:20 pm
First of all, why wouldn't we get elections?

But I too think it'll be interesting in another 6 months when candidates start announcing. I'm curious to see who shows up for the Dems. I don't see much leadership or direction from that side, other than block Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 04, 2018, 06:23:13 pm
First of all, why wouldn't we get elections?

Trump already said that he wants to cancel the result of the Arizona election because Rep. Sinema beat Rep. McSally.

But I too think it'll be interesting in another 6 months when candidates start announcing. I'm curious to see who shows up for the Dems. I don't see much leadership or direction from that side, other than block Trump.

For now that's about all they can do--and then only on legislation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 04, 2018, 06:37:49 pm
Ok. The man who said Mexico is buying us a border wall, Cruz's old man was linked to Castro, Cohen has nothing on him,  he's going to fix the VA, he's ther beat that ever was at anything, he'd have run unarmed into Stoneman Douglas, the California wildfires were due to piss poor management practices, the Dems want to destroy Medicare, br can't release his tax records because he's being audited, Dems want to invite caravan after caravan into the country, if Ivanka wasn't his daughter he'd make a pass, we lost millions of jobs under NAFTA, said he wants to cancel the Arizona elections? Oh shit, let me start worrying now.

The leadership I was talking about from the Dems now sounds eerily similar to the GOP circa 2010.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 04, 2018, 06:52:28 pm
The difference between everything else and the last is that none of those were direct attacks on democracy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 04, 2018, 07:21:34 pm
Trump seriously thinks he can get away with anything now that he's president.  It's why he gets so angry when the courts say he can't.  It's frustrating to him because he literally does not know what the job entails and that he's not in power forever.  And the GOP never put the checks needed on him that they should've from the very beginning.

Ironbite-so, like any good dictator, he'll do anything he can to hold on to power and if he thinks he'll lose the election, he will try and cancel them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 04, 2018, 07:28:32 pm
Trump seriously thinks he can get away with anything now that he's president.  It's why he gets so angry when the courts say he can't.  It's frustrating to him because he literally does not know what the job entails and that he's not in power forever.  And the GOP never put the checks needed on him that they should've from the very beginning.

Ironbite-so, like any good dictator, he'll do anything he can to hold on to power and if he thinks he'll lose the election, he will try and cancel them.

Most of the GOP was afraid of their own base, because they love Trump... and they were right to be afraid of their base, because one of the very few vocal Trump critics to run again (and probably the most high-profile) was Mark Sanford, and he lost his primary.

And anyway, they like a lot of his policies, they just don't like the mean tweets. Trump puts an ugly face on the policies they like.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 04, 2018, 08:10:45 pm
Meanwhile, Dem governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is promising Amazon a taxpayer funded helipad for their executives. https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202 (https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202). Niam and Ironbite, take note. This is why the difference between corporatist Democrats and populist Democrats is really fucking important. The former, despite the D in front of their names, are functionally no different to the Republicans.

Again, when the decision is between a corporate democrat or Trump, it really isn't a decision.

There are a lot of moving pieces when it comes to rating people. Corporate tax breaks are fucking stupid, but that is why we have a primary system.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 04, 2018, 08:14:08 pm
Meanwhile, Dem governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is promising Amazon a taxpayer funded helipad for their executives. https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202 (https://splinternews.com/will-new-york-resist-the-urge-to-give-amazon-literally-1830404202). Niam and Ironbite, take note. This is why the difference between corporatist Democrats and populist Democrats is really fucking important. The former, despite the D in front of their names, are functionally no different to the Republicans.

Again, when the decision is between a corporate democrat or Trump, it really isn't a decision.

There are a lot of moving pieces when it comes to rating people. Corporate tax breaks are fucking stupid, but that is why we have a primary system.

And it's why I think primaries are one of the best parts of the US system.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 04, 2018, 09:02:27 pm
The difference between everything else and the last is that none of those were direct attacks on democracy.

Bush Jr. did far far worse to democracy than trump has by this time in office. And i remember people swearing on a stack of Hustler mags that he'd never ever cede power and the would probably be a civil war or something. When he erases any of the 21 remaining Amendments, I'll believe he's more than a big orange gas bag. (For those wondering, 1 and 4 are either gone or shells of their former selves, and the 18th and 21st are highly debatable.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 04, 2018, 09:28:06 pm
How is the 21st debatable? If you're talking about states that ban alcohol, the 21st Amendment says bupkis about states being allowed to ban alcohol or not--in fact, it basically says that they can.

Also, there's 27 Amendments, so what are the other two you're referring to?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 04, 2018, 10:42:42 pm
As I've seen noted, Collins (like Manchin) has shown a remarkable ability to defy gravity. The last time she faced an unfavourable environment, after all, was 2008, where Obama won Maine by more than 17 points over McCain, but Collins won by almost 23 points--a 40-point swing. (Under more favourable conditions in 2014, she won by 37, while Obama won by a little over 15 points two years prior.)

Susan Collins has survived for as long as she has because she managed to successfully fool the people in Maine into thinking she wasn't a partisan Republican hack.  But over the last two years, she's thrown away any pretence she had of being bipartisan or reasonable, and has basically been giving McConnell everything he asks for... While still hoping that her SAYING she's bipartisan will keep her in the good graces of the people in Maine.  But it sounds like she's not fooling anybody anymore.  That speech she delivered before voting for Kavanaugh was the final nail in that coffin.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 05, 2018, 03:34:30 am
As I've seen noted, Collins (like Manchin) has shown a remarkable ability to defy gravity. The last time she faced an unfavourable environment, after all, was 2008, where Obama won Maine by more than 17 points over McCain, but Collins won by almost 23 points--a 40-point swing. (Under more favourable conditions in 2014, she won by 37, while Obama won by a little over 15 points two years prior.)

Susan Collins has survived for as long as she has because she managed to successfully fool the people in Maine into thinking she wasn't a partisan Republican hack.  But over the last two years, she's thrown away any pretence she had of being bipartisan or reasonable, and has basically been giving McConnell everything he asks for... While still hoping that her SAYING she's bipartisan will keep her in the good graces of the people in Maine.  But it sounds like she's not fooling anybody anymore.  That speech she delivered before voting for Kavanaugh was the final nail in that coffin.

I hope her career is over, but even with all that, she still has the second-lowest rate of voting with Trump among Republican Senators (Paul being the lowest, probably spending and foreign policy matters).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 05, 2018, 08:05:38 am
Guess y'all slept on this bit of news last night.

Flynn flipped on Trump.

Ironbite-Manafort and Stone might want to figure out why
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 05, 2018, 09:41:18 am
Must suck that Fox had just earlier complained how it's "unamerican" or something to go after a war vet and hero like Flynn and now they have to double back and start calling him a traitor.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 05, 2018, 03:59:59 pm
The thing is, I know why Flynn flipped.  He figured out there is no pardon coming from the Orange Piss Pot.  And there never will be.  He expects Manafort, Stone, and whoever else to keep quiet forever and take the fall.  It won't surprise me if one of the kids gets caught up in this and he still won't pardon them from it.

Ironbite-only one he'd ever do that for is Ivanka and only because he wants to sleep with her/slept with her.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 05, 2018, 06:38:37 pm
How is the 21st debatable? If you're talking about states that ban alcohol, the 21st Amendment says bupkis about states being allowed to ban alcohol or not--in fact, it basically says that they can.

Also, there's 27 Amendments, so what are the other two you're referring to?

1, 4, 9, 10, 18, and 21

The only reason the 21st exists is directly because of the 18th. Yeah, i know it also touches on transportation though dry counties and all, but without the 18th being repealed, it wouldn't be an issue.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Svata on December 06, 2018, 04:19:45 am
I mean, officially, the 18th doesn't exist. And what's wrong with 9 and 10? Also, the first very much exists, still.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 06, 2018, 02:18:46 pm
It exists, sure. Much like my 96 year old grandmother suffering from dementia, mobility issues, and near crippling depression still exists.

And nothing's wrong with the 9th and 10th Amendments at all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Bob J. on December 09, 2018, 02:41:32 pm
Quote from: Tinguren4 at Breitbart
After the endless chance [sic] of lock her up! How ironic will it be if Trump is the one that actually sits behind bars? Surely it would be proof that there is a God. It would also be proof that he has a sense of humor.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on December 10, 2018, 05:34:45 am
... Breitbart?! :o
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 10, 2018, 03:56:56 pm
So I think I've finally cracked the code when it comes to Trump and how he views this investigation.

He has no clue how a real criminal investigation is actually run or proceeds.

He tweeted today about how there's no "smocking gun" found so therefore there's no collusion and other things.  The thing is, "smocking guns" only exist in crime dramas and the such.  There often isn't a concrete "ah-hah gotcha!" piece of evidence in real life.  But in the Orange Piss Pot's head, there has to be.  He doesn't get that all the testimony, all the investigations, and all the shit Mueller's been finding out about is the result of a real investigation.  And it's got him scared.

Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 10, 2018, 05:03:17 pm
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.

Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 11, 2018, 11:45:03 am
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.

Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)

The four liberal judges, Roberts and Kavanaugh declined to hear the case.  So they only had three agreeing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 11, 2018, 12:02:30 pm
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.

Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)

The four liberal judges, Roberts and Kavanaugh declined to hear the case.  So they only had three agreeing.

What might happen is that Kavanaugh just keeps declining to hear said cases, and lets the ever-more-conservative circuit courts uphold restrictive abortion laws in GOP-run states.

Also, fuck you, Harry Reid, you idiot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 11, 2018, 02:21:45 pm
So I think I've finally cracked the code when it comes to Trump and how he views this investigation.

He has no clue how a real criminal investigation is actually run or proceeds.

He tweeted today about how there's no "smocking gun" found so therefore there's no collusion and other things.  The thing is, "smocking guns" only exist in crime dramas and the such.  There often isn't a concrete "ah-hah gotcha!" piece of evidence in real life.  But in the Orange Piss Pot's head, there has to be.  He doesn't get that all the testimony, all the investigations, and all the shit Mueller's been finding out about is the result of a real investigation.  And it's got him scared.

Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.

Did he actually write "smocking gun?" He did it twice which gives me the impression that he really doesn't know how to spell smoking. When he was shitting on the toilet in the White House did he take the time to think about how to smell smoking? Did he go is there a c in there or not? I do have the best words so it must be a c. Or did he just type it out thinking he's been spelling the word right his entire life?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 11, 2018, 03:40:17 pm
What do you think?

And today, Trump lost the shutdown fight until the end of this farce.  He gave a sound bite that can and will come back to bite him in the ass.

"I will be proud to shut down the government over the border wall." (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/trump-border-wall-congress-budget-1055433)

Now, before people come here telling me that I'm wrong and it won't do anything, think about what has just happened.  We had a 40 seat pick up in the House giving the Democrats a very wide berth to do whatever they want.  And the biggest reason that most voters cited in voting against Republicans was Trump.  And he's just handed the Democrats a great weapon to use against him.

Ironbite-this man is....amazing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on December 11, 2018, 03:47:38 pm
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.

Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)

The four liberal judges, Roberts and Kavanaugh declined to hear the case.  So they only had three agreeing.

What might happen is that Kavanaugh just keeps declining to hear said cases, and lets the ever-more-conservative circuit courts uphold restrictive abortion laws in GOP-run states.

Also, fuck you, Harry Reid, you idiot.

If you honestly think that McConnell wouldn't have changed the rules the way he did regardless of what Harry Reid had done in the past, you're hopelessly naive and I hope you stay safe in this dangerous world.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 11, 2018, 04:06:38 pm
Ironbite-and his hand picked SCOTUS Bro just joined the majority in not taking up a case that could've spelt dire news for abortion rights.

Oh? A two-thirds majority, then; only four justices need to agree that the Court should take a case for them to consider it. (This is to prevent a majority on the Court from determining its docket.)

The four liberal judges, Roberts and Kavanaugh declined to hear the case.  So they only had three agreeing.

What might happen is that Kavanaugh just keeps declining to hear said cases, and lets the ever-more-conservative circuit courts uphold restrictive abortion laws in GOP-run states.

Also, fuck you, Harry Reid, you idiot.

If you honestly think that McConnell wouldn't have changed the rules the way he did regardless of what Harry Reid had done in the past, you're hopelessly naive and I hope you stay safe in this dangerous world.

Of course McConnell would've changed the rules. I have no illusions on that point. They learned from Frist.

What Reid should have done was either a) not change the rules at all, forcing the GOP to own the whole thing or b) change the rules as soon as possible after Brown's win in 2010, and then fill every court vacancy he could. What he should not have done is what he did, which is wait until shortly before the Democrats were almost certainly going to lose the Senate and leave only a year and a bit to get to putting ideologically friendly justices on the federal bench.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 11, 2018, 05:37:57 pm
What do you think?

And today, Trump lost the shutdown fight until the end of this farce.  He gave a sound bite that can and will come back to bite him in the ass.

"I will be proud to shut down the government over the border wall." (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/trump-border-wall-congress-budget-1055433)

Now, before people come here telling me that I'm wrong and it won't do anything, think about what has just happened.  We had a 40 seat pick up in the House giving the Democrats a very wide berth to do whatever they want.  And the biggest reason that most voters cited in voting against Republicans was Trump.  And he's just handed the Democrats a great weapon to use against him.

Ironbite-this man is....amazing.

I think it's great, and tacking on the words "Trump Shutdown" is the icing on the cake. America responds to sound bites and democrats need to get better at their sound bite game so this is a start.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 11, 2018, 05:56:01 pm
I've been thinking about trump's idiotic wall and that lead me to a thought. Who would actually build the wall? Ok, fine. Who would hire the illegals to build the wall? My shot in the dark guess is someone he personally knows, someone who will give him kickbacks. Nothing to do with his base or border security or even sticking it to anyone. For profit, same reason he's involved with Russia and China. Anyways, that's my thought.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on December 11, 2018, 07:56:10 pm
An affiliate/subsidiary of TrumpCo, of course!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 12, 2018, 06:22:56 am
That was kinda the point, Chad. Most of what he does and says is to profit him, his family, or friends.  From manipulating the markets to his dealings with countries, its done for short term profit. Follow the money, find the truth.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 13, 2018, 05:02:12 pm
https://splinternews.com/5-house-democrats-join-paul-ryan-to-vote-for-more-yemen-1831054719

Rep. Ro Khanna had introduced an amendment to a farm bill in the US House of Representatives to the same effect as the one the Senate previously voted to discharge from committee, that effort led by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Mike Lee: to end the US support for Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.

However, another amendment was introduced to that bill that prevented a vote on Rep. Khanna's amendment. Some Republicans on the committee responsible were incensed by this, and were prepared to vote down that amendment, so that Rep. Khanna's could itself be voted on... but five Democratic Representatives voted for the amendment to kill Rep. Khanna's.

Rep. Jim Costa (CA-16)
Rep. Al Lawson (FL-5)
Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-7)
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2)
Rep. David Scott (GA-13)

When Lindsey Graham has, in this matter, less blood on his hands than any Democrat... something's fucked up.

EDIT: A correction: I believe it was a floor vote on the amendment (or the bill itself, with that provision inserted), not a committee vote (and have struck out the appropriate clause above). Either way, it blocks a floor vote on a resolution to stop the US support for Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.

I believe it is this vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll432.xml

On this bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/1176

Meanwhile, 18 Republican Representatives voted against: Reps. Amash, Biggs, Blum, Brat, Cloud, Gaetz, Garrett, Gohmert, Gosar, Graves (LA), Jordan, Labrador, Massie, Meadows, Perry, Posey, Sanford, and Schweikert.

(Twenty-four didn't vote, seventeen Republicans and seven Democrats.)

EDIT #2: Meanwhile, the US Senate did move forward on this matter.

The initial motion to discharge: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00250

Agreed to 63-37; voting for were every Democratic and Independent Senator, along with Republican Sens. Alexander, Cassidy, Collins, Corker, Daines, Flake, Graham, Lee, Moran, Murkowski, Paul, Portman, Toomey, and Young.

The motion to proceed: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00261

Agreed to 60-39; voting for were every Democratic and Independent Senator, along with Republican Sens. Cassidy, Collins, Crapo, Daines, Flake, Lee, Moran, Murkowski, Paul, Risch, and Young. (Sen. Tillis did not vote.)

An amendment to clarify that the resolution would prevent the US Armed Forces from refueling non-US aircraft conducting missions in Yemen: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00263

Agreed to 58-41; voting for were every Democratic and Independent Senator, along with Republican Sens. Alexander, Cassidy, Collins, Corker, Lee, Moran, Murkowski, Paul, and Young. (Sen. Tillis did not vote.)

An amendment to clarify that the US Armed Forces could continue to act against Houthi forces engaged in operations against targets outside Yemen: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00265

Rejected 45-54: voting against were every Democratic and Independent Senator, along with Republican Sens. Daines, Lee, Moran, Paul, and Young. (Sen. Tillis did not vote.)

On S.J. Res. 54 itself, as amended: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00266

Passed 56-41: voting for were every Democratic and Independent Senator, along with Republican Sens. Collins, Daines, Flake, Lee, Moran, Paul, and Young. (Sens. Graham, Heller, and Tillis did not vote.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 19, 2018, 10:52:59 am
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/ban-bump-stocks-georgians-divided-trump-ruling/6NHUyYP7gJktlmTI1GR8PO/

Trump actually did something he had promised. He has now banned bump stocks.

...Utterly silly devices that only exist because getting fully automatic guns in USA is costly (though not impossible) and some people still want to play around with really rapid and inaccurate fire, but not pay for a more expensive gun.

I'm amused by how the person quoted in the article complains that bump stocks are just an accessory that "doesn't change the function of the firearm" when that exactly is the point of bump stocks. Change the way the gun shoots into what is functionally fully automatic even if the internal parts of the gun are the same.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 19, 2018, 04:38:36 pm
He's also caved on the border wall. (https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/trump-caves-on-border-wall.php)

Ironbite-and the noose is tightening as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 19, 2018, 04:40:19 pm
And if you call the number in his new ad to tell him "thank you", it actually just asks you to give the campaign money.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 19, 2018, 04:44:40 pm
Meanwhile Trump supporters are getting banned from "The Donald" subreddit for not liking this (because it's a cult) and elsewhere Trump supporters are blaming this on the Democrats.

Because facts don't matter as long as you put all the blame on the designated "enemy."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 19, 2018, 05:34:54 pm
Fox and Friends went on a lengthy rant about how much of a disgrace it is for Trump to cave about this.

Ironbite-I wonder if someone's feeding Faux Noise lines.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 22, 2018, 01:53:39 am
Fox and Friends went on a lengthy rant about how much of a disgrace it is for Trump to cave about this.

Ironbite-I wonder if someone's feeding Faux Noise lines.

He un-caved today, after the Freedom Caucas of maniacs convinced him that he could ram the Wall funding through by screaming at the top of his lungs and blaming Democrats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 22, 2018, 03:32:09 am
Remember it's the Democrats fault because Trump said he was  happy to shut down the government to get funding for his stuffs wall. The wall that Mexico was going to pay for.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on December 22, 2018, 10:50:34 am
If the Republican-majority House and the Republican-majority Senate cannot pass a bill to be signed by the Republican President in time, the shutdown of the government will be the Democrats' fault.

The right-wing mindset, folks. ::)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 22, 2018, 01:18:09 pm
In fairness, there's not (yet) the stomach among Republican Senators to kill the legislative filibuster, and they've already used their shots at reconciliation to fail to kill the ACA and to succeed in giving rich people gigantic tax breaks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 22, 2018, 04:15:20 pm
If they kill the filibuster for this, they have nothing left.

Ironbite-and McConnel will not nuke that rule cause it's the only thing he's got to check the Democrats in 2020.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 22, 2018, 05:11:55 pm
If they kill the filibuster for this, they have nothing left.

Ironbite-and McConnel will not nuke that rule cause it's the only thing he's got to check the Democrats in 2020.

That assumes the Democrats retake the Senate in 2020, which I don't see as a given at all. (Nor do I take it as given that they won't.)

Right now he has what he wants, which is a Senate majority strong enough that he can afford to let Susan Collins (and Lisa Murkowski, if needed) vote against judicial nominees and still put wingnuts on the bench, including replacing Justice Ginsburg should she pass away some time in the next two years.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on December 23, 2018, 12:53:28 am
Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 23, 2018, 01:55:06 am
Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.

Sure... but consider what percentage those "thick headed party members" make up of the people who vote in Republican Congressional primaries. You'll notice that the Republican Representatives and Senators most critical of Trump either didn't run again (Corker, Flake) or got knocked out in a primary (Sanford)--never mind that they still voted with him plenty often.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on December 23, 2018, 03:42:48 am
Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.

Sure... but consider what percentage those "thick headed party members" make up of the people who vote in Republican Congressional primaries. You'll notice that the Republican Representatives and Senators most critical of Trump either didn't run again (Corker, Flake) or got knocked out in a primary (Sanford)--never mind that they still voted with him plenty often.
I meant the politicians, not the base. They can just not kill the filibuster and still keep their base enraged about how the Dems hate America and stand in the way of building the big and beautiful wall every true American wants. If you can get Trump to direct his Twitter tantrums more towards the Democrats - which shouldn't be too difficult since he is easy to manipulate - the base will follow.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 23, 2018, 09:18:13 am
Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.

It's really that important to Trump. A subsidiary of his or his children will build it. Well, have Mexicans build it anyways.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on December 24, 2018, 05:00:24 pm
Is the wall really so important for the Republicans that they would sacrifice a long term advantage for it? To me it sounds more like Trump's vanity project that is mostly useful for the party to rile up the base and give smoke curtain to whatever else they want to do. Trump himself would do it in a heartbeat but McConnell has to think more tactically. Sure, there is more than enough racist sentiment to make sure there are less brown people entering the country but the unrealistic nature of Trump's wall plan must get through to all but the most thick headed party members.

It's really that important to Trump. A subsidiary of his or his children will build it. Well, have Mexicans build it anyways.

This matters for the Republicans only if Trump understands the dynamics of a filibuster well enough to direct his twitter rage towards his own party or threaten to do so. Unless there is someone explaining for him the option to kill the filibuster and keeping his attention there the Republicans can just point their finger at the filibustering Democrats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 25, 2018, 12:52:21 pm
So how long do you think Trump is going to keep this temper tantrum government shut down up?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 25, 2018, 01:58:22 pm
Once again Trump was given an easy opportunity to gain points by behaving like a sensible adult human being, once again he decided instead to make a mess.

There was some Christmas PR thing where he spoke to a 7-year old kid and basically told off the kid for still believing in santa.

I know that this isn't a major deal in any way but you would think that even Trump can just have a two or three sentence exchange in public without being an embarrassment.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 25, 2018, 03:22:33 pm
Another child died in Customs custody.

https://www.newsweek.com/ice-border-wall-child-death-migrant-1271196

Ironbite-MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 26, 2018, 03:23:14 am
So how long do you think Trump is going to keep this temper tantrum government shut down up?

At least until after New Years, I'd say.  Of course, on January 3rd the new Congress takes over, and then there's zero chance Trump gets his wall...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 26, 2018, 03:36:06 pm
So how long do you think Trump is going to keep this temper tantrum government shut down up?

At least until after New Years, I'd say.  Of course, on January 3rd the new Congress takes over, and then there's zero chance Trump gets his wall...

I could be glib here and say, "Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to capitulate," but there are two reasons (that come to mind) they might give in (at least somewhat) on this, and they both have to do with who gets impacted by a protracted government shutdown.

1. The markets always take a hit when the government shuts down, and that impacts rich people, including political donors (both to Democrats and Republicans, though, so this might be more of a wash since there'll be pressure from both sides).

2. Many of those federal government employees have to work without pay, to be paid later, or just get furloughed and never get paid for this time--thus losing income (even if only temporarily for some). That's big, considering how many families in the US can't afford an unexpected $700 bill (or even $400), which is essentially what "not being paid for a while" amounts to. And a lot of those workers are in unions, and so those unions will put pressure on Democrats to end the shutdown.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 26, 2018, 03:44:12 pm
They can also just send the Senate bill that was rejected by the House back to the Senate and see if Turtle wants to play.  If I were in Pelosi's shoes that's exactly what I'd do.  The Shutdown Blame Game, at least for this Presidency, is over seeing as how Orange Piss Pot said he'd be proud to shut the government down over this.  This is on his head now.  And, despite the media trying so hard to "both sides" it, that's not going away.  Turtle wants to get back to business and if Pelosi sends him the thing he sent Ryan, he'll take it.  No matter what Trump wants.

Ironbite-the game is changing and Turtle wants to hold on to power as long as he can.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 26, 2018, 04:42:07 pm
Trump is blaming the shutdown on the Democrats and as usual his fans are eating it up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 26, 2018, 04:48:15 pm
That's just his fans.  The 30% of the country nobody can reach except other idiots.  The rest of the world isn't buying it.

Ironbite-the Orange Piss POt hasn't figured that out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on December 26, 2018, 08:21:36 pm

Ironbite-the Orange Piss POt hasn't figured that out.

Nor does he really care.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 26, 2018, 08:47:28 pm
Which is why he's so frustrated.  He doesn't care enough to figure out that that 30% is all he's got right now.  It might be enough to keep him in office but it's not enough to get the GOP elected as they found out in the last election.

Ironbite-only reason they didn't lose the Senate is because of math and 2020 is not kind to the GOP mathematically.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 26, 2018, 10:20:10 pm
The GOP is going to be the agents of their own ruin - the more they Trump it up, the more they'll get shitstomped. And they don't even realize it.

In my state, we got rid of Dana Rohrabacher, who's been in a long time. And I think Darryl Issa too.

Man Kevin McCarthy must be really fucking nervous.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 27, 2018, 05:42:07 am
Trump finally visits the troops in the Middle-East.

...And reveals the faces and location of Seal team 5.

But don't ever forget that Obama wore a tan suit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on December 27, 2018, 02:09:48 pm
And about the possible real reason for that troop visit:

https://twitter.com/billprady/status/1078012198369128448

From a Hollywood producer, but theatrics are the only thing Dump is sorta good at.


Quote from: BillPrady
Pay attention.

Trump's trip to visit troops is cover so he can get to Florida. He needs to get to Mar-a-Lago for NYE.

They sold tickets to a party and promised access to the president.

So, yeah, he will make rich people mad at him if he's still in Washington DC.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 29, 2018, 05:40:13 pm
So Donald Trump blamed the death of the two Guatemalan children on the Democrats because, and I'm paraphrasing it's the Democrats fault because Guatemalans are looking to gain asylum illegally and if they had a border wall they wouldn't even try to come here. This makes me so fucking angry. The nerve of this fucking asshole. m.cnn.com/2018/12/29/politics/donald-trump-border-deaths-democrats/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 29, 2018, 05:42:21 pm
This is not a bug, it's a feature of the GOP.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 31, 2018, 03:07:43 am
Wall or no wall people are going to come to America as long as that looks like a more appealing choice than staying wherever they were at first. Those kids died because they weren't treated well when they came up here for whatever ailments they had (Sorry but I'm not an expert on the details, its just super fucked up they died at all)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 31, 2018, 10:35:40 am
Yeah, because its not like there's a common term that was literally coined due to people digging under a castle's walls.  All you need is enough people and shovels.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on December 31, 2018, 12:57:16 pm
Wall or no wall people are going to come to America as long as that looks like a more appealing choice than staying wherever they were at first. Those kids died because they weren't treated well when they came up here for whatever ailments they had (Sorry but I'm not an expert on the details, its just super fucked up they died at all)

It's more subpar conditions that they're being kept in. While media and others are not allowed in these facilities, migrants detail conditions of squalor: over-crowding, undernourishment, ignoring illnesses, and vomiting & diarrhea being common place (including said messes being left alone for hours or days). Under these conditions, airborne viruses would spread like wildfire, and indeed one of the children, Felipe Alonzo, died of influenza B.

Restated, a good way to kill a bunch of people is to pack them into a prison like sardines in a can, and just ignore whatever happens. Nature will kill them for you, you don't have to deal with the negative PR of racism or genocide that would inevitably occur from more active measures. All the while, you get what you wanted the entire time. Stephen Miller, you sneaky sneaky goose.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 01, 2019, 04:47:46 am


It's more subpar conditions that they're being kept in. While media and others are not allowed in these facilities, migrants detail conditions of squalor: over-crowding, undernourishment, ignoring illnesses, and vomiting & diarrhea being common place (including said messes being left alone for hours or days). Under these conditions, airborne viruses would spread like wildfire, and indeed one of the children, Felipe Alonzo, died of influenza B.

And now shit like this is coming out: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/us/arizona-migrant-child-abuse-allegations-shelter/index.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 08, 2019, 09:25:54 pm
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2019, 11:29:32 pm
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.

That he said he would take responsibility for.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 08, 2019, 11:40:43 pm
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.

Trump didn't "create" this crisis. According to this report (https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf) by the US Commission on Civil Rights, shit like this was happening under Obama too. But the fact that Trump's letting this continue reflects very badly on him.

So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.

That he said he would take responsibility for.


I don't know why anybody expects consistency from that overgrown Oompa Loompa at this point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 09, 2019, 12:12:42 am
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.

Trump didn't "create" this crisis. According to this report (https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf) by the US Commission on Civil Rights, shit like this was happening under Obama too. But the fact that Trump's letting this continue reflects very badly on him.

Except with his rabid, racist, xenophobic base.

So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.

That he said he would take responsibility for.


I don't know why anybody expects consistency from that overgrown Oompa Loompa at this point.

I don't.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 09, 2019, 12:29:47 am
So Trump pretty much made this address to try to blame the Democrats for a false crisis that he's created. Yup.

Trump didn't "create" this crisis. According to this report (https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf) by the US Commission on Civil Rights, shit like this was happening under Obama too. But the fact that Trump's letting this continue reflects very badly on him.

Except with his rabid, racist, xenophobic base.

Yep. He could literally shoot up a school and at least some of them would find some way to justify it.

I don't know why anybody expects consistency from that overgrown Oompa Loompa at this point.

I don't.

Me neither. It's a shame the first Citrus-American POTUS had to be so awful.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 09, 2019, 12:47:39 am
Well, he was just walking around carrying an AR-15 like any true American patriot, when a bunch of schoolkids saw him and started screaming about how he was bought by the NRA, so he had to kill them so they didn't grow up to vote for Democrats who are going to take our guns.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 09, 2019, 02:50:03 pm
As for the speech he gave last night over the major networks (who, BTW, wouldn't allow Obama to do the same thing because it would be "too political"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ovm1J_AxLQ
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 09, 2019, 04:11:53 pm
Yep!  And it pissed him off because he didn't win.

Democrats response did much better in the ratings then he did, Manafort's back in the news and nobody is talking about him today.  So....he cuts off FEMA funds to California until they, and I'm quoting here, "get their act together" in regards to Forrest Maintenance.

Ironbite-god he's such a thin skinned idiot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 10, 2019, 06:09:29 am
As for the speech he gave last night over the major networks (who, BTW, wouldn't allow Obama to do the same thing because it would be "too political"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ovm1J_AxLQ

How long ago was the Obama thing? Like I believe it because the media sucks horribly and gives all the free publicity in the world to Trump but I don't know the details about what Obama was going to say that was "too political".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 10, 2019, 08:35:41 am
He was gonna talk about some of the upcoming changes to the DREAMER program and DACA I believe.

Ironbite-media was all like "NO WE CAN'T DO THAT!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Creeper in the Night on January 10, 2019, 11:30:36 am
It is hypocritical for the Democrats to oppose the 5 billion for the wall because it pales in comparison to the big spending that the Democrats support. This shutdown wouldn’t have fucking happened if the Democrats agreed to the House bill that funds the wall. Trump cannot cave in on the issue of wall, because that would be breaking his number 1 campaign promise, and that would cause him to lose support from his baseand not win re-election in 2020. Hopefully he will declare a National Emergency and use his executive power to build the wall.

Luckily a patriotic American has established a GoFundMe on the border wall which has already raised millions of dollars.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 10, 2019, 11:49:08 am
It is hypocritical for the Democrats to oppose the 5 billion for the wall because it pales in comparison to the big spending that the Democrats support. This shutdown wouldn’t have fucking happened if the Democrats agreed to the House bill that funds the wall. Trump cannot cave in on the issue of wall, because that would be breaking his number 1 campaign promise, and that would cause him to lose support from his baseand not win re-election in 2020. Hopefully he will declare a National Emergency and use his executive power to build the wall.

Luckily a patriotic American has established a GoFundMe on the border wall which has already raised millions of dollars.

There are more problems with the wall than just the price tag. One of the biggest is the fact that it probably wouldn't work. Illegal immigrants aren't stupid, they can find ways to get past it.

I don't like illegal immigration either, but there are better ways of combating it. Really, it doesn't matter how "cheap" something is if it's a waste of money. Using that five billion to pay illegals to go back would be less of a waste.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Creeper in the Night on January 10, 2019, 12:10:37 pm
It is hypocritical for the Democrats to oppose the 5 billion for the wall because it pales in comparison to the big spending that the Democrats support. This shutdown wouldn’t have fucking happened if the Democrats agreed to the House bill that funds the wall. Trump cannot cave in on the issue of wall, because that would be breaking his number 1 campaign promise, and that would cause him to lose support from his baseand not win re-election in 2020. Hopefully he will declare a National Emergency and use his executive power to build the wall.

Luckily a patriotic American has established a GoFundMe on the border wall which has already raised millions of dollars.

There are more problems with the wall than just the price tag. One of the biggest is the fact that it probably wouldn't work. Illegal immigrants aren't stupid, they can find ways to get past it.

I don't like illegal immigration either, but there are better ways of combating it. Really, it doesn't matter how "cheap" something is if it's a waste of money. Using that five billion to pay illegals to go back would be less of a waste.

It will be impossible to climb over the tall wall. The only other way they could get in would be if they travelled by road or plane. There can be border patrol  at the border checkpoint on the highways, as well as at the airports to prevent that from happening.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 10, 2019, 12:25:26 pm
I'm not sure if Creeper is sarcastic or not but saying that Trump can't back down on his wall idea is false for numerous reasons.

a) Many of his fans insisted that the wall was metaphorical rather than a real actual wall. This because while they did want to keep the "scary brown people" out they also understood that a wall would not work and would be a stupid idea. Aside from how easy it is to go past "THE WALL" and how most illegal immigrants are actually people who came in legally but overstayed, it wouldn't even protect USA against the terrorists despite this being one of the main talking points for it. There have been no terrorists ever caught on the borders of USA, all the ones that came in from abroad came on a plane and many were caught on airports.

b) Having established that the wall would not work and is a stupid idea, doing something like that purely out of pig-headed stubborness is stupid. Sensible adults will readjust their plans after they see that their original plan is flawed.

c) Trump doesn't even like being a president. He hates the responsibility and how the media spotlight is on him and how he can't just do things his way because he has to actually do politics.

d) It's likely that he's going to be in jail or pardoned by Pence before the next elections.

There is literally 0 downsides to not making a massive and unnecessary wall. He won't lose a single supporter for it. They don't want a wall, they either want political decisions that help the rich and undo anything that Obama did or simply want laws and political decisions that keep away non-whites from USA. None of that actually requires a wall. I'd even bet that building a wall would bring in loads of more people from Mexico for the construction project and as usual some would stay in the country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Creeper in the Night on January 10, 2019, 12:53:15 pm
I'm not sure if Creeper is sarcastic or not but saying that Trump can't back down on his wall idea is false for numerous reasons.

a) Many of his fans insisted that the wall was metaphorical rather than a real actual wall. This because while they did want to keep the "scary brown people" out they also understood that a wall would not work and would be a stupid idea. Aside from how easy it is to go past "THE WALL" and how most illegal immigrants are actually people who came in legally but overstayed, it wouldn't even protect USA against the terrorists despite this being one of the main talking points for it. There have been no terrorists ever caught on the borders of USA, all the ones that came in from abroad came on a plane and many were caught on airports.

b) Having established that the wall would not work and is a stupid idea, doing something like that purely out of pig-headed stubborness is stupid. Sensible adults will readjust their plans after they see that their original plan is flawed.

c) Trump doesn't even like being a president. He hates the responsibility and how the media spotlight is on him and how he can't just do things his way because he has to actually do politics.

d) It's likely that he's going to be in jail or pardoned by Pence before the next elections.

There is literally 0 downsides to not making a massive and unnecessary wall. He won't lose a single supporter for it. They don't want a wall, they either want political decisions that help the rich and undo anything that Obama did or simply want laws and political decisions that keep away non-whites from USA. None of that actually requires a wall. I'd even bet that building a wall would bring in loads of more people from Mexico for the construction project and as usual some would stay in the country.

a) Not sure which fans you are talking about, but I know that many fans think it is supposed to be an actual wall. A major fan of his Ann Coulter pressured him into getting funds for a wall. Therefore Ann Coulter’s followers would turn against him if he backs down.

And families crossing right at the border has reached a record high. CNN admits it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/09/politics/southern-border-family-arrests/index.html

b) This argument can be used against Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi because they are being to stubborn to agree to any amount of wall funding or a deal of wall funding in exchange for DACA amnesty.

c) Trump likes to get attention when it is positive attention so having many supporters turn against him is his worst fear.

d) In America, you are innocent until proven guilty, so they investigators would need to find direct proof that he committed a crime for him to be convicted which they will never find. All the investigators found was that some people under him committed crimes but they didn’t even find enough evidence to bring him on trial.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 10, 2019, 01:15:11 pm
Trump's supporters care more about reducing illegal immigration than they care about building a wall. If he managed to do it without a wall, I don't think they'd care.

And the investigation is still ongoing, so don't be too confident in that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Creeper in the Night on January 10, 2019, 02:42:52 pm
Trump's supporters care more about reducing illegal immigration than they care about building a wall. If he managed to do it without a wall, I don't think they'd care.

And the investigation is still ongoing, so don't be too confident in that.

And since border crossings are at an all time high according to CNN, and the caravans from Central America, I don’t think there is a better way to do so. Only a wall or tall fence can ensure that every single location on the US Mexico border cannot be crossed without going through a checkpoint.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 10, 2019, 03:14:38 pm
1. I believe there actually have been terrorists caught who entered the US by crossing a land border... the northern one. (Maybe Scott Walker was right about where the wall should go? PS I'm Canadian.)

2. Many, if not most, undocumented immigrants in the US are people who entered the country legally on a tourist visa and then overstayed it.

3. If you want to deal with the caravans coming from Latin America, you have to understand why they're coming: because they're fleeing gang violence in their own countries. What fuels that violence? Drugs, because of the US's insane "War on Drugs". End that, and you sharply curtail the power of those gangs, which in turn reduces violence, which in turn reduces the number of people fleeing north.

4. At least a plurality of Americans don't want a wall and are blaming Trump for the shutdown, not Congressional Democrats.

5. Any physical barrier across the US-Mexico border would necessarily have holes, because otherwise it'd be destroyed by water. And the costs of maintaining such a barrier would be astronomical.

6. As for Democrats being "big spenders", at least a lot of their proposals are for things that would actually help the public at large--and would save money. When Republicans spend big, it's for things that don't, like illegal invasions.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Creeper in the Night on January 10, 2019, 03:50:43 pm
1. I believe there actually have been terrorists caught who entered the US by crossing a land border... the northern one. (Maybe Scott Walker was right about where the wall should go? PS I'm Canadian.)

2. Many, if not most, undocumented immigrants in the US are people who entered the country legally on a tourist visa and then overstayed it.

3. If you want to deal with the caravans coming from Latin America, you have to understand why they're coming: because they're fleeing gang violence in their own countries. What fuels that violence? Drugs, because of the US's insane "War on Drugs". End that, and you sharply curtail the power of those gangs, which in turn reduces violence, which in turn reduces the number of people fleeing north.

4. At least a plurality of Americans don't want a wall and are blaming Trump for the shutdown, not Congressional Democrats.

5. Any physical barrier across the US-Mexico border would necessarily have holes, because otherwise it'd be destroyed by water. And the costs of maintaining such a barrier would be astronomical.

6. As for Democrats being "big spenders", at least a lot of their proposals are for things that would actually help the public at large--and would save money. When Republicans spend big, it's for things that don't, like illegal invasions.

1. I believe there actually have been terrorists caught who entered the US by crossing a land border... the northern one. (Maybe Scott Walker was right about where the wall should go? PS I'm Canadian.)

2. Many, if not most, undocumented immigrants in the US are people who entered the country legally on a tourist visa and then overstayed it.

3. If you want to deal with the caravans coming from Latin America, you have to understand why they're coming: because they're fleeing gang violence in their own countries. What fuels that violence? Drugs, because of the US's insane "War on Drugs". End that, and you sharply curtail the power of those gangs, which in turn reduces violence, which in turn reduces the number of people fleeing north.

4. At least a plurality of Americans don't want a wall and are blaming Trump for the shutdown, not Congressional Democrats.

5. Any physical barrier across the US-Mexico border would necessarily have holes, because otherwise it'd be destroyed by water. And the costs of maintaining such a barrier would be astronomical.

6. As for Democrats being "big spenders", at least a lot of their proposals are for things that would actually help the public at large--and would save money. When Republicans spend big, it's for things that don't, like illegal invasions.

1. The border between the US and Canada is way too long for a wall.

2. While that is true, that doesn’t change the fact that a significant number cross the US Mexican Border. CNN admits it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/09/politics/southern-border-family-arrests/index.html

3. How does waging a war against drug gangs in the US affect what is going on in Latin America? It prevents those gangs from causing trouble in the US.

4. A thing that you have to take into account is that there are definitely a lot of closet Trump supporters because they might live in areas where they could be harassed or even attacked by Antifa if they openly support him. Me, Shawn, and Jacob live in the Democrat state of Massachusetts so we cannot openly wear MAGA hats without fearing harassment or even getting attacked.

5. While water can damage a concrete barrier, a steel barrier will be better at withstanding water.

6. You mean like funding Planned Parenthood’s infantacides, and funding welfare instead of encouraging hard work. And it was  the corrupt establishment NeoCon Republicans that spent money on unnecessary wars. Trump is a great populist Republican who is ending US foreign military interventions, such as withdrawing troops from Syria, and the Democrats showed themselves to be hypocrites when they criticized him for it because they used to be against involvement in foreign wars.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 10, 2019, 04:00:53 pm
This shutdown wouldn’t have fucking happened if the Democrats agreed to the House bill that funds the wall.

There has never BEEN a House bill that funds one cent for the fucking wall.  Maybe you should ask your hero and the party he's supposed to be head of why they didn't bother with the absolutely necessary wall while they had complete control of the government?

It will be impossible to climb over the tall wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dm2lBzm2AE

b) This argument can be used against Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi because they are being to stubborn to agree to any amount of wall funding or a deal of wall funding in exchange for DACA amnesty.

This was in fact the deal offered in 2018, which was rejected.  Buy who?  Trump, of course.

6. You mean like funding Planned Parenthood’s infantacides, and funding welfare instead of encouraging hard work. And it was  the corrupt establishment NeoCon Republicans that spent money on unnecessary wars. Trump is a great populist Republican who is ending US foreign military interventions, such as withdrawing troops from Syria, and the Democrats showed themselves to be hypocrites when they criticized him for it because they used to be against involvement in foreign wars.

This being a site that collects wacko fundamentalist statements, it's probably not the best place to be pushing Project Veritas' masterpiece of bullshit, the "Planned Parenthood murders infants and sells body parts" liefest.  And Trump, the "great populist" who believes that people not working should just go ask Daddy for an allowance (or offer their services to their landlord in lieu of rent, something he himself would never allow in any of HIS buildings), is "saving money" by handing out huge tax cuts to the richest 1% of the US.  And now the US deficit is the highest it's ever been.  Though the Republicans hated that?  They sure spent lots of time screaming about it back when Obama was President.  Oh, and "the Democrats showed themselves to be hypocrites when they criticized him for it because they used to be against involvement in foreign wars" - They're still against involvement in foreign wars.  They're just smart enough to realize that walking out of a conflict YOU started halfway through doesn't help anybody.  It allows ISIS to recover.  It allows Assad to regain control with the assistance of the Russians, so he can get back to his campaign of murdering anyone in Syria who isn't 100% behind him.  It allows Turkey to murder the Kurdish rebels the US was trying to help, who BTW have been betrayed by the US multiple times in the past - always with a Republican President calling the shots.  It allows Russia and Iran to consolidate their power in the Middle East.  And it shows that when it comes to the US, they can't be trusted beyond the term of the current President, because no one can say if the next one will simply ignore or walk back previous agreements.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 10, 2019, 04:18:20 pm
Me, Shawn, and Jacob

Hey Sigma can we ban this guy now?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Creeper in the Night on January 10, 2019, 04:24:22 pm
There has never BEEN a House bill that funds one cent for the fucking wall.  Maybe you should ask your hero and the party he's supposed to be head of why they didn't bother with the absolutely necessary wall while they had complete control of the government?
The house did pass a spending bill with wall funding this December. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/house-passes-spending-bill-with-wall-funding/amp/

The Senate could have easily voted on it if it reached 60 votes, and the Democrats such as Chuck Schumer got in the way by preventing the 60 votes from passing. That led to the shutdown.
Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dm2lBzm2AE
Well using logic, if there is a tall steel barrier, it would be impossible to climb it, and even if illegal immigrants got an extremely tall ladder that goes over it, they wouldn’t be able to get down on the other side because it is too high up.
Quote
This was in fact the deal offered in 2018, which was rejected.  Buy who?  Trump, of course.
That was because the Supreme Court was going to make a ruling on DACA so it couldn’t quite be used as leverage.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Creeper in the Night on January 10, 2019, 04:37:12 pm
Quote
the "Planned Parenthood murders infants and sells body parts" liefest.
They admit to performing abortions and using accepting donations of fetal tissue. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/07/15/health/planned-parenthood-undercover-video/index.html
Quote
They're still against involvement in foreign wars.  They're just smart enough to realize that walking out of a conflict YOU started halfway through doesn't help anybody.  It allows ISIS to recover.  It allows Assad to regain control with the assistance of the Russians, so he can get back to his campaign of murdering anyone in Syria who isn't 100% behind him.  It allows Turkey to murder the Kurdish rebels the US was trying to help, who BTW have been betrayed by the US multiple times in the past - always with a Republican President calling the shots.  It allows Russia and Iran to consolidate their power in the Middle East.  And it shows that when it comes to the US, they can't be trusted beyond the term of the current President, because no one can say if the next one will simply ignore or walk back previous agreements.
Our only reason for being in Syria was to defeat ISIS and since it is almost defeated, other countries such as Iraq can finish the job. It is not in US interests to be involved in the other wars in Syria. Our foreign policy should put America First.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 10, 2019, 04:51:02 pm
Well using logic, if there is a tall steel barrier, it would be impossible to climb it, and even if illegal immigrants got an extremely tall ladder that goes over it, they wouldn’t be able to get down on the other side because it is too high up.

Unless they progressed past the Stone Age and created the miraculous twin inventions of either a rope or a second ladder.

Or, ya know, they could go full Dwarf and diggy diggy hole.  Remind me, what's it mean to "undermine" something?  A wall is a Medieval solution to a modern problem.  One easily circumvented by even more ancient technology.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 10, 2019, 04:52:36 pm
Oh hey Jacob.  A third contingency account?  How lovely!

As for your laughable proposal that nobody can climb a really tall wall, while that might be true, they can sure saw through it.  As reports have surfaced of the Wall's prototype being vulnerable to that very thing.  So sorry.

Ironbite-have fun being banned again though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Creeper in the Night on January 10, 2019, 05:08:25 pm
Well using logic, if there is a tall steel barrier, it would be impossible to climb it, and even if illegal immigrants got an extremely tall ladder that goes over it, they wouldn’t be able to get down on the other side because it is too high up.

Unless they progressed past the Stone Age and created the miraculous twin inventions of either a rope or a second ladder.

Or, ya know, they could go full Dwarf and diggy diggy hole.  Remind me, what's it mean to "undermine" something?  A wall is a Medieval solution to a modern problem.  One easily circumvented by even more ancient technology.
It can be a giant electric fence.

And border patrol in helicopters will be able to spot migrants on the other side digging the tunnel.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 10, 2019, 05:09:06 pm
You're an idiot.  Did you forget the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean all exist?  And that planes fly?

Ironbite-and that steel beams can be cut?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 10, 2019, 05:12:19 pm
And that people can still dig under an electric fence?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on January 10, 2019, 05:17:35 pm
Me, Shawn, and Jacob

Hey Sigma can we ban this guy now?


Yeah, he's gone.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 10, 2019, 05:44:18 pm
Me, Shawn, and Jacob

Hey Sigma can we ban this guy now?


Yeah, he's gone.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 10, 2019, 06:14:15 pm
Bet he's got a 3rd account hidden somewhere.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 10, 2019, 06:36:23 pm
Bet he's got a 3rd account hidden somewhere.

Of course he does. He's not quite that stupid.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 10, 2019, 07:38:41 pm
There has never BEEN a House bill that funds one cent for the fucking wall.  Maybe you should ask your hero and the party he's supposed to be head of why they didn't bother with the absolutely necessary wall while they had complete control of the government?
The house did pass a spending bill with wall funding this December. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/20/house-passes-spending-bill-with-wall-funding/amp/

The Senate could have easily voted on it if it reached 60 votes, and the Democrats such as Chuck Schumer got in the way by preventing the 60 votes from passing. That led to the shutdown.
Oh, right, I forgot about the Republican last minute "We're going to force this fucking thing in your face, and you can't do anything about it!" adjusted spending bill.  That had multiple bribes in the form of "disaster relief funding" in a desperate attempt to get REPUBLICANS to fucking vote for it... Because they couldn't even rely on THEM to vote for this disaster.

And this works both ways.  The Senate passed a funding bill to the House that had all the needed votes to get it passed; then Trump threw his temper tantrum and the House refused to vote on it.  And sorry, but I'm not going to point fingers at the Democrats for refusing to vote for a bill the Republicans had once again rewritten at the last minute.

Quote
the "Planned Parenthood murders infants and sells body parts" liefest.
They admit to performing abortions and using accepting donations of fetal tissue. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/07/15/health/planned-parenthood-undercover-video/index.html

Wrongo: https://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Quote
Republicans made their claims following the release of a secretly recorded video showing Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, discussing the procurement of fetal tissues when conducting abortions. The edited video, released July 14 by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, leaves the impression that Nucatola is talking about Planned Parenthood affiliates making money from fetal tissue. But the edited video ignores other things Nucatola said that contradict that idea.

At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”

Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

The footage was recorded secretly during a lunch meeting on July 25, 2014, between Nucatola and two people posing as employees of a company looking to procure fetal tissue for research purposes.

Oh, BTW, before you start screaming "Fake News!", you probably ought to know this too: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/2-abortion-foes-behind-planned-parenthood-videos-are-indicted.html

Quote
A grand jury here that was investigating accusations of misconduct against Planned Parenthood has instead indicted two abortion opponents who made undercover videos of the organization.

Prosecutors in Harris County said one of the leaders of the Center for Medical Progress — an anti-abortion group that made secretly recorded videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials trying to illegally profit from the sale of fetal tissue — had been indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record, a felony, and on a misdemeanor charge related to purchasing human organs.

That leader, David R. Daleiden, 27, the director of the center, had posed as a biotechnology representative to infiltrate Planned Parenthood affiliates and surreptitiously record his efforts to procure tissue for research. Another center employee, Sandra S. Merritt, 62, was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record.

The record-tampering charges accused Mr. Daleiden and Ms. Merritt of making and presenting fake California driver’s licenses, with the intent to defraud, for their April meeting at Planned Parenthood in Houston.

Quote
They're still against involvement in foreign wars.  They're just smart enough to realize that walking out of a conflict YOU started halfway through doesn't help anybody.  It allows ISIS to recover.  It allows Assad to regain control with the assistance of the Russians, so he can get back to his campaign of murdering anyone in Syria who isn't 100% behind him.  It allows Turkey to murder the Kurdish rebels the US was trying to help, who BTW have been betrayed by the US multiple times in the past - always with a Republican President calling the shots.  It allows Russia and Iran to consolidate their power in the Middle East.  And it shows that when it comes to the US, they can't be trusted beyond the term of the current President, because no one can say if the next one will simply ignore or walk back previous agreements.
Our only reason for being in Syria was to defeat ISIS and since it is almost defeated, other countries such as Iraq can finish the job. It is not in US interests to be involved in the other wars in Syria. Our foreign policy should put America First.

Not "our" foreign policy, YOUR foreign policy.  'Cause I'm not American either.  And ISIS was "almost defeated" before, when Obama was President.  You ought to remember, consider it was what sent Trump's "trusted friend" General Michael Flynn off the deep end and lead to him getting drummed out of the US military.  And as for "America First", at this point in history with the Internet and mass communication, the very idea that a country can cut itself off from the rest of the world and not be involved in anything unless they "win" is the most FUCKING INSANE THING anyone could possibly come up with.  Insisting on "America First" in all foreign policy will put America LAST, because the rest of the world will say "fuck you then", and sorry, but the US has never stood alone.  Despite what you idiots think.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 10, 2019, 08:04:00 pm
Let's just keep in mind: both the Senate and the House have passed a funding bill that would get the federal government open while not allocating money toward Trump's vanity project. It's just that the Senate did it in the last Congress, while the House did it in this one.

Now the Turtle is not allowing it to come to a vote in this Senate, because he says he doesn't want to bring anything Trump would just veto anyway to the floor.

Just keep in mind, though: the one thing the Turtle cares about is blocking Democratic priorities for decades by jamming the federal courts full of young, insane wingnut conservatives who in some cases are rated unqualified by the ABA (which, you will recall, rated all of Garland, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh as qualified).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 10, 2019, 09:09:12 pm
When it comes to walls, I think we should ask the expert: Donald Trump.

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1083169537263054849 (https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1083169537263054849)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 11, 2019, 05:31:55 am
And so the ancient game known as "Trump v Trump" continues...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 11, 2019, 06:30:55 am
While Trump is an absolute dickhead, you have to at least give him credit for putting that utter cockmonkey Trump in his place.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 12, 2019, 05:36:34 am
Whoever loses, we also probably lose.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 12, 2019, 05:57:59 am
While Trump is an absolute dickhead, you have to at least give him credit for putting that utter cockmonkey Trump in his place.

Trump's been on every side of every issue.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 15, 2019, 06:10:38 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/14/steve-king-republicans-house-committees-white-nationalist

Virulent racist Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has been stripped of his committee assignments in the House of Representatives after remarks asking how "white supremacy" became offensive.

Let's also recall his characterization of Dreamers as people with "calves the size of cantaloupes" from smuggling marijuana across the border.

Rep. King had sat on the House Judiciary, Agriculture, and Small Business Committees. Additionally, in the previous Congress, he was the chair of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on The Constitution and Civil Justice (among other things, it oversaw federal civil rights--which you'd think would be the one place you wouldn't want to put someone as racist as Rep. King).

Reps. Chris Collins (R-NY) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) also have no committee assignments; both are under active indictment.

EDIT: "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies." -- Rep. Steve King

EDIT #2: Per the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clause 4: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."

But seen on Twitter (condensed):

"Steve King should resign so Gov. Reynolds can appoint a replacement well before 2020."

"If Steve King resigns, Gov. Reynolds will just appoint someone equally horrible."

Whatever your partisan take on the matter, both of these versions are simply wrong that the Governor gets to appoint replacements for House members.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 15, 2019, 07:50:12 pm
Depends also on State Law mind.  Some states you have to have a special election to replace a Congresscritter.  Others it's appointed by that state's Governor.  It's how, despite losing her race in Arizona, Martha McSally got in.

Ironbite-I doubt King will resign though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 15, 2019, 08:33:43 pm
Depends also on State Law mind.  Some states you have to have a special election to replace a Congresscritter.  Others it's appointed by that state's Governor.  It's how, despite losing her race in Arizona, Martha McSally got in.

That's for the Senate. For the House, the US Constitution is explicit, as per the quotation: the executive sets a date for a special election to fill the vacancy.

As for McSally, she was, when you think about it, the least controversial choice, just like Jon Kyl was.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 16, 2019, 04:11:47 am
McSally's seat was always up for grabs in 2020.  Cause that's how terms work
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 16, 2019, 07:44:44 am
I am starting to get annoyed by this "But his replacement could be equally bad or worse!" meme.

If you find out that someone is unfit for a job or elected position, it should be the duty of the organization or nation to have them replaced. Doesn't matter who the hypothetical replacement is, if they are also unfit they will be replaced then
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 16, 2019, 02:21:37 pm
McSally's seat was always up for grabs in 2020.  Cause that's how terms work

Once McCain died too close to the 2018 election to have the special election then, yeah, of course. And then it's up again in 2022, since it's a Class III seat.

I am starting to get annoyed by this "But his replacement could be equally bad or worse!" meme.

If you find out that someone is unfit for a job or elected position, it should be the duty of the organization or nation to have them replaced. Doesn't matter who the hypothetical replacement is, if they are also unfit they will be replaced then

Well, that's for the voters of IA-4 to decide, should Rep. King resign.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 17, 2019, 02:28:23 am
How did white supremacy become offensive? Oh I don't know, but I think it probably had something to do with this really shouty Austrian with a tiny mustache, among many other things. What was his name? Randolph Hortler?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 17, 2019, 11:20:35 am

Well, that's for the voters of IA-4 to decide, should Rep. King resign.


Exactly, the voters can elect someone else to the position and that's what democracy in its modern form is supposed to be about. Elect someone to represent yourself but no one is above the law and if the elected person does horrible and/or illegal things they can be removed from the office. I would argue that the ability to remove leaders from office is as important to democracy as is the ability to vote for them in the first place.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 17, 2019, 11:54:42 am

Well, that's for the voters of IA-4 to decide, should Rep. King resign.


Exactly, the voters can elect someone else to the position and that's what democracy in its modern form is supposed to be about. Elect someone to represent yourself but no one is above the law and if the elected person does horrible and/or illegal things they can be removed from the office. I would argue that the ability to remove leaders from office is as important to democracy as is the ability to vote for them in the first place.

Well, yes. My main point in this whole thing is not anything about whether Rep. King should resign, but rather people's ignorance of the procedure for filling a vacancy in the House of Representatives (as opposed to one in the Senate), which shows up in people of all political stripes.

I bet a good number of these people would view the US Constitution with some sort of near-religious reverence... but then they probably haven't read their religion's "holy" book(s), either.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 18, 2019, 03:22:24 pm
Latest bullshit from the constantly full of shit, and currently AWOL Mitch "Turtle" McConnell: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/call-hr-1-what-it-is-the-democrat-politician-protection-act/2019/01/17/dcc957be-19cb-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html?utm_term=.285b3827d7cb (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/call-hr-1-what-it-is-the-democrat-politician-protection-act/2019/01/17/dcc957be-19cb-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html?utm_term=.285b3827d7cb)

Is there ANYTHING in there that is true at all?  Besides fair elections being a major threat to Republicans?

Oh, and yes, he did just admit that Republicans couldn't win elections without cheating.  Unusually honest of him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 18, 2019, 03:37:08 pm
Not like anyone in Kentucky is gonna vote against him.

Ironbite-man's gonna be in office until the day he dies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 21, 2019, 09:09:33 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSE_CsAdG1M

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his own words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgkYiby9CVI

Meanwhile, Mike Pence is trying to invoke Dr. King's legacy to argue for xenophobia.

As for the Turtle, the thing is, Trump has a pretty good approval rating in Kentucky--substantially higher than McConnell's. If McConnell bucks Trump by allowing a vote on a bill to fund federal government operations (which will pass--at this point, it might pass with the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto, with Congressional Republicans feeling some heat over this), he'll lose, not in the general election, but to a Trumpite primary challenger.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 22, 2019, 09:34:29 am
Alternatively, we could let North Korea annex Kentucky.  I'm sure no one will miss it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on January 22, 2019, 09:59:34 am
Alternatively, we could let North Korea annex Kentucky.  I'm sure no one will miss it.
That would be some grade A Paradox border gore.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 23, 2019, 01:38:25 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck

Fuck dammit MSNBC.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 23, 2019, 12:41:52 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck

Fuck dammit MSNBC.

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with Trump?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 23, 2019, 06:35:55 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck

Fuck dammit MSNBC.

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with Trump?

The majority of Americans blame him for the shutdown; furthermore, he told Sen. Schumer that he would take responsibility for the shutdown; this is an effect of said shutdown.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 23, 2019, 08:05:25 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck

Fuck dammit MSNBC.

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with Trump?

The majority of Americans blame him for the shutdown; furthermore, he told Sen. Schumer that he would take responsibility for the shutdown; this is an effect of said shutdown.

OK, I get it now. Thanks for explaining.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 23, 2019, 08:07:17 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfYCzWCoZck

Fuck dammit MSNBC.

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this have to do with Trump?

The majority of Americans blame him for the shutdown; furthermore, he told Sen. Schumer that he would take responsibility for the shutdown; this is an effect of said shutdown.

OK, I get it now. Thanks for explaining.

That, and, generally, fuck MSNBC.

EDIT: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal.html

The current talk of the town at Davos?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's moderate plan to raise the US federal marginal tax rate on income over $10,000,000 to somewhere between 60% and 70%.

I say moderate because this same tax rate is applied in other countries with a much lower threshold, and there were also once rates in the US kicking in at incomes that high, but those were in the range of 91% to 93%.

She's been a sitting member of the House for three weeks and the global elite are fucking TERRIFIED of her.

Quote
I'll tell you what's going on. She represents ME. She represents everyone I know. She represents the normal people. She cares about OUR interests. In my lifetime I have NEVER felt this represented before in government. It's time for government to work for us, as it was intended. To all the people coming out of the woodwork to spew hate: I love that she represents you too, and that her policies will benefit you as well. I feel sorry for all those that can't or won't see this.

EDIT #2:

Quote
Oh, maybe THAT is why otherwise politically-savvy Republicans keep making kamikaze runs at everything AOC says.

Surely they realize that every attack on her just raises her profile further. They could just let her be a bomb-thrower in the caucus, a one-termer from one of the bluest districts in the country. Instead, the GOP seems determined to make her a serious presidential contender just by focusing too much on her.

(I doubt she'll be a one-termer, but anyway.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 24, 2019, 12:00:29 pm
I got a laugh out of this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/23/billionaires-davos-hate-alexandra-ocasio-cortezs-percent-tax-rich/?utm_term=.cbde36b21dc6

Quote
When Dell was asked to explain why he thinks that, he said, “Name a country where that’s worked — ever.”

Co-panelist and MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson jumped in to offer an answer: “the United States.”
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 24, 2019, 05:02:21 pm
I say moderate because this same tax rate is applied in other countries with a much lower threshold, and there were also once rates in the US kicking in at incomes that high, but those were in the range of 91% to 93%.

What's more, that was during the 1950s, a time of unprecedented prosperity in America. So it's not like such high tax rates are inherently detrimental to the economy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 24, 2019, 05:36:40 pm
I say moderate because this same tax rate is applied in other countries with a much lower threshold, and there were also once rates in the US kicking in at incomes that high, but those were in the range of 91% to 93%.

What's more, that was during the 1950s, a time of unprecedented prosperity in America. So it's not like such high tax rates are inherently detrimental to the economy.

Well, there were recessions, but what I'd have to look into is where the gains of the recoveries went. Because according to the Federal Reserve (have to dig up the link) only the top 10% are better off now (in terms of wealth) than they were in 2007.

I'd also have to look into federal revenues when taxes went down under Kennedy in the early 1960s. You obviously can't raise marginal rates to 100% or you'll get no income from that bracket; you also can't drop them to 0%; and therefore there's a value somewhere in between that maximises revenue.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/shutdown-vote-senate-fail-1.4991658

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00009
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00010

There were two bills to fund the US government before the Senate, one advanced by Republicans, the other by Democrats.

Both required 60 votes to invoke cloture; both failed. The Republican proposal received 50 votes for to 47 against, while the Democratic proposal received 52 for, 44 against.

On the Republican proposal, Sens. Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID) and Rosen (D-NV) did not vote; the vote was otherwise along party lines (Sens. Sanders and King voting with the Democrats) except that Sen. Manchin (D-WV) voted for while Sens. Cotton (R-AR) and Lee (R-UT) voted against.

On the Democratic proposal, Sens. Burr (R-NC), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), and Rosen (D-NV) did not vote. Again, the vote was along party lines, except that Republican Sens. Alexander (TN), Collins (ME), Gardner (CO), Isakson (GA), Murkowski (AK) and Romney (UT) voted for.

Meanwhile, Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross urged furloughed workers to seek loans to pay the bills, but also said in an interview with CNBC that he couldn't understand why they were having trouble getting by.

Oh, I don't know, Mr. Ross. Maybe it's because almost 80% of federal workers live paycheque to paycheque?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/29/us-economy-workers-paycheck-robert-reich
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-in-5-us-workers-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/01/11/live-paycheck-to-paycheck-government-shutdown/

Maybe it's because a disturbingly high percentage of US families would be financially ruined by an unexpected $400, $500, or $700 bill? And keep in mind, while federal workers have at least been guaranteed back pay (though that does nothing to pay the rent or the mortgage or buy groceries or anything like that now), federal contractors are fucked.

How fucking out of touch are you, Mr. Ross?

Quote
I'll tell you what's going on. She represents ME. She represents everyone I know. She represents the normal people. She cares about OUR interests. In my lifetime I have NEVER felt this represented before in government. It's time for government to work for us, as it was intended. To all the people coming out of the woodwork to spew hate: I love that she represents you too, and that her policies will benefit you as well. I feel sorry for all those that can't or won't see this.

Meanwhile, a Reuters/Ipsos poll last week found that more than half of Americans blame Trump for the shutdown. Trump has been attempting to shift blame to the Democrats, despite saying before the shutdown began that he would be "proud" to shut down the government for border security.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 25, 2019, 07:30:15 am
And as of today, Rodger Stone has been arrested.

Ironbite-crack one open cause it's Mueller Time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 25, 2019, 07:53:34 am
So, what are the odds that Trump or GOP will try to shut down the investigation? At this pace Trump will be named in the investigation and the matter of impeachment will be brought up before the next elections. Not to mention all the other Republicans who are involved. Mueller is already publicly investigating NRA and through them plenty of people will be implicated in the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 25, 2019, 09:40:26 am
At this point, you shut down the investigation you're pretty much screaming you did something wrong.  Of course the Orange Piss Pot's too stupid to realize that so he might as well shut it down now.

Ironbite-and then the House gets unfettered access to Mueller.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 25, 2019, 10:00:00 am
I still see lots of people claiming that the investigation hasn't found anything and that it's a witch hunt. So the fanatics wouldn't mind. What about the rest of GOP? Would they consider it crossing a line or just business as usual with partisan politics? Because they clearly don't mind putting rapists in position of power as long as they have a big "R" next to their name.

Who would care? Democrats? That will be seen as a partisan political complaint. Republicans with a spine and a sense of justice? They've either already left the party or are blind and deaf.

Seriously, is there a downside to shutting down the investigation? If there's a revolt or something then Putin is going to orgasm until he gets dehydrated and the GOP politicians don't seem to care about the country much anyway.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 25, 2019, 11:24:19 am
Moderate voters.  The true kingmakers of the electorate.  You lose them, you kiss your election chances goodbye.  And the GOP knows this because that's what cost them the House.  The moderate voters, the ones who don't identify with either party are the real meat of the election pie.  And that's also what gave Trump his victory, helped by Russian meddling and the like.  Remember, he only one the two key battleground states by about 80,000 votes.  That's really really slim margin.  He won't have that in 2020.  He really won't have it in 2020 if he shuts down Mueller.

Ironbite-that's what it all boils down too.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 25, 2019, 02:26:09 pm
So Trump has agreed to end the shut down by passing the same bill that the Democrats and the Republicans before them have been trying to push through for the past 34 days. So this whole fucking shut down was over nothing! The thing is it only opens the government for another three weeks in which Trump wants to discuss funding for his wall which the Democrats probably still won't give him which will lead to him probably shutting down the Government again.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 25, 2019, 03:01:27 pm
And him losing another fight, again.

Ironbite-meanwhile, people get paid again so there's that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 25, 2019, 03:07:28 pm
So what do you think made him cave? His tanking approval ratings? The Airports shutting down or flights getting delayed? The fact that more Republicans voted for the Democrats proposal in the Senate yesterday than Democrats voting for the Republican proposal?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 25, 2019, 03:12:19 pm
Stone.  That's about it.  Stone getting arrested and all that entails.

Ironbite-perfect timing from Mueller.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 25, 2019, 05:52:40 pm
So what do you think made him cave? His tanking approval ratings? The Airports shutting down or flights getting delayed? The fact that more Republicans voted for the Democrats proposal in the Senate yesterday than Democrats voting for the Republican proposal?

The prospect of losing the Senate in 2020... which I don't think really should be a concern, look at the 2013 Ted "I don't want people to have health care" Cruz shutdown and the 2014 election.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 25, 2019, 05:59:46 pm
I think it was because his party was starting to cave. Trumps approval ratings are tanking and they didn't want to be dragged with him. Six Republicans voted for the Democratic proposal on Thursday where only one Democrat voted for the Republican one. (Manchin of course) The thing is no one is going to remember this shut down in a few months. I don't think Trump will try to shut it down again and will probably try and call a national emergency next.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 25, 2019, 09:09:33 pm
Oh and speaking of that 2013 shutdown...

Dammit I never thought I'd find anything Michael Bennet said laudable.

Quote
Madam President. (The Senator from Colorado.) Madam President, I seldom, uh, as you know, um, rise on this floor to contradict somebody on the other side. I've worked very hard over the years to work in a bipartisan way, with the presiding officer, with my Republican colleagues, but these crocodile tears that the Senator from Texas is crying for first respondesr are too hard for me to take.

They're too hard for me to take, because when you sh--when the Senator from Texas shut this government down in 2013, my state was flooded. IT WAS UNDERWATER! PEOPLE WERE KILLED! People's houses were destroyed! Their small businesses were ruined, forever! And because of the Senator from Texas, this government was shut down, for politics. Then he surfed to a second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, but were of no help - pause- to the first responders, to the teachers, to the students whose schools were closed, when the federal government, that was shut down, because of the junior Senator from Texas.

(fact-check: Sen. Cruz won the 2016 Iowa Republican caucuses)

From what I've read, Sen. Bennet would be quite justified in being angry over a federal government shutdown--federal spending is the single biggest driver of Colorado's economy. (Marijuana sales being second, which is why Sen. Gardner has been urging caution in the enforcement of federal marijuana laws against states that have repealed their criminal restrictions on marijuana.)

(Also, for clarity: it's the second part I find laudable. The first part is a pipe dream now: the elected Republicans are almost always too insane to work with, with rare exceptions such as Sens. Paul and Lee, and Rep. Amash, on certain matters of foreign policy.)

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLvHy8L10Tw

Mark Levin: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Marxist commie socialist!"
Also Mark Levin: "Please come on my show AOC."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 26, 2019, 06:55:55 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaW6OarhKwA

New numbers out. About Trump vs Any leading democratic candidate. People are getting to comfy so Kyle is here to let us know to pace ourselves.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 26, 2019, 07:35:48 pm
I totally expect Trump to win reelection.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 26, 2019, 08:03:08 pm
I totally expect Pence to lose reelection.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 26, 2019, 08:22:54 pm
I wonder if the Senate would even have to hold a trial if the House voted to impeach. I don't see anything requiring it. (In fact, they once did decline to hold a trial, on the very first impeachment, but that's because it was of a Senator, William Blount, whom they'd already effectively expelled, and they said they didn't have the jurisdiction to try an impeachment of another Senator.)

Remember that the other two times Presidents have been impeached, both Houses of Congress were controlled by hostile parties.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 26, 2019, 08:53:46 pm
Oh he isn't going to be impeached, he'll resign first.

Ironbite-speed run of Nixon after all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 26, 2019, 08:59:18 pm
Oh he isn't going to be impeached, he'll resign first.

Ironbite-speed run of Nixon after all.

US President Corruption Mode Any%
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 26, 2019, 09:32:43 pm
Oh he isn't going to be impeached, he'll resign first.

Ironbite-speed run of Nixon after all.

He'll only resign if he thinks that will stop the attacks on his businesses. But now there's state-level investigations going on, which won't stop even if he steps down as President. He won't resign, and if the House impeaches I could absolutely see the Senate Republicans simply declining to hold a trial.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 27, 2019, 12:53:18 am
Yeah the only way Trump is leaving office is if he's voted out in 2020, or he does both of his terms until the dems take the Senate and they can properly impeach him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on January 27, 2019, 01:01:25 am
Trump is going to blow a gasket if he loses reelection.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 27, 2019, 01:28:38 am
Yeah the only way Trump is leaving office is if he's voted out in 2020, or he does both of his terms until the dems take the Senate and they can properly impeach him.

The chances of them getting the 67 they need to convict is basically nil at this point. We're not going to see a return to the Senate of the 1930s when the Democrats had 70+.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 27, 2019, 04:58:13 am
Trump is going to blow a gasket if he loses reelection.

I can see the tantrums on twitter already.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 28, 2019, 01:47:53 am
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-fake-news-apos-fox-032445297.html

turning on fox news hosts now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 28, 2019, 01:49:27 am
He has truly entered the "NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!!!!" phase of his office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 28, 2019, 04:40:29 pm
When you turn on the propaganda wing.....
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2019, 04:42:38 pm
When you turn on the propaganda wing.....

Is r/The_Donald banning people who agree with Trump (since they'd be against FOX News) and people who agree with FOX News (since they'd be against Trump)?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 28, 2019, 06:12:58 pm
Do I look like I go to Reddit?

Anyways, news roundup time cause a lot of shit came out today.

1. A Bipartisan bill is making it's way through the Senate to make the Mueller Report public. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/robert-mueller-report-bill-congress/index.html

2. Michel Cohen will be testifying behind closed doors to the House. Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/michael-cohen-testify-house-intel-next-week-1132798

3. State of the Union is back on.  Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/pelosi-invites-trump-to-hold-state-of-the-union-on-february-5.html

1 and 2 outta make Trump really nervous.

Ironbite-so much so that 3 might as well not exist.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 28, 2019, 06:14:48 pm
I decided to just bite the bullet and actually look at the_donald which I rarely since I have much better uses for my time.

Dug around and I have had my daily dose of cringe (I should post some of it in another thread here later) but the only relevant thread with enough comments was this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/akjz3g/donald_trump_just_called_fox_news_fake_news/

No drama in it, but apparently Fox News isn't right wing enough for them, Which is silly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2019, 06:36:16 pm
For FOX to be right-wing enough they'd at a bare minimum have to fire Shep Smith.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 28, 2019, 07:07:48 pm
I'm pretty sure the Donald commenters only view Breitbart and info wars as the only true news.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2019, 10:55:33 pm
So I saw a longer snippet of Sen. Bennet's speech ripping Sen. Cruz over his 2013 shutdown... going from where I left off here: http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7463.msg323785#msg323785

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOEVLjnC3fI

Quote
Now, it's his business, not my business, why he supports a President who wants to erect a medieval barrier on the border of Texas, who wants to use eminent domain to build that wall, who wants to declare an unconstitutional emergency to build that wall, that's the business of the Senator from Texas. I can assure you that in Colorado, if a President said he was gonna use eminent domain to erect a barrier across the state of Colorado, across the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, he was gonna steal the property of our farmers and ranchers to build his medieval wall, there wouldn't be an elected leader from our state that would support that idea.

Which goes to my final point: how ludicrous it is that this government is shut down over a promise the President of the United States couldn't keep, and that America is not interested in having him keep. This idea that he was gonna build a medieval wall across the southern border of Texas, take it from the farmers and ranchers that were there, and have the Mexicans pay for it isn't true! That's why we're here.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 29, 2019, 04:00:48 am
T_D is currently busy jerking off while discussing conspiracies that a justice of the supreme court of USA is already dead and that her death has been covered up:
(https://i.imgur.com/xWRn9bF.png)

Not in picture: Their other sexual fantasies of how Trump will get to appoint yet another right-winger to the court. Also completely missing in the subreddit: common decency.

EDIT: And this is what they have been reduced to when making fun of AOC. No joke, no pun just this.

(https://i.redd.it/ke0y2bjlg8d21.jpg)

I'm amazed at how scared they are of her. 50% of Trump-cult comments about her are screeching and insults and the other 50% are claims that they are not actually obsessed with her and that it's just the Democracts say so.

EDIT2: Turns out that Roger Stone showed up at T_D begging for money for his lawyers. They turned on him like they've turned on anyone who fails (except for Trump of course) but it also revealed something interesting. " stonedefensefund.com " the website where he is gathering money was registered in 2017. A day after he appeared in front of the House committee and seeing as one of the charges is lying to that committee it seems he knew then he was fucked and started preparing for the day when his lies would be uncovered.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 30, 2019, 05:26:42 pm
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/29/gop-rejects-bill-to-give-back-pay-to-federal-contractors-wants-to-repeal-estate-tax-instead/

GOP Senators apparently consider it more important to give a huge tax break to less than 2,000 families than give federal contractors the back pay they missed while Trump had the US federal government shut down to try to get his vanity project.

None have signed onto Democratic efforts to guarantee said back pay, while they are attempting to repeal the estate tax, which impacts less than 2,000 families and would cause wealth inequality in the US to become even more severe, and would essentially be a huge giveaway to a few thousand people who did absolutely nothing other than be related to the right people, and in particular did nothing to earn that money--money that was earned because of public services like roads and electrical grids, protected by public services like fire departments, police departments and, more distantly, the military, and partly provided by people using public services like Social Security.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans support ideas like that proposed by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez to raise the federal marginal tax rate on people making at least $10,000,000 per year to 60% or 70%. (As Warren Buffett noted, if marginal tax rates put you off from going into business, you'd be bad at business--or something similar; I'd have to look up his exact quote.)

Quote
The Prime Minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials. I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others. There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day. I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners. The Conservative Party remains as always a class Party. In twenty-three years in the House of Commons, I cannot recall more than half a dozen from the ranks of the wage earners. It represents today, as in the past, the forces of property and privilege. The Labour Party is, in fact, the one Party which most nearly reflects in its representation and composition all the main streams which flow into the great river of our national life.

Right now I feel like I would have to change very little of Clement Attlee's quote to make it applicable to modern US politics.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 30, 2019, 08:31:03 pm
And they followed it up with Mitch McConnell standing up in front of the Senate and, I shit you not, insisting that the idea of giving federal workers the day off for Election Day is "a power grab by the Democrats".  He also claimed that the federal workers they've been repeatedly screwing over the last month or so would "stand over voters at the voting booth, making sure they vote correctly".

If they weren't leaning Dem before, they sure as shit are NOW...

https://twitter.com/TPMLiveWire/status/1090666102701592582
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 30, 2019, 09:39:49 pm
Well, in fairness to the Turtle, that is an extremely uncharitable but not entirely inaccurate way of putting it, because the people who can't afford to take time off work to vote tend to be poorer and thus would benefit more from Democratic policies than Republican policies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 31, 2019, 12:31:54 am
I'm just saying that there's no good way to twist "letting people use their right to vote will hurt our party more than any other political group." 
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 31, 2019, 04:36:56 am
I'm just saying that there's no good way to twist "letting people use their right to vote will hurt our party more than any other political group."

Except that, technically, there is no right to vote in America. There's a list of reasons they can't use to deny you the vote (and a few that they can), but no positive right.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 31, 2019, 05:22:28 am
a) Well that's a surprise. Putting "the right to bear arms" as a positive right but then not making voting equally important in the constitution.

b) You still get my point I trust? Keeping people (who by all laws should be able to vote) from being able to vote benefitting the GOP only is rather telling.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on February 01, 2019, 12:29:50 pm
And how would they manage to hide this with a Republican controlled government, and not have covered up Scalia, who also died and let Trump have an appointment to the court. Y'know the guy who was apparently "killed" according to conspiracy theories to... they never explain exactly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 05, 2019, 07:15:27 pm
And now a bunch of Trump supporters are crying that they had higher federal tax bills than in previous years because of the eliminations of or caps on deductions used by not-rich people. Meanwhile, rich people and corporations made out like bandits.

Please excuse my schadenfreude.

Quote
I am a Republican voter. I just did our taxes.

The @GOP tax bill cost my family THOUSANDS of dollars this year on our return due to changes, thereby hitting us with the LARGEST tax increase of our lives.

We are middle-class homeowners, and you raised our taxes.

Infuriating!

Quote
I have to pay $2000 MORE in taxes this year! What happened?? I voted for you and thought you were fixing this, not making it worse!? I thought I would get money back this year!?

Quote
Voted for you. Family of 2 hard working N.Y. cops. Did taxes for years we would pay more and get a refund at the end of the year to help pay debt. First time in 30 years We had to pay more in Federal Taxes. I'm disgusted.

Quote
Worse tax return I had in a decade! I admit I voted for @realDonaldTrump but he has officially lost my vote for 2020.

Quote
Wait til you file your taxes. Middle class just lost half their return. Lowest refund I have ever had and I am 50yrs old. No wall and now this tax reform sucks too!! Starting to doubt Trump. I voted for him and trusted him too.

And I expect to see more of this, of course, since these are just the people who are filing early. Wait until mid-April.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 05, 2019, 07:19:37 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Ironbite-and people think he'll get reelected.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 05, 2019, 07:27:42 pm
Re the tears:

Quote
Please allow me to quote Corey Lewandowski: Womp womp.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 05, 2019, 07:38:24 pm
Trump supporter: "No you see this is good because Trump is raising our taxes not some libtard, it must be for something truly amazing, like lowering our taxes, or the wall!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 05, 2019, 09:01:10 pm
And now a bunch of Trump supporters are crying that they had higher federal tax bills than in previous years because of the eliminations of or caps on deductions used by not-rich people. Meanwhile, rich people and corporations made out like bandits.

Please excuse my schadenfreude.

Quote
I am a Republican voter. I just did our taxes.

The @GOP tax bill cost my family THOUSANDS of dollars this year on our return due to changes, thereby hitting us with the LARGEST tax increase of our lives.

We are middle-class homeowners, and you raised our taxes.

Infuriating!

Quote
I have to pay $2000 MORE in taxes this year! What happened?? I voted for you and thought you were fixing this, not making it worse!? I thought I would get money back this year!?

Quote
Voted for you. Family of 2 hard working N.Y. cops. Did taxes for years we would pay more and get a refund at the end of the year to help pay debt. First time in 30 years We had to pay more in Federal Taxes. I'm disgusted.

Quote
Worse tax return I had in a decade! I admit I voted for @realDonaldTrump but he has officially lost my vote for 2020.

Quote
Wait til you file your taxes. Middle class just lost half their return. Lowest refund I have ever had and I am 50yrs old. No wall and now this tax reform sucks too!! Starting to doubt Trump. I voted for him and trusted him too.

And I expect to see more of this, of course, since these are just the people who are filing early. Wait until mid-April.

Where is this?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 05, 2019, 09:09:56 pm
On Twitter.

Ironbite-among other places.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 05, 2019, 09:34:38 pm
Ah Rednecks, they'll let you straight up scalp them alive if you swear on their mother's grave that the scalp will be used to hurt blacks latinos and anyone else they hate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on February 06, 2019, 01:52:37 am
And as for Trump's SOTU speech (and really, any speech or rally the guy has):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ovm1J_AxLQ
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on February 06, 2019, 07:36:47 am
Where is this?

Here (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/trusted-trump-voters-seethe-realizing-theyre-getting-screwed-gops-tax-plan/?fbclid=IwAR34aWrSJcbr-1n-sW0CdeP4XjK6kHVhVaUc3MEJ18rcecd2TkP099ZgLGk)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on February 06, 2019, 12:33:08 pm
The SotU was, disappointing. All these great things he says he wants to do but no substance at all. None. Just a bunch of applause bait. His funny little idea of reducing prescription drugs is laughable. First it can't be done, big pharma is too big. And even if it could, he's not the man to do it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 06, 2019, 02:30:51 pm
Everything he's said since his announcement that he was going to run for president has been things he wants to do but with no substance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 06, 2019, 02:54:09 pm
Everything he's said since his announcement that he was going to run for president has been things he wants to do but with no substance.

Meanwhile, everything that's happened (except the shutdown, which Trump said he'd take credit for) has been the brainchild of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and wingnut conservative "think" tanks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 06, 2019, 03:59:53 pm
Where is this?

Here (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/trusted-trump-voters-seethe-realizing-theyre-getting-screwed-gops-tax-plan/?fbclid=IwAR34aWrSJcbr-1n-sW0CdeP4XjK6kHVhVaUc3MEJ18rcecd2TkP099ZgLGk)

Oh, that was fun to read. Put a smile on my face. Suck it, Trumpers.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 06, 2019, 04:33:22 pm
One explanation I've heard (though I haven't found a source) is that this was at least in part due to attempts to correct overwithholding (which ended up overcorrecting it) that led to most people getting refunds, and people forgot that they had larger paycheques during the year.

To which I would say, when you live paycheque to paycheque, slightly higher paycheques are a blip but a smaller (or no) refund is a big hit... but it does make me wonder if these people compared their returns from this year to their returns from previous years.

Also, just wait a few years, those taxes will start going up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 07, 2019, 03:04:04 am
Oh no: https://mobile.twitter.com/westland_will?lang=en

This guy is really upset at Trump. ...For not being racist enough. He complained about the State of the union speech for Trump mentioning minorities but not praising the (88%) white people who voted for him. He is also upset for people still remembering the Holocaust. And a bunch of other Right wing and Nazi stuff.

It's rare to see someone claim that Trump isn't racist enough for them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on February 07, 2019, 12:03:21 pm
Oh no: https://mobile.twitter.com/westland_will?lang=en

This guy is really upset at Trump. ...For not being racist enough. He complained about the State of the union speech for Trump mentioning minorities but not praising the (88%) white people who voted for him. He is also upset for people still remembering the Holocaust. And a bunch of other Right wing and Nazi stuff.

It's rare to see someone claim that Trump isn't racist enough for them.

Reminds me of how Robert Bowers accused Trump of being a Jewish puppet and complained that he wasn't far-right enough. I hope this guy doesn't shoot up a synagogue too.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 07, 2019, 02:11:54 pm
Looking through his feed, he strikes me as the type of person Hitler would've had purged from the National Socialist party in the Night of the Long Knives for actually wanting socialism.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on February 08, 2019, 11:46:24 am
And now, we get the ultimate display of hypocracy and chutzpah from the Great Turtle of the Senate, Mitch McConnell:

Quote
As I’ve said time and time again: Mindless obstruction is unacceptable.
The only way this divided Congress will be able to choose greatness and deliver significant legislation is by focusing on -- as President Trump put it -- “cooperation, compromise, and the common good.”
- https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1093165923761037313 (https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1093165923761037313)

Remind me again who it was that spent 6 years doing nothing BUT mindless obstruction?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 08, 2019, 12:11:11 pm
Turtle really has no clue how anyone would react to that statement after the past 6 years of him trying to make Obama a 1 term president.

Ironbite-it's why they lost the House you moron.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 08, 2019, 12:24:09 pm
GOP obstruction is very mindful. It's mindful of the best interests of their campaign donors.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: rookie on February 08, 2019, 03:42:37 pm
GOP obstruction is very mindful. It's mindful of the best interests of their campaign donors.

To be fair, it's a trick they learned from Democrats. Nobody looks out for citizens who don't have a PAC.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 08, 2019, 04:26:16 pm
GOP obstruction is very mindful. It's mindful of the best interests of their campaign donors.

To be fair, it's a trick they learned from Democrats. Nobody looks out for citizens who don't have a PAC.

I think they learned it from each other. This has been brewing since Buckley and Bellotti.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 14, 2019, 03:59:59 pm
Oh shit. Trump's going to declare a national emergency* for something that isn't a national emergency. How do you think this is going to pan out?

* National Emergency meaning my presidency is in shambles so I better create a reason for thirty percent of the country to vote for me next year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 14, 2019, 04:19:59 pm
I think he's going to make a precedent that will let a social democratic President (in the mold of FDR) declare national emergencies for things like health care and income inequality and implement single-payer and universal basic income by executive fiat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 14, 2019, 04:24:53 pm
That's if the courts don't strike him down first.

Ironbite-this is a nightmare for the GOP if the next Democratic President gets in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 14, 2019, 04:27:14 pm
Aren't the courts all controlled by conservative judges now?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 14, 2019, 04:40:02 pm
Aren't the courts all controlled by conservative judges now?

Dear Harry Reid: Fuck you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 14, 2019, 04:48:42 pm
Aren't the courts all controlled by conservative judges now?

Cute but not quite.  Yeah they are filled with conservative judges because McConnell finally got a useful idiot but they have surprised the Orange Piss Pot before.  I fully expect that whatever judge gets to have this argument presented in front of him will, on principle and with an eye to the future, strike down a "national emergency" pretty damn quickly because there is no emergency.  It also bypasses Congress in such a way that realistically, the President doesn't need Congress at that point.  All he has to do is declare a National Emergency and boom, no need for Congress just declare yourself king.

And if Trump is just content with his Wall, imagine what happens in 2020 and a Democrat gets in the White House and has this power.  Why he could declare a National Emergency about anything.  Climate change, gun control, dismantling of the Republican party.

Ironbite-no I fully expect Turtle knows this gets challenged in court, the deceleration declared illegal, and life goes on.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 14, 2019, 05:02:49 pm
Unless McConnell thinks Trump is bluffing and he was saying he was going to declare a national emergency to get the Senate to vote against the bill, I've been reading that McConnell isn't to happy with Trump over this past month and a half so he might be sticking it to him and putting the blame for any national emergency on Trump since I hear a sizeable amount of Republican Senators are opposed to a national emergency for the very reasons you stated.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 14, 2019, 05:11:59 pm
Oh Turtle doesn't want to own any part of this mess, which is why he didn't do shit during the Shutdown even though he could've ended it on the 3rd when the new Congress convened.  Instead he's playing politics and trying to get away from the stench of failure that is the Trump Administration so in 2020 when the Democrats get the White House he can still hold on to a slim majority in the Senate until 2022 when the Democrats get that chamber.

Ironbite-too bad he doesn't understand that Trump's a master of misdirecting blame.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 14, 2019, 06:29:03 pm
Still: Fuck you, Harry Reid. He should have killed the appointments filibuster as soon as Scott Brown won in Massachusetts and he and Obama should have started filling all those vacancies. Either that or don't do it at all and make the Republicans own it completely.

Meanwhile...

Remember when Congress tried to assert its authority under the War Powers Act to get the US out of its involvement in the Saudi Arabia-led genocide in Yemen?

http://forums.fstdt.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=7463.msg322935#msg322935

Well in the last Congress, a resolution to that effect sponsored by Sen. Sanders passed the Senate, with the support of every member of the Democratic caucus along with Sens. Paul, Lee, Moran and Young, at the least, joining on every amendment. Sanders has introduced the same resolution in this Congress (S.J. Res. 7), and if it comes to a vote, given that the four Republicans who joined uniformly are all still in Congress, assuming the entire Democratic caucus holds, it can pass again.

Of course, when the same matter came up in the House, championed by Rep. Khanna (D-CA), that body voted to block consideration of it despite support from 18 Republicans, thanks to support for the block from five Democrats.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll083.xml

Rep. Khanna introduced the same resolution in this Congress... and it passed.

This time, every Democratic Representative voted for the resolution, including the five who had opposed it previously. Additionally, eighteen Republicans again joined to support it: Reps. Biggs (co-sponsor), Brooks (AL), Buck (co-sponsor), Cloud, Davidson (OH), Gaetz, Gohmert, Griffith, Hollingsworth, Jordan, Massie, Meadows, Mooney (WV), Posey, Roy, Schweikert, Tipton, and Webster (FL). Rep. Amash, who had supported the resolution in the previous Congress, voted "Present". Reps. Allred, Dingell, Quigley and Ryan (all D) along with Rep. Kinzinger (R) did not vote.

(Rep. Jones (R-NC) was also a co-sponsor but passed away on Feb. 10.)

Speculation now abounds that this will lead to Pres. Trump's first veto.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-border-wall-funding-national-emergency-1.5020813

Well, there's the emergency declaration.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 15, 2019, 03:57:23 pm
Yep there it is.  The dumbest decision he's ever made since being elected.

Ironbite-dies in the courts though so there's that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 15, 2019, 04:29:08 pm
Well his Muslim ban was eventually upheld by the courts. I can see this going the same way.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 15, 2019, 04:45:04 pm
That's a different racist story though.  This Wall and his declaring a National Emergency when there is one, is another.  Despite what he thinks, the President is not King.  Trying to make one a King, however, and you get your throat cut.  Ergo.

(https://www.allspark.com/forums/uploads/monthly_02_2019/post-2441-0-21793800-1550252123_thumb.jpg)

Yah see this?  This is Ann Coulter throwing Trump under the bus for trying to make himself king.  ANN FUCKING COULTER who is the Right Wing's biggest and loudest mouth screaming at Trump as he signs the bill and declares the Emergency.  Know what this does to his polls numbers?  Drops 'em.

Ironbite-cause a huge part of his base listens to her.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 15, 2019, 05:19:29 pm
Well, let's see what happens and, if he gets away with it, see if the next Democratic President uses the fact that 45,000 people die each year due to a lack of health coverage to implement health insurance reforms by executive fiat, or 40,000 gun deaths for gun control.

Because those are bigger emergencies, arguably.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 15, 2019, 06:14:41 pm
Ann Coulter actually said that? Now she'll be labeled a RINO.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on February 17, 2019, 12:13:22 am
Trump Qult is arguably the real RINOs because they don't even have a core ideology, all they have is worship of a senile millionaire.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 18, 2019, 04:01:36 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-veto-border-wall-1.5023124

Another matter where Trump is ready to issue his first veto: the national emergency declaration.

I wonder if there would be support for a Constitutional amendment to strip the President's veto in matters relating to Congressional reclamation of power previously delegated to the executive.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 18, 2019, 09:57:10 am
Yeah good luck with that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 18, 2019, 10:01:26 am
Republicans will be very vocal about doing that kind of thing if they don't manage to get one of them as the next president. It will one of the first reasons for them to shit on Trump while trying to distance themselves from him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 18, 2019, 02:57:11 pm
Republicans will be very vocal about doing that kind of thing if they don't manage to get one of them as the next president. It will one of the first reasons for them to shit on Trump while trying to distance themselves from him.

Well right now some of them are pointing out that a Democratic President could do exactly that.

And here's the thing: I agree with them, as a matter of principle. In a system such as was set up in the US (as much as I think it is grossly flawed) it makes no sense for Congress to need a two-thirds supermajority to reclaim authority originally intended for it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 18, 2019, 03:46:00 pm
And yet here we are.  Shackled to the rules because the previous group of people in charge didn't see fit to pull on the leash of the monster they created.

Ironbite-now that they see the writing on the wall they still refuse to do anything
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 18, 2019, 04:23:49 pm
Does he seriously expect California to just roll over and let him install a border wall on our southern border?

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 18, 2019, 05:25:09 pm
Does he seriously expect California to just roll over and let him install a border wall on our southern border?

Depends on whether it's on federal land, or land that can legally be expropriated by the federal government. As an acquaintance of mine noted, yes, US federalism is built on states leading... except where the Constitution says the federal government leads, and one place where the Constitution explicitly tramples all over states' rights is in management of federal land.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 18, 2019, 06:05:19 pm
Yes...yes he does.

Ironbite-cause he thinks he's king.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 18, 2019, 07:29:51 pm
Like, I am proud to say California is absolutely full of some of the most, shall we say, ill behaved liberals in the entire United States.

Trump tries to install that wall, he's gonna get all sorts of mischief.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 27, 2019, 07:58:04 pm
Cohen testified today.  And oh my god if Trump wasn't in 'Nam right now the tweet storm would've been Biblical.

Ironbite-as is, it's gonna be amazing once he wakes up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 28, 2019, 01:15:34 am
...Did the Republicans make even one question to learn about the crimes Trump did? Or did they spend the entire hearing trying to make Cohen look bad?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 28, 2019, 09:45:17 am
Yeeeeep.  Not a single one of them even tried to do anything but attack Cohen over his supposed status as a "liar".  It was great.

Ironbite-the GOP have officially thrown off their poncho's to reveal Trump branded T-shirts.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 28, 2019, 10:03:27 am
And they brought that one black lady in that they always use whenever they want to show that Trump couldn't possibly be a racist because this one black woman worked for him at one time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 28, 2019, 10:17:00 am
None of them want to go the way of Mark Sanford.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 28, 2019, 12:22:54 pm
The funny thing is, they can and will go the way of Appalachian Trails if Der Leader deems them not loyal enough.

Ironbite-and that changes on an hourly basis.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 28, 2019, 12:26:30 pm
The funny thing is, they can and will go the way of Appalachian Trails if Der Leader deems them not loyal enough.

Ironbite-and that changes on an hourly basis.

Oh, of course. But one surefire way of getting on his bad side is appearing to criticise him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 01, 2019, 09:30:48 am
...Did the Republicans make even one question to learn about the crimes Trump did? Or did they spend the entire hearing trying to make Cohen look bad?

Every single one went up there with the intention of spending all their time screaming that Cohen was a liar, and he was just trying to cash in with a book deal.  The general consensus is that they came off like a bunch of Biff Tannens.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 01, 2019, 09:53:00 am
...Did the Republicans make even one question to learn about the crimes Trump did? Or did they spend the entire hearing trying to make Cohen look bad?

Every single one went up there with the intention of spending all their time screaming that Cohen was a liar, and he was just trying to cash in with a book deal.  The general consensus is that they came off like a bunch of Biff Tannens.

Rich and powerful and able to get away with all their crimes unless someone literally uses a time machine to stop them?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on March 01, 2019, 11:34:07 am
Honestly, it reminds me of some paranoid despot's flunkies going out of their way to show that of course they're loyal to him and they completely believe in him. Because they know that if he ever suspects them of not supporting him enough, well...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 01, 2019, 11:44:54 am
...Did the Republicans make even one question to learn about the crimes Trump did? Or did they spend the entire hearing trying to make Cohen look bad?

Every single one went up there with the intention of spending all their time screaming that Cohen was a liar, and he was just trying to cash in with a book deal.  The general consensus is that they came off like a bunch of Biff Tannens.

Rich and powerful and able to get away with all their crimes unless someone literally uses a time machine to stop them?

I meant 1955 teenage Biff, not alt-1985 all-powerful Biff.  As in, acting like aggressive bullies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 01, 2019, 12:23:21 pm
Why don't you guys make like a tree and get out of here.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 01, 2019, 12:46:04 pm
He was unstoppable in the original 1955-85 timeline as well. He was the supervisor to McFly and it wasn't until Marty went to past and messed up things that George McFly got a spine to fight back and thus the timeline was changed into one where Biff couldn't get his way in everything.
 
The third version of 1985 with Biff as Trump-inspired billionaire playboy criminal was a more successful Biff but people keep forgetting that the original one was already a rich man who spent his days bullying his underlings.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 01, 2019, 07:26:53 pm
Kind of does remind me of a powerful despot's toadies trying to fall over themselves to prove their loyalty.

The cast is different from Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, but the basic idea is the same; the leader is not to be questioned, stop asking questions!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on March 03, 2019, 07:43:10 pm
Yesterday, Trump promised to sign an executive order protecting free speech on college campuses:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-to-sign-executive-order-requiring-free-speech-at-colleges-2019-3?international=true&r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-to-sign-executive-order-requiring-free-speech-at-colleges-2019-3?international=true&r=US&IR=T)

I'd make a comment about stopped clocks, but given some of his earlier comments about free speech, I doubt he'll be consistent on this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 03, 2019, 07:47:17 pm
It'll probably make sure people can't protest Richard Spencer while still allowing universities to stop pro-Palestine speakers from appearing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on March 03, 2019, 07:57:23 pm
It'll probably make sure people can't protest Richard Spencer while still allowing universities to stop pro-Palestine speakers from appearing.

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 03, 2019, 08:13:04 pm
Can't wait for the first pro-abortion speech on the grounds of Liberty University.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 03, 2019, 08:16:32 pm
Yeah they really didn't think this through huh?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 03, 2019, 08:17:41 pm
Yeah they really didn't think this through huh?

Sure they did. They'll make sure that Ben Shapiro can speak wherever he likes and left-wingers can get blocked to university administrators' hearts' content.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on March 03, 2019, 08:35:07 pm
Defending free speech is a noble cause... as long as it's done consistently. Somehow, I doubt the Trump administration will meet that little requirement.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 04, 2019, 12:11:13 am
Defending free speech is a noble cause... as long as it's done consistently. Somehow, I doubt the Trump administration will meet that little requirement.

Of course not. You may have noticed that many of the "free speech warriors", particularly those on the "intellectual dark web", suddenly up and vanish when it's speech they don't like (for instance, pro-Palestine speech).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 04, 2019, 12:16:28 am
Yeah they really didn't think this through huh?

Sure they did. They'll make sure that Ben Shapiro can speak wherever he likes and left-wingers can get blocked to university administrators' hearts' content.

Yeah, but if he is stating that he wants to protect free speech on campuses than it has to go both ways. Like when the state of Oklahoma said religious imagery should be allowed on public properties so the satanic temple put a statue of Baphomet up, which made them change their tune real quick. Super liberal speakers should use this opportunity to speak on right wing campuses.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 04, 2019, 03:21:43 am
Yeah they really didn't think this through huh?

Sure they did. They'll make sure that Ben Shapiro can speak wherever he likes and left-wingers can get blocked to university administrators' hearts' content.

Yeah, but if he is stating that he wants to protect free speech on campuses than it has to go both ways. Like when the state of Oklahoma said religious imagery should be allowed on public properties so the satanic temple put a statue of Baphomet up, which made them change their tune real quick. Super liberal speakers should use this opportunity to speak on right wing campuses.

Of course it has to go both ways, but with the US federal courts now the way they are, quite possibly poised to throw out things like the Lemon test (I honestly would not be surprised to see that go out the window soon), don't hold your breath on whether they'll be able to get away with it.

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLduoh-cheM

Kyle Kulinski said what I wanted to say better than I could:

Quote
Totally, unironically, one hundred percent serious, I support--what he actually just did, after this speech he signed an executive order, like, reaffirming free speech on college campuses or something. Totally support it. Not hedging, no caveats, totally support it. Totally support it.

Now the reality of the situation is this: I think now every single Antifa chapter, every single group of Black Panthers, New Black Panthers, actual communist groups, Democratic Socialists of America, me, all left groups on campuses should invite these characters to speak now, and watch in real time the hilarious flipflopping that occurs right in front of you.

They will immediately change it from, oh my god, did we say free speech, we only meant for fucking, like, Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder, and when we say we're against political correctness, what we mean by that is we want to be able to say things that are factually untrue and have you not rebut it. That's what they mean.

So, but, OK, if you have a principled belief in free speech, great. Me too, I support the executive order, but now I want Antifa speaking places, Black Panthers, communists, Democratic Socialists, go ahead. Come on. Go do it.

EDIT #2: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/TIGTA%20REPORT-UNREDACTED%20FINAL.pdf

One of the "fuck you blue states" provisions of the Republican tax increase law was the cap on the SALT deduction effective in 2018, which is part of the reason why a lot of taxpayers have seen their refunds decrease or disappear.

In 2018, Kevin Brady, then chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (now ranking member), asked for a review of the effect of the cap--specifically, what it would have meant for 2017 taxes.

The result? Almost eleven million taxpayers would have been affected, losing three hundred and twenty-three billion dollars in deductions.

I should add that these are all actual people who were affected--there is no cap on SALT deductions for businesses.

EDIT #3: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RatingWorldLeaders2019.pdf

Gallup released their poll on how various countries view the US, Germany, China, and Russia as world leaders. During Pres. Obama's tenure, the US was consistently at the top. Now the US has been thoroughly overtaken by Germany, with their numbers having plummeted in 2017 and stayed about constant in 2018.

One particular result of note (to me, anyway) is that Canadians now absolutely despise US leadership, with only 16% approving of "the job performance of the leadership" of the US, while 79% disapprove.

Also of note is the vast disparity in approval between Israel and Palestine.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 14, 2019, 06:30:00 pm
Meanwhile, the US Senate just passed two measures already passed in the House of Representatives: joint resolutions against Trump's emergency declaration and against US support of the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen.

Neither, however, passed either body with a veto-proof majority (never mind both).

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00048

On the genocide, every Democratic and Independent Senator voted for, along with seven Republican Senators: Collins (ME), Daines (MT), Lee (UT), Moran (KS), Murkowski (AK), Paul (KY), and Young (IN).

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00049

On the emergency, every Democratic and Independent Senator voted for, along with twelve Republican Senators: Alexander (TN), Blunt (MO), Collins (ME), Lee (UT), Moran (KS), Murkowski (AK), Paul (KY), Portman (OH), Romney (UT), Rubio (FL), Toomey (PA), and Wicker (MS).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 14, 2019, 08:39:03 pm
I'm surprised it was that many senators.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2019, 02:35:09 am
I'm surprised it was that many senators.

With some of them, I think it is legitimately a matter of principle (like Rand Paul and Mike Lee on the genocide); with some, it's an oh-shit-I'm-up-in-2020 reaction (Collins); with some it's probably a matter of "we don't want Democrats doing this" (especially on the emergency).

Trump will veto both of them, of course, and Congress should immediately propose to the states a Constitutional amendment that would strip the President's veto in cases where Congress is reclaiming powers it previously delegated to the executive, such as under the acts allowing these resolutions.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 15, 2019, 08:44:11 am
If they can't get a veto-proof majority, what possible chance do you think they'll be able to pass a Constitutional amendment in Congress?  Then it has to go to the States where it has less chance of passing.  Yeah the whole point of the resolution on Trump's national emergency was to pin certain Senators to the wall for 2020.  Collins is pretty much done in Maine due to her Kavanaugh vote now blowing up in her face but the rest are realizing exactly what type of a sinking ship they've got.  Hence the votes against Trump.

Ironbite-when will Mueller Monday happen I wonder.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2019, 05:20:05 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-border-emergency-congress-1.5058419

Trump vetoed it, of course.

As for the amendment, they should do that on general principle. To adapt Tony Benn (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/03/14/tony-benns-finest-speech), "The [incident] concerned was only the occasion for change." They won't, of course, but they should.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 16, 2019, 02:10:34 am
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 16, 2019, 02:46:16 am
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.
Assuming Congress will let them, which they almost certainly won't, thanks to the vast majority of both parties being thoroughly corrupt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 16, 2019, 02:51:23 am
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.

Well there is a question of how far they can divert funds.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-34
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2801
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2293

Diverting funds for military construction projects is one thing. Diverting funds to do something like create a single-payer health insurance system or a gun buyback program would be another thing entirely.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 16, 2019, 05:57:48 am
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.

Do repubs still pretend to be the small gov party or is that basically out the window and only Libertarians like Rand Paul still even care about that issue? I mean, say what you will about pube-head but he's actually very principled compared to well, most of his political party.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 16, 2019, 10:11:30 am
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.

Do repubs still pretend to be the small gov party or is that basically out the window and only Libertarians like Rand Paul still even care about that issue? I mean, say what you will about pube-head but he's actually very principled compared to well, most of his political party.

Course they claim to be the party of small government. Just like they claim to be the party of tax cuts.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 16, 2019, 03:27:03 pm
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.
Assuming Congress will let them, which they almost certainly won't, thanks to the vast majority of both parties being thoroughly corrupt.

While that's cute, unless there's a law passed, hands are tied if Trump gets away with this.

Ironbite-and the GOP marches once more into obscurity but not fast enough.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 16, 2019, 07:30:38 pm
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.
Assuming Congress will let them, which they almost certainly won't, thanks to the vast majority of both parties being thoroughly corrupt.

While that's cute, unless there's a law passed, hands are tied if Trump gets away with this.

Ironbite-and the GOP marches once more into obscurity but not fast enough.

But think of the dead babies, and the confiscated guns, and the gays who want wedding cakes, and the atheists who will repossess your church, and the Muslims who will shoot up your mall, and the illegals who will rape your daughters...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 16, 2019, 07:51:55 pm
The next president of USA can declare a national emergency over gun violence, healthcare and anything else they may desire to do so for. And then use their veto to keep it up.
Assuming Congress will let them, which they almost certainly won't, thanks to the vast majority of both parties being thoroughly corrupt.

While that's cute, unless there's a law passed, hands are tied if Trump gets away with this.

Ironbite-and the GOP marches once more into obscurity but not fast enough.

Not really. Just like the current situation, they’d need a non vetoable majority. Which, I suspect, will be no problem whatsoever if the gun or private health insurance lobby feels their profits are threatened.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 22, 2019, 05:33:32 pm
So Mueller released his report. Any predictions? I'm guessing Trump will try and prevent the public from seeing it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 22, 2019, 06:25:54 pm
He delivered his report.  Not released it.

Ironbite-now we play the waiting game.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 22, 2019, 06:42:43 pm
AG Barr will probably redact anything that could criminalize Trump and Trump will probably use executive orders to hide anything else he sees as bad which will lead us into years of legal battles.

Trump will also say he read the report and that it clears him of any wrong doing, but that he doesn't have to release it because believe him.

And then for the rest of his presidency the press will ask him if he is going to release Muellers report and he'll say.
"I tell you I'm thinking about it, I'm thinking about it. I'm thinking I might do it sometime in the near future. I don't really need to because it clears me of any wrong doing. Let me tell you this was all a tremendous waste of time. Mueller's a very arrogant bad man. Bad for The country. The economy is doing really really good folks. Really good. Trump is good for the country."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 23, 2019, 01:40:51 am
i don't like the waiting game this game is boring.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on March 23, 2019, 01:47:13 am
I guess you could always try the mating game instead.

Just don't do that with any animals. I learned the hard way that there are certain negative consequences involved.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 23, 2019, 06:55:48 am
The House near-unanimously passed a resolution to release the report (420-0, I believe, with 4 Republicans voting "present"). Graham blocked it in the Senate because HER EMAILS.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some House committee chair subpoena the thing and then arrange to have it leaked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 24, 2019, 12:53:17 am
whats Graham frightened of, wasn't he positioning himself as a moderate Trump critic a while back?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 24, 2019, 02:19:05 am
whats Graham frightened of, wasn't he positioning himself as a moderate Trump critic a while back?

Now he's Trump's best friend and loudest defender!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 24, 2019, 03:26:53 pm
Trump and/or Russia probably found Graham's secret stash of pool boys.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 24, 2019, 03:30:50 pm
whats Graham frightened of, wasn't he positioning himself as a moderate Trump critic a while back?

That the fate that befell Mark Sanford (who's also from South Carolina) will befall him--lose in a primary, lose the seat to the Democratic challenger. (I don't think the latter will happen, but the former absolutely could.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 24, 2019, 04:37:06 pm
I'm not surprised that Mueller found no Collusion with Russia from Trump. When Trump hires fall guys to take all the blame for him and never point the finger at the one paying them. This is to be expected.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on March 24, 2019, 05:04:15 pm
I know Mueller has delivered his report but has it been released?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 24, 2019, 07:44:55 pm
Hahaha, nope.

And if anyone who has interest in keeping Trump in the White House has anything to say about it, it never will be. And since Barr released his statement, Trump's supporters are now going to flaunt this as "proof" that Trump was innocent as if it were just a coincidence that Trump hired the guy who released the statement and despite the statement literally saying Mueller didn't exonerate Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 24, 2019, 08:20:33 pm
Apparently he exonerated him on collusion, but not on obstruction, but if it is as you say and the report hasn't been released and were taking the word of Trumps attorney general than well probably never know the truth until this thing is declassified in 10 to 50 years, probably long after Trump is dead.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 24, 2019, 09:47:24 pm
Wouldn't be surprised to see it leaked from a House committee.

As for collusion vs. obstruction... this was the reason Democratic politicians and pundits should never have been harping away on collusion and going on more about stuff like obstruction and emoluments.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 26, 2019, 06:46:11 pm
I know Mueller has delivered his report but has it been released?

Nope.  We just got a 3-and-a-half page "summary" from Coverup-General William Barr of Iran-Contra fame, summing it up as "Trump didn't do anything wrong!  No collusion!  And all that obstruction you saw him perform on TV and on Twitter?  Well, it's not obstruction if there's no collusion, so he's 100% innocent!  Now everyone drop this and shut up already."

And Trump's doing a victory lap around the US media, with the usual suspects kissing his ass and saying they believed him all along.  In fact, he's in SUCH a great mood, that he's decided to ask them for another favor; the White House handed all the major media outlets a list of people Trump NEVER wants on TV again, and they expect that the media will refuse to show any of them for at least the next two years.

They also decided that since this is such a GREAT victory, they're going to toss their old ACA plan of breaking it apart piece by piece in the trash, and now they're asking for the courts to destroy it altogether.  Tomorrow.  Just make it GONE.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 26, 2019, 07:12:15 pm
So twelve million people are about to lose their health insurance. No more protections for pre existing conditions and no plan to replace since Trump doesn't have the house anymore all because Trump feels vindicated?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 26, 2019, 08:31:40 pm
So twelve million people are about to lose their health insurance. No more protections for pre existing conditions and no plan to replace since Trump doesn't have the house anymore all because Trump feels vindicated?

As I've seen it put, the ruling happened as it did because the judge can't do math: zero is a number, and Congress can levy a tax of $0. (The mandate itself still technically exists; you still have to say whether or not you have coverage.)

Of course, this is why Obama should have pulled people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson into the Oval Office back in 2010 and politically forced them to go for expanding Medicare, since if Medicare isn't unconstitutional as is, changing the age limit would similarly not be unconstitutional.

(Proper federal-level single-payer might be unconstitutional; Medicare as it is, by my understanding, is a public option, as nobody is required to accept Medicare coverage, so public options should be constitutional.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 26, 2019, 10:46:37 pm
So twelve million people are about to lose their health insurance. No more protections for pre existing conditions and no plan to replace since Trump doesn't have the house anymore all because Trump feels vindicated?

12 million?  If Trump gets what he's pushing for now, the number they're saying is over TWENTY million.  Not to mention absolute chaos in the health care market, since they don't want any kind of ramp down; they want it erased IMMEDIATELY.  So no one will know what is or isn't in effect.  The Dems passed a bill fixing some of the holes in the ACA, but we all know McScumbag won't allow it to come up for a vote.  He's having more fun letting the Green New Deal come up so his idiotic caucus can prove they're the largest bunch of morons to ever hold government in a civilized country.  Witness Mike Lee of Utah using, and I shit you not, Aquaman, Tauntauns from Star Wars, and FUCKING RONALD REAGAN ON A VELOCIRAPTOR to argue that Climate Change is bullshit, and the world would be better off if everyone got married and had more children:

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1110577314612547584

Of course, this is why Obama should have pulled people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson into the Oval Office back in 2010 and politically forced them to go for expanding Medicare, since if Medicare isn't unconstitutional as is, changing the age limit would similarly not be unconstitutional.

One of Obama's largest mistakes as President, honestly; he spent way too much time and goodwill trying to get both the Republicans and the Blue Dog Dems to work with him, when it was obvious that the former were determined to treat him like a foreign usurper and the latter wanted to maintain the status quo at all costs.  And quite frankly, just looking at what Lieberman has done since then... Obama really should have told him to fuck right off.

Edit: It's probably worth mentioning that Barr's conclusion with respect to obstruction of justice is complete bullshit if you think about it for even 10 seconds.  According to Barr, Trump hasn't committed any obstruction of justice because he's never been charged with a crime, and thus cannot have obstructed anything.  But by THAT logic, all you would have to do to avoid being charged with a crime is destroy any evidence of it before anyone gets around to actually charging you with it.  This is in fact the very scenario that obstruction of justice was CREATED for, because it's entirely possible that the act of obstruction could have prevented the authorities from getting the evidence needed to prove a crime had been committed.  Obstruction does not require the person obstructing to be charged with a crime, as Barr claims.

Oh, and by the way, they did charge Michael Flynn with a crime.  Trump ordered James Comey to drop the charges against Flynn, and then fired him when he wouldn't do it.  That, right there, is textbook obstruction of justice.  It might not have been had they went with the original explanation, but Trump just HAD to get up on TV and boast about how he did it to end any investigations involving Russia... Which included Flynn's charges.

And then there's the fact that he ordered his underlings to lie to Congress.  Lying to Congress is perjury, and getting witnesses to lie is both obstruction AND witness tampering.  And it's probably worth mentioning that they got Bill Clinton for supposedly getting witness to lie to Congress... So Barr and the Repubs are basically arguing that for unspecified "reasons", Trump is immune to being charged for the same crimes as Bill Clinton.

Barr's argument is so stupid that a non-lawyer could see right through it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 26, 2019, 11:46:10 pm
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00052

And on that "Green New Deal" vote?

Jones, King, Manchin and Sinema voted against. All the other Dems (and Sanders) voted Present.

Because it's not like you can go into a roomful of Trump voters in West Virginia and get substantial applause for proposing left-wing* policies. (https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/bernie-sanders-in-trump-country-1288729155643)

*Really by-and-large centrist, of course, when you go look at polling.

EDIT: On another note, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), in the United States House Committee on Financial Services, quoted without further comment.

Quote
Beside from that, when we talk about the concern of the environment as an "elitist" concern, one year ago, I was waitressing in a taco shop in downtown Manhattan. I just got health insurance for the first time a month ago. This is not an elitist issue, this is a quality of life issue.

You wanna tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is "elitist"? Tell that to the kids in the South Bronx which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country. Tell that to the families in Flint whose kids have their blood is ascending in lead levels, their brains are damaged for the rest of their lives, call them "elitist". You're telling them that those kids are trying to get on a plane to Davos?

People are dying. They are dying. And the response across the other side of the aisle is to introduce an amendment five minutes before a hearing in a markup? This is serious. This should not be a partisan issue. This is about our constituents and all of our lives. Iowa, Nebraska, broad swaths of the Midwest are drowning right now, underwater. Farms, towns that will never be recovered and never come back. And we're here, and people are more concerned about helping oil companies than helping their own families? I don't think so. I don't think so.

This is about our lives. This is about American lives. And it should not be partisan. Science should not be partisan. We are facing a national crisis, and if we do not ascend to that crisis, if we do not ascend to the levels in which we were threatened at the Great Depression, when we were threatened in World War II, if we do not ascend to those levels, if we tell the American public that we are more willing to invest and bail out big banks than we are willing to invest in our farmers and our urban families, then I don't know what we're here doing. I don't know what we're here doing.

Well, OK. One comment.

Quote
I'll tell you what's going on. She represents ME. She represents everyone I know. She represents the normal people. She cares about OUR interests. In my lifetime I have NEVER felt this represented before in government. It's time for government to work for us, as it was intended. To all the people coming out of the woodwork to spew hate: I love that she represents you too, and that her policies will benefit you as well. I feel sorry for all those that can't or won't see this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 04, 2019, 06:36:57 pm
So it looks like Trump is considering another person who has no business being near government and clearly unqualified for the position, Herman Cain for the federal reserve board. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/herman-cain-federal-reserve/index.html
Probably because Herman Cain said something ice about him once and that's all it takes to work for the Trump Government.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 04, 2019, 06:54:21 pm
Oh, he's picking the living cartoon character.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 04, 2019, 07:47:21 pm
Nein, nein, nein!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 05, 2019, 01:10:57 am
Ain't it funny how he keeps hiring the people he insulted during the campaign? And how none of them turn him down or seem to have any hard feelings?

I'm sure that'll change when Trump is out and GOP needs to turn their base against him by making him the scapegoat for everything bad that they were gleefully helping him do.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on April 05, 2019, 09:59:21 am
Quote
person who has no business being near government and clearly unqualified for the position

Which, for a pResident who has no business being near government and is clearly unqualified for his position, makes them very qualified.

Yep, that's the dystopian satire timeline we're in now folks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 05, 2019, 10:05:03 am
@Askold: I'd reckon that they're being pragmatic.  It gets them a job relatively close to the President, meaning they have opportunities to speak in his ear (metaphorically and literally) and maybe get their goals closer to achievement.  They're his friends the same way a starving wolf is friend to anyone that's got food.  Once that food's gone, though, you start looking mighty tasty to 'em.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on April 10, 2019, 11:25:42 pm
I got this screenshot from DailyKos and HAD to post it here.  It's not doctored or modified in any way; they just RAN THIS ON FOX:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/islc6wcwce9p4e1/ScreenShot2019-04-10at10.18.48PM.png)

I can't add anything to this.  It really speaks for itself...

Edit: OMG, I went to see if I could find the video on Youtube... And this isn't the first time the moron's said he wants "Medicare For None"; it's fucking PLASTERED ALL OVER HIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL...

He's actually proud of talking about destroying health care in the US...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 11, 2019, 02:18:00 am
Either he's too dumb to realize what he's saying or this is just the perfect fuel to show that Republicans are really out of touch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 11, 2019, 04:15:30 am
The GOP has been using the "Medicare For All Is Medicare For None" talking point for quite a while now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 11, 2019, 10:22:38 am
Turtle learned nothing from Mid-terms.  Absolutely nothing.

Ironbite-beautiful.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on April 11, 2019, 11:24:10 am
I mean, look at some of the insanity in this interview (which I finally found here: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/mcconnell-no-medicare-all-long-im-majority-leader [oh, and don't bother looking too hard, as this is one of the wacko right wing sites.  But it does have the clip AND quotes McConnell repeatedly, so I'm going to use it to comment on his stupidity] ):

Quote
Well that's not much different because if you have a public option, I guarantee you the public option will also drive all the private insurance companies out of business.

Okay, honest truth; outside of "free market wackos" (okay, and the people who work there), would anybody really be sorry to see private insurance companies go out of business?

And that ignores that there are countries with public health care and private insurance, like say... Canada, you fucking dumbass.

Quote
So look, this is a prescription for turning America into a western European country.

OMG, NOT A WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY!  The horror!  Obviously it'd be much better to turn America into a third world hellhole like some of the corrupt African nations, right Mitch?  Or your new bestest country ever, Russia?  After all, then YOU'D be rich, and that's really all you care about, isn't it?

Quote
Fox News's Bret Baier asked McConnell about the Republican plan for health care:

McConnell said Americans should know that Republicans are "all in favor of covering pre-existing conditions."

... Which is why the plan some of them are currently "working" on says that insurance companies can't reject you for having a pre-existing condition, but doesn't bother to require that they actually COVER that condition...

Quote
McConnell said there's no point in bringing a Republican health care plan to a vote right now, with Democrats in control of the House.

You've had control of both the House and the Senate since 2010.  What was stopping you THEN, Mitch?  Other than the fact that you have no plan, but want to make like Joe McCarthy with his "list of Communist sympathizers" and pretend that you have a FANTASTIC plan hidden in back room somewhere, but no one can ever see it?

Oh, and Mitch?  None of this is "full socialism on display".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 11, 2019, 12:24:59 pm
The Republican's have no health care plan. Their plan is to get rid of Obamacare and go back to bullshit that was there before. More expensive and with insurance companies able to drop anyone for any particular reason which has become massively unpopular in the past decade.

They had their chance to pass health care and it failed because it was incredibly unpopular, I really hope that the Democrats make this their major message and keep drilling that message home that the Republicans have no plan. The Republicans will keep shouting But Venezuela! Until they are blue in the face. Unfortunately I think that will do enough to scare undecideds to keep them in power.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 11, 2019, 01:34:50 pm
Turtle learned nothing from Mid-terms.  Absolutely nothing.

Ironbite-beautiful.

He didn't have to learn anything. He got an increased Senate majority, which allowed him to do stuff like effectively ban debate on district court nominees (2 hours on the floor!) over the objections of "moderates" like Collins.

Remember: at this point, the only thing McConnell cares about is putting young ideologues on the federal courts, so that no matter how long the Democrats control Congress and the Presidency after this debacle is over, they'll have a hell of a time getting anything enacted without its being struck down in the courts. This has been the GOP plan for half a century now (see, among other things, the Powell Memo) and the only part of the Democratic base that's actually really cared about the federal courts beyond the Supreme Court (which hears a tiny fraction of all lawsuits brought in the federal court system) is the trial lawyers... guess where all the "ambulance chaser" jokes came from?

Which is why the plan some of them are currently "working" on says that insurance companies can't reject you for having a pre-existing condition, but doesn't bother to require that they actually COVER that condition...

More to the point, it's why the current administration has joined lawsuits to do stuff like get the ACA provision on pre-existing conditions declared unconstitutional, and to get the entire ACA declared unconstitutional after the penalty for the individual mandate was reduced to $0.

Quote
McConnell said there's no point in bringing a Republican health care plan to a vote right now, with Democrats in control of the House.

You've had control of both the House and the Senate since 2010.  What was stopping you THEN, Mitch?  Other than the fact that you have no plan, but want to make like Joe McCarthy with his "list of Communist sympathizers" and pretend that you have a FANTASTIC plan hidden in back room somewhere, but no one can ever see it?

Fact check: Only the House since 2010. The Democrats retained the Senate (with a vastly decreased majority) in 2010 and boosted their majority a bit in 2012.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ohio-abortion-ban-first-heartbeat-1.5095378

Now, in a case that will go to the Supreme Court, a "first heartbeat" abortion ban has been enacted in Ohio. Time to see if Casey will be upheld by the current membership of that body...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on April 14, 2019, 12:37:43 pm
Trump's thinking about maybe releasing detained migrants in sanctuary cities:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/trump-sanctuary-cities.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/trump-sanctuary-cities.html)

If he does this, I'm betting his hardline supporters are gonna turn on him. The ones who don't try and spin it as him playing 4D chess, anyway.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 14, 2019, 12:51:44 pm
No they won't. They hate sanctuary cities. They'll love that he's letting all the violent illegals out on the libs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 14, 2019, 02:10:31 pm
Another example of Republicans not caring about immigration and just wanting to pwn the libs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 14, 2019, 04:54:58 pm
Trump's thinking about maybe releasing detained migrants in sanctuary cities:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/trump-sanctuary-cities.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/trump-sanctuary-cities.html)

If he does this, I'm betting his hardline supporters are gonna turn on him. The ones who don't try and spin it as him playing 4D chess, anyway.

You're adorable but let me give you a bit of insight into the mind of the Orange Piss Pot.

In his head, every single person who comes up from Central and South America is a dangerous criminal.  Every single one of them.  Even the kids.  Especially the kids.  His thought process is, because everyone is a criminal, if he releases these people into the Sanctuary Cities, the crime rates go up and people blame the Democrats.  He actually can't fathom what desperate people are like.  It's not in his nature.  Thus, this stupid illegal policy.

Ironbite-or would be policy that is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 16, 2019, 08:17:47 am
EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ohio-abortion-ban-first-heartbeat-1.5095378

Now, in a case that will go to the Supreme Court, a "first heartbeat" abortion ban has been enacted in Ohio. Time to see if Casey will be upheld by the current membership of that body...

I’ve been saying it since Trump won, “abortion rights were nice while they lasted.”
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 16, 2019, 05:08:07 pm
Once they manage to undo abortion rights - they will try to bring back segregation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on April 17, 2019, 04:47:15 am
Once they manage to undo abortion rights - they will try to bring back segregation.

Gay marriage is probably on the chopping block too. But hey gotta make things great again don't we?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on April 17, 2019, 09:51:17 am
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 17, 2019, 10:28:54 am
Ummm... If they outlaw abortion completely there's a 100% chance that after that every election will have the Democrats campaigning to legalize it again and therefore one of their biggest rallying points will be relevant in every election and it will be the Democrats who pay for the ads for them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 17, 2019, 10:41:26 am
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Its called a wedge issue and that's how it goes.  But, the more sane members of the GOP know that if they get rid of it, there goes a lot of single issue voters.  And that does scare the GOP.  My chipping away at abortion, they can continue to get votes by promising and never delivering.

And that's why Trump is such a god damn stupid leader of the GOP.  He doesn't, and will never, get that.  For him, he has to deliver on his promise or risk losing everything.  Why Turtle goes along with this, I'm guessing it's because Trump knows where the skeletons are buried.

Ironbite-and also Trump's more popular in Kentucky then McConnell is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 17, 2019, 12:18:05 pm
Ironbite-and also Trump's more popular in Kentucky then McConnell is.

I doubt Trump knows where any skeletons are buried (except his own--look at his threats to his schools about releasing transcripts, or to his accountants about releasing financial statements). This is more to the point. Mark Sanford was a vocal critic of Trump and lost his primary--and the GOP then lost his former seat. Jeff Flake outright admitted that he wouldn't be so critical of Trump if he were intending to run again. Never mind that these people voted with Trump overwhelmingly often--just being critical of him was enough to either cost them their jobs or make them think they'd lose their jobs.

Trump's TFG base makes up a very sizable percentage of the Republican primary voter base. Other elected Republicans ignore or inflame them at their peril--and they know it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 17, 2019, 12:43:28 pm
Hey thanks for making my point for me.  The reason why Turtle goes along with everything the Orange Piss Pot does is a combination of Trump knows what Russia found out about him, his wife's job depends on it, and Trump's more popular then him in Kentucky.  All that equals the most spineless worm in Congress at the moment who's doing everything in his power to keep the baby happy.

Ironbite-cause if he doesn't, bye bye cushy Congressional job.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 17, 2019, 04:37:01 pm
Hey thanks for making my point for me.  The reason why Turtle goes along with everything the Orange Piss Pot does is a combination of Trump knows what Russia found out about him, his wife's job depends on it, and Trump's more popular then him in Kentucky.  All that equals the most spineless worm in Congress at the moment who's doing everything in his power to keep the baby happy.

Ironbite-cause if he doesn't, bye bye cushy Congressional job.

I agree on the second--but McConnell might be ruthless enough anyway (in the abstract), if he thought it would be politically beneficial, and Sec. Chao could probably find a perfectly good private sector job.

To the first, I still doubt Trump has much dirt on McConnell, or most anyone else.

Ultimately it's the third that's the real killer here, and that's why I suspect just about any Republican would do the same in McConnell's position--they'd have a hell of a time winning their primary if they didn't. (Murkowski possibly excluded--she might lose her primary, but she already did that once and won as a write-in anyway.)

Any Republican President would pursue largely the same policies as Trump. Given Trump, any Republican Congressional leader would pursue largely the same path with respect to Trump as Ryan and McConnell.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 17, 2019, 05:44:58 pm
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Dynamic Paragon Lana, why does your head always happen to be in the sand? (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712455980/a-bill-banning-most-abortions-becomes-law-in-ohio)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on April 17, 2019, 05:56:19 pm
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

The laws they've been drawing up for the states they control are clearly designed to ban abortion entirely.  And they want to push them to the Supreme Court to get the SC to reverse Roe.

The one they just passed in Texas makes abortion MURDER.  With all punishments included, including the death penalty.  I doubt they're stupid enough to try for it, but still...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 17, 2019, 06:05:37 pm
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

The laws they've been drawing up for the states they control are clearly designed to ban abortion entirely.  And they want to push them to the Supreme Court to get the SC to reverse Roe.

The one they just passed in Texas makes abortion MURDER.  With all punishments included, including the death penalty.  I doubt they're stupid enough to try for it, but still...

Are you referring to Rep. Tinderholt's bill?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/11/18304825/abortion-texas-tony-tinderholt-death-penalty-bill

I thought that was just proposed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on April 17, 2019, 11:31:06 pm
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

I'm sure he just got emotional and made a typo.

Dynamic Paragon Lana, why does your head always happen to be in the sand? (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712455980/a-bill-banning-most-abortions-becomes-law-in-ohio)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on April 18, 2019, 12:29:05 am
Let's try and be realistic here, not run around like the sky is falling. While I could see new restrictions on abortion coming around, I don't think the GOP will try to outright ban it. Why would they get rid of one of their biggest rallying points? And if they really wanted to get rid of abortion on a national level, why didn't they try before the midterms? They only tried to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Dynamic Paragon Lana, why does your head always happen to be in the sand? (https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712455980/a-bill-banning-most-abortions-becomes-law-in-ohio)

I said national level. That's just Ohio. If a bill like this gets lots of support in Congress, then you'll be right.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 18, 2019, 01:21:40 am
Because you don't need a national bill to do it--not at first, when you don't have the support. Get some state bills through. Get Casey overturned. Pass a bunch of restrictive laws in all the states they still control. Show that the sky didn't fall.

Right now, though, I'm wondering what's next: Coit, Brown or Griswold.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on April 18, 2019, 07:48:49 am
Because you don't need a national bill to do it--not at first, when you don't have the support. Get some state bills through. Get Casey overturned. Pass a bunch of restrictive laws in all the states they still control. Show that the sky didn't fall.

Right now, though, I'm wondering what's next: Coit, Brown or Griswold.

Griswold, Obergefell, and Brown, in that order.

Glad Hillary didn’t win and ensure their demise.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 18, 2019, 06:25:02 pm
Because you don't need a national bill to do it--not at first, when you don't have the support. Get some state bills through. Get Casey overturned. Pass a bunch of restrictive laws in all the states they still control. Show that the sky didn't fall.

Right now, though, I'm wondering what's next: Coit, Brown or Griswold.

Griswold, Obergefell, and Brown, in that order.

Glad Hillary didn’t win and ensure their demise.

Point on Obergefell, though I think it will be targeted before Griswold.

As for Clinton... remember, if Trump left office tomorrow, the US would still be in a situation bad enough that people were willing to elect Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 19, 2019, 01:30:39 am
So, what's the word on the Mueller report? It's out now so pretty soon we should have people fighting for the right to tell their opinion on it...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on April 19, 2019, 01:48:56 am
Because you don't need a national bill to do it--not at first, when you don't have the support. Get some state bills through. Get Casey overturned. Pass a bunch of restrictive laws in all the states they still control. Show that the sky didn't fall.

Right now, though, I'm wondering what's next: Coit, Brown or Griswold.

Griswold, Obergefell, and Brown, in that order.

Glad Hillary didn’t win and ensure their demise.

Point on Obergefell, though I think it will be targeted before Griswold.

As for Clinton... remember, if Trump left office tomorrow, the US would still be in a situation bad enough that people were willing to elect Donald Trump.
 

Maybe but the courts wouldn't be packed with far right incompetents.  Hell we might have had a ruling outlawing gerrymandering think of the good that would have done to help the situation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 19, 2019, 07:28:41 am
So, what's the word on the Mueller report? It's out now so pretty soon we should have people fighting for the right to tell their opinion on it...

Basically details everything we thought it was gonna detail.  Calls Don Jr. the dumbest criminal ever and Mueller wouldn't charge him with a crime because he'd be too stupid to realize what he did was a crime.

Ironbite-also Congress wants Mueller to testify before June so there's that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 19, 2019, 11:12:31 am
"Oh my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency.  I'm fucked!"

From what I understand the Trump team wanted to work with Russia and Russia wanted to work with the Trump team, but they didn't and the details get murky in there. There's little evidence that Trump himself was involved with anything,  But it's pretty damning for Manafort, Kushner, Jr., Erik Prince, Cohen and Stone. But since Kushner and Jr. Didnt know they were committing a crime than I guess it's all good. Like if I'm on a road and don't know what the speed limit is and decide to drive a hundred miles an hour and get pulled over. The whole, I didn't know the speed limit officer excuse works everytime.

As for Obstruction he's pretty guilty of it big time. Trump tried to interfere with the investigation many times. He tried to interfere with the Cohen and Manafort prosecutions. Trump tried to order his people to obstruct, but his people refused to follow his orders. Even leading to Mcgahn's resignation. When Mueller was appointed he said the words above, and then told Jeff Sessions that he was supposed to protect him. Mueller was not happy with Trump's written statements to him. But he chose not to indict because the laws are murky on whether a sitting president can be indicted or not.

The democrats have already said they aren't seeking impeachment. Well have to see if more information comes from an unredacted report, if that ever gets released, or when congress subpoenas Mueller himself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on April 19, 2019, 12:38:25 pm
The main issue here is that Mueller believed that he lacks the authority to accuse the president of a crime and that it would be up to the Congress to do so. Therefore he does not directly accuse him of a crime and says that the Congress should decide whether he needs to be prosecuted or not. Barr meanwhile denies this to be the case and claims that Mueller found no evidence of crimes and the Trump-fanboys are trying to make that interpretation go viral while ignoring all the obstruction of justice that was documented.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 19, 2019, 01:15:20 pm
Yeah, I've already seen Trump fan boys say well there was no Collusion so everything is alright and this whole thing is pointless.  Nevermind that Trump tried to commit crimes to stop it.

I hope this line: "Oh my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency.  I'm fucked!"
Will be remembered for the rest of his presidency.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 19, 2019, 03:44:54 pm
Remember, the other big takeaway from the Mueller investigation is that while he did see all sorts of stuff about other crimes (financial crimes, for instance), he kept his investigation focused narrowly on collusion and related crimes (such as obstruction with respect to his own investigation) and farmed out all that other stuff he found to other prosecutors, such as in the Southern District of New York.

That's the real prize--but even then, it won't end Trump's Presidency, since Trump's TFG base is too big to persuade 20+ Republican Senators that it's worth probably losing a primary to remove him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 19, 2019, 04:27:47 pm
At this point I just want Trump to be voted out and for democrats in the campaign to not make it the main message.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 19, 2019, 05:07:09 pm
They're probably gonna campaign on mainly healthcare as that seems to get people up in arms.

Ironbite-plus getting a clearly incompetent person out of office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 20, 2019, 04:55:00 pm
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27148184/emoluments-clause-trump-justice-department/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
http://kathleenclark.law/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-02-07-Clark-The-Lawyers-Who-Mistook-A-President-for-their-Client-w-Appendices.pdf

Meanwhile, the US Department of Justice is arguing in court that as long as the President (or anyone else to whom the Emoluments Clause applies) is receiving payments through a business they own--rather than personally--it's not an emolument at all and doesn't require Congressional approval.

Which reverses decades of consistent opinions from them that, in fact, such payments are emoluments.

Remember when Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 20, 2019, 05:11:22 pm
I don't know why they bend over backwards to protect this asshole so much.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on April 20, 2019, 05:22:35 pm
I'm not entirely sure myself. There are a lot of people who are hardcore Trump devotees (or at least act like it) for one reason or another, but unless he massively restructured the Justice Department and I wasn't aware of it, I don't get why they seem to be going all in to defend him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 20, 2019, 06:14:32 pm
Remember, when Sessions recused himself with regard to the Mueller probe, Trump said he no longer had an Attorney General.

He's convinced that the Department of Justice exists to protect him. Anyone who wants to keep their job in this administration knows they have to toady up to Trump, and anyone who doesn't--even if it means following flagrantly illegal orders for which they would be personally responsible, even if they'd already done any number of horrific things at his command, such as Kirstjen Nielsen--gets fired.

It's a matter of self-preservation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 20, 2019, 06:23:17 pm
I don't know why they bend over backwards to protect this asshole so much.

He knows, or at least has been told, where the skeletons are.  And the GOP has a lot of bad shit that'll probably cause anyone who still supports them run screaming into the hills.

Ironbite-it's got to be so bad that Turtle et al do not want getting out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on April 22, 2019, 03:41:04 am
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1120093671356022785

well this shits been getting passed around twitter. the dems are the real crooks now!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 22, 2019, 08:04:27 am
So him obstructing justice is now a crime done by the democrats? What logic hoops did he jump through to get to that one?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 22, 2019, 10:36:24 am
So him obstructing justice is now a crime done by the democrats? What logic hoops did he jump through to get to that one?

The kind he eats for breakfast every morning.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Art Vandelay on April 22, 2019, 10:48:28 am
Clearly, the Democrats aren't letting him make America great again.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 22, 2019, 02:18:28 pm
Clearly, the Democrats aren't letting him make America great again.

The pre-Civil Rights Act, pre-Voting Rights Act Democrats would have!

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llzoItQgLOQ

Amy Goodman: "Explain President Trump to us, and assess the massive response to him."

Noam Chomsky: "Well, Trump is, a, you know, I think there are a number of illusions about Trump. If you take a look at the Trump phenomenon, it's not very surprising. Think back for the last, um, ten or fifteen years, over Republican party primaries, and remember what happened during the primaries.

"Each primary, when some candidate rose from the base, they were so outlandish that the Republican establishment tried to crush them--and succeeded in doing it, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum--anyone who was coming out of the base was totally unacceptable to the establishment. The change in 2016 is they couldn't crush him, but the interesting question is why was this happening? Why in election after election was the voting base producing a candidate utterly intolerable to the establishment?

"And the answer to that is, if you think about that, the answer's not very hard to discover. During the, since the 1970s, during this neoliberal period, both of the political parties have shifted to the right. The Democrats, by the 1970s, pretty much abandoned the working class. The last gasp of more or less progressive Democratic Party legislative proposals was the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act in 1978, which Carter watered down so that it had no teeth, just became voluntary. But the Democrats had pretty much abandoned the working class, they became pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans'.

"Meanwhile the Republicans shifted so far to the right that they went completely off the spectrum. Two of the leading political analysts of the American Enterprise Institute, Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, about five or ten years ago described the Republican Party as a, what they called a 'radical insurgency that has abandoned Parliamentary politics'. Well, why did that happen? It happened because the Republicans face a difficult problem: they have a primary constituency, a real constituency, extreme wealth and corporate power. That's who they have to serve. That's their constituency. You can't get votes that way. So you have to do something else to get the votes.

"What do you do to get votes? This was begun by Richard Nixon with the Southern Strategy--try to pick up racists in the South. The mid-1970s, Paul Weyrich, one of the Republicans' strategists, hit on a brilliant idea: Northern Catholics voted Democratic, tended to vote Democratic, a lot of them working-class. The Republicans could pick up that vote by pretending--crucially, pretending--to be opposed to abortion. By the same pretense, they could pick up the evangelical vote. Those are big votes. Evangelicals, Northern Catholics.

"Notice the word 'pretense'--it's crucial. You go back to the 1960s, every leading Republican figure was strongly what we call now pro-choice. The Republican Party position was, that's Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and all the leadership, their position was, abortion is not the government's business. It's private business, government has nothing to say about it. They turned almost on a dime in order to try to pick up a voting base on what are called 'cultural issues'. Same with gun rights. Gun rights become a matter of holy writ because you can pick up part of the population that way. In fact, what they've done is put together a coalition of voters based on issues that are basically unac--you know, tolerable to the establishment, but they don't like it, okay? And they've got to hold that to--those two constituencies together, the real constituency of wealth and corporate power, they're taken care of by the actual legislation. So if you look at the legislation under Trump, it's just lavish gifts to the wealth and the corporate sector. The tax bill, the deregulation, every case in point. That's kind of the job of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, those guys. They serve the real constituency.

"Meanwhile, Trump has to maintain the voting constituency with one outrageous position after another that appeals to some sector of the voting base. And he's doing it very skillfully. Just as a political manipulation, it's skillful. Work for the rich and the powerful, shaft everybody else, but get their votes. That's not a small--it's not an easy trick, and he's carrying it off, and I should say the Democrats are helping him. They are.

"Take the focus on 'Russiagate'. What's that all about? And it was pretty obvious at the beginning that you're not going to find anything very serious about Russian interference in elections. For one thing, it's undetectable. In the 2016 election, the Senate and the House went the same way as the executive, but nobody claims there was Russian interference there. In fact, Russian interference in the election, if it existed, was very slight, much less, say, than the interference by, say, Israel. Israel, the Prime Minister, Netanyahu, goes to Congress, talks to a joint session of Congress without even informing the White House to attack Obama's policies. And that's dramatic interference with elections. Not whatever the Russians tried, it's not going to be anything like that.

"In fact, there's no interference in elections that begins to compare with campaign funding. Remember that campaign funding alone gives you a very high prediction of election--electoral outcome. It's, again, Tom Ferguson's major work, which has shown this very persuasively. That's massive interference in elections. Anything the Russians might have done is gonna be, y'know, peanuts in compared. As far as Trump collusion with the Russians, that was never gonna amount to anything more than minor corruption, maybe building a Trump hotel in Red Square or something like that, but nothing of any significance.

"The Democrats invested everything in this issue. Well, turned out there was nothing much there, they gave Trump a huge gift. In fact, they may have handed him the next election. That's just a--that's a matter of being so inof--unwilling to deal with fundamental issues that they're looking for something on the side that'll somehow give political success."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 29, 2019, 06:04:42 pm
So let's look at some high lights from Trumps campaign rally speech in Wisconsin.

"But can you imagine any of these people up here doing what I'm doing? They'd be 200 people show up if they were president. If they were president, nobody would show up."

Our President speaking like a lobotomy patient.

"We had 69,000 people sign up to come in. What does this place hold? Like 10,000 or 12,000 or whatever. Whatever it holds. We set the record."

He seems to care more about how many people are at his rallies than saying anything of substance.

"That's always dangerous. He said, 'Yes, it is, sir.' It's always dangerous. Yes. You ask like, 'No, sir.' I'm dead. They will take -- they will take that answer. That'll be headlines."

I have no idea what the fuck he's talking about here.

"The USMCA like the song 'YMCA,' right?"

Yes he actually said this.

"Can you believe I'm a politician? I can't even."

No I can't.

"You know, Canada, we love the song,'Oh Canada.' Let's sing, 'Oh Canada,' right. We love the show."

What the fuck is he talking about?

"This I don't -- I tell you what, you know, people say, 'Oh, he wants to take over the country. He wants to extend."

Please don't

"If you look at what's happened with the scum that's leaving the very top of government."

You mean the people you hired to work for you? Those people?

"I mean we're draining the swamp, but are we having a good time or what?"

Are you draining the swamp? I mean is hiring people and firing them what qualifies as "draining the swamp?"

"And look at all those beautiful red hats and some white ones. Some white. Look at that. Those are -- that's a lot of red hats. But you do have the white ones too, right? And you have the black ones, too. You have a lot of them. You have a lot of different hats."

The leader of the free world ladies and gentlemen.

"Ronald Reagan used seldom Let's Make America Great. Close, but not the same. Let's -- apostrophe S. You don't want the apostrophe. It's too complicated. It doesn't work. But Ronald Reagan was good. He said let's make -- but he didn't use it. He used it a little bit. We seriously use it, right?"

Who cares?

"Because I have a couple of friends here. They're pretty wealthy people, very successful people. And you know what? The hell with them. I don't care."

What?

"To confront the border crisis, I declared a national emergency. The good news is everybody agrees."

No they don't

"They are aggressively pushing extreme late-term abortion, allowing children to be ripped from their mother's womb. The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."

This is the most dangerous and fucking despicable lie out of this administration so far. Someone is going to get killed.

"Together with the great and proud people of Wisconsin, we will make America wealthy again."

For yourself.

I can't fucking believe that people stood in an auditorium, listened to him say this shit. (Look it up on CNN they have most of the transcript there), and viewed it as some sort of intelligent, meaningful dialog, and said yeah that's the man that needs to be president for another four years. Not, man Grandpa's mind seems to be going maybe we should put him in a home. Nothing he said sounded rational or well thought out.
But what is scary is the crazy bullshit that he throws in there about abortions. What he has said in the past has lead to consequences and we've now seen a rise in right domestic terrorism that have been results from shit he's said. Including two plans to assassinate democratic political leaders. Just today there was a terror plot stopped in Los Angeles that was targeting Jewish minorities. I am not going to be surprised if abortion clinics are going to see a rise in terrorism against them, and Trump will say nothing about these things because these are his voters.

Fuck man.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 29, 2019, 10:15:39 pm
I'm just glad the piece of shit didn't fuck my commute home from work on Saturday.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on April 30, 2019, 12:52:30 am
God I'm laughing so hard his tangents are so self aggrandizing and bizarre. It's wild.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 30, 2019, 12:57:47 am
Our President talks like a senile dementia patient raving at phantoms only he can see.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on May 01, 2019, 08:32:18 am
Donald Trump knows what an apostrophe is, that's out of character.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Chaos Undivided on May 09, 2019, 06:03:13 pm
Now Trump says he wants to prosecute Kerry (https://theweek.com/speedreads/840433/trump-press-conference-medical-bills-devolves-into-call-john-kerry-prosecuted).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 09, 2019, 06:57:57 pm
Oh boy.  Can't wait for him to go after Hilary for...something.

Ironbite-he is just an idiot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 09, 2019, 10:19:07 pm
His sycophants, including a demented football coach, are trying to march outside of Hillary's house and say for Trump to arrest her for her "crimes".

Which apparently include Benghazi and "Godlessness".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 07, 2019, 12:04:47 pm
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2019-05/29/6/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web-06/sub-buzz-13798-1559125132-7.jpg)

A chart issued by the Royal Army to try to identify right-wing extremists in the ranks.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on June 07, 2019, 03:46:38 pm
Accurate. Very accurate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 07, 2019, 06:04:51 pm
Fuck Trump talks like a super conservative Grandpa that's going senile. Here's a few snippets from a recent interview with him.

"This is one of the true, in terms of war, in terms of, probably you can also say, in terms of peace, because this led to something very special."

I guess he's talking about World War 2 here?

"They send in $500 billion worth of drugs. They kill 100,000 people. They ruin a million families every year, if you look at that. That's really an invasion without the guns."

Clearly sounds like he read a meme designed to scare old people with bullshit.

"[Mexico] stole 32% of our car business with NAFTA."

You mean acquired through a trade agreement?

"I think [Pelosi is] a disgrace. I actually don't think she's a talented person. I've tried to be nice to her because I would have liked to have gotten some deals done. She's incapable of doing deals. She's a nasty, vindictive, horrible person."

There's that word Nasty again that Trump likes to demean women in power with.

"But Nancy Pelosi, I call her 'Nervous Nancy', Nancy Pelosi doesn't talk about it. Nancy Pelosi is a disaster, OK? She's a disaster."
"She is a terrible person and I'll tell you, her name, it's 'Nervous Nancy' because she's a nervous wreck."

Nervous Nancy.

"We have Pelosi, we have Crying Chuck Schumer, who's a disaster, by the way. He's a total political, you know, jerk."

"Peace, really peace. And we built up our military, we built up our wealth, we built up everything. Our country is in such great shape right now. Iran is in a much different position then they were two and a half years ago."

This was his answer to what he prays for.

"There are those that say they have never seen the Queen have a better time, a more animated time."

Yes I'm sure out of the Queen of Englands extensive ninety three year life the best time she ever had was when a fat, loud mouth, blow hard American with ridiculous hair came to visit her at her palace.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on June 07, 2019, 08:42:20 pm
He just posted on his Twitter feed that the Moon is part of Mars...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 07, 2019, 08:49:07 pm
He just posted on his Twitter feed that the Moon is part of Mars...

Well yeah, they're part of space. The Moon, space, and Mars. So they're the same thing, space. Ha gottem stupid libtards.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 13, 2019, 05:46:39 pm
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is finally leaving the Trump administration. Probably to do a show on Fox.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 13, 2019, 06:17:41 pm
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is finally leaving the Trump administration. Probably to do a show on Fox.

She should ask Sean Spicer how it went for him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 13, 2019, 07:19:36 pm
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is finally leaving the Trump administration. Probably to do a show on Fox.

She should ask Sean Spicer how it went for him.
She is a more talented liar than Spicer. If Fox News has loosened their policy on female personalities' looks she might do well there. Other news channels might be interested in having her as a political commentator, too.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 21, 2019, 04:58:32 pm
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/g9510-20_trumpism-cover.jpg?quality=85&w=840)

Oh fuck no.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 21, 2019, 08:13:59 pm
a) Trump's been saying he might try to overstay his time in office. (Remember he said he should get two bonus years to make up for his not getting anything done during the Mueller investigation--aside from raising taxes on everyone but the super-rich and jamming the federal bench full of young conservative ideologues.)

b) The GOP really has only itself to blame for Trump. (Though, as Chomsky noted, the Democrats certainly facilitated the rise of someone like Trump.)

(https://i0.wp.com/leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/06/good-voter-1200.png?resize=675%2C959)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 05, 2019, 07:10:27 pm
So Justin Amash has quit the GOP, not long after saying Trump should be impeached, drawing a primary challenger who was rolling in the double digits ahead of him, and then leaving the Freedom Caucus.

Can he win a three-way House race, or would it throw his seat to the Democratic candidate, or is this a prelude to a Presidential run under the Libertarian banner (which itself might throw that election to the Democratic candidate)?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 05, 2019, 09:28:49 pm
If it would take votes away from Trump in Michigan that would be nice. Trump only won in that state by a mere eleven thousand votes. If Amash is popular enough he might take those votes from Trump in his own state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: The_Queen on July 05, 2019, 09:33:19 pm
So Justin Amash has quit the GOP, not long after saying Trump should be impeached, drawing a primary challenger who was rolling in the double digits ahead of him, and then leaving the Freedom Caucus.

Can he win a three-way House race, or would it throw his seat to the Democratic candidate, or is this a prelude to a Presidential run under the Libertarian banner (which itself might throw that election to the Democratic candidate)?

Can he win? no. Has it been done before? Murkowski.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 06, 2019, 01:40:11 am
So Justin Amash has quit the GOP, not long after saying Trump should be impeached, drawing a primary challenger who was rolling in the double digits ahead of him, and then leaving the Freedom Caucus.

Can he win a three-way House race, or would it throw his seat to the Democratic candidate, or is this a prelude to a Presidential run under the Libertarian banner (which itself might throw that election to the Democratic candidate)?

Can he win? no. Has it been done before? Murkowski.

I know Murkowski did it. But Amash outperformed the Cook PVI in the Very Bad Year For The House GOP of 2018, so I don't think he can be immediately discounted in a three-way race.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 12, 2019, 07:18:42 pm
So on a lighter note the US is running out of money. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/12/politics/mnuchin-congress-letter-debt-crisis/index.html Remember when Republicans bitched about ballooning the deficit. Turns out you actually have to pay for 1.5 trillion in tax cuts, increased customs duties and tariffs along with massive military spending. But it's call cool because Republicans did it just increase the debt ceiling. Ignore when we complained about all of that when Obama was president.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on July 12, 2019, 11:39:44 pm
https://www.salon.com/2019/07/11/trumps-social-media-summit-is-a-haven-for-far-right-fringe-figures/

Look at this who's who Trump social media summit. Zyklon Ben, Pim Tool, PragerU(rine and Feces. Yes, Urine and Feces), Turding Point USA.

Truly an all-star line-up of shitheads.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 13, 2019, 12:17:24 am
I remember in the last Congress when Schumer (and Pelosi, but Schumer mattered more, at least to the extent of McConnell's unwillingness to kill the legislative filibuster) offered to vote to eliminate the debt ceiling entirely.

The GOP didn't take him up on the offer, and also gave gigantic tax breaks to rich people.

Now watch as the Republicans blame the Democrats for this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on July 13, 2019, 12:55:49 am
Now watch as the Republicans blame the Democrats for this.

Of course they will; it's their preferred technique for deflecting criticism.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 13, 2019, 02:37:00 am
Public: Why did you ally with spinal fluid drinking aliens?

Republicans: Well...well...WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO IF IT WASN'T FOR THE DEMOCRATS!! WE HAVE TO BE PRO-SPINAL FLUID ALIENS!!!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on July 13, 2019, 01:22:11 pm
I mean, one idiot in the GOP blamed Nancy Pelosi for the lack of women on the Republican side: https://www.wcia.com/news/capitol-news/davis-blames-pelosi-for-lack-of-women-in-gop/

Quote
“There are too few members of our Republican conference that are women or African-American or are a minority,” the Taylorville Republican told a group of local women who were invited to hear him speak at the Old State Capitol on Monday afternoon.

“I get asked a lot, ‘what do you think as a Republican with the fact that you have many fewer women in your conference today than you ever have?’ he volunteered. “I like to remind people that it is Nancy Pelosi who in many cases spent millions of dollars to elect a male Democrat over a female Republicans in swing districts.”

In fact, Pelosi’s decision to back Democratic men in swing districts did help defeat two Republican women in swing districts, but her political and financial backing also aided in key victories for 17 Democratic women over Republican men in the same year, tilting the scales of Congressional gender diversity more in line with the American population than ever before.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 13, 2019, 04:14:04 pm
Public: Why did you ally with spinal fluid drinking aliens?

Republicans: Well...well...WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO IF IT WASN'T FOR THE DEMOCRATS!! WE HAVE TO BE PRO-SPINAL FLUID ALIENS!!!

I remember that period of DC Comics.  So 90s it hurt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on July 14, 2019, 02:37:56 am
Man, imagine if Pelosi was actually the force that they think she is. Would be nice.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 14, 2019, 04:02:32 am
The religious right has a habit of assigning superpowers to their enemies, bizarrely enough.

This is your daily reminder that in the minds of at least some Americans, Hillary Clinton is a psychokinetic, capable of astral projection, teleportation, forming doppelgangers of herself, weather control, laying curses and spells, borderline immortality and so on.

And that John Kerry fired a Kamehameha to disrupt a tidal wave.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on July 14, 2019, 06:01:56 am
Man, imagine if Pelosi was actually the force that they think she is. Would be nice.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton was actually the president like Fox News seemed to think for the first few years of Trump's presidency.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 14, 2019, 12:13:02 pm
Trump just went full on pissed as a newt on cheap booze uncle "go back to where ya come from (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-rashida-tlaib-pelosi-migrant-centres-a9004246.html)" on AOC and Ilhan Omar.

(https://i.imgur.com/DzkzdhE.png)

Because he's...'outraged' at them calling Pelosi a racist or something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 14, 2019, 01:39:45 pm
For fucks sake. He sounds like my rascist uncle who watches fox news all day, and not the president. Oh wait he pretty much is. I can't wait to hear how the right spins this as not racist.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 14, 2019, 02:04:39 pm
The blatant racism aside, and the fact that he doesn't know this aside... he's not wrong about Somalia, where Rep. Omar was born. That country pretty much doesn't even have a government.

Some might argue he's not wrong about Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's country of birth, either.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 14, 2019, 02:56:51 pm
AOC was born in New York. Even so Puerto Rico isn't a country. Rashida Tlaib was born in Detroit. Omar hasn't lived in Somalia since she was ten years old. To equate her with a country she hasn't lived in for twenty six years is fucking ridiculous.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 14, 2019, 04:28:06 pm
It's his "Go Back to Africa" Moment.

Ironbite-and his base just eats it up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 14, 2019, 06:32:15 pm
AOC was born in New York. Even so Puerto Rico isn't a country. Rashida Tlaib was born in Detroit. Omar hasn't lived in Somalia since she was ten years old. To equate her with a country she hasn't lived in for twenty six years is fucking ridiculous.

I know. I'm saying there's an argument that the US government is "a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if [it] even [has] a functioning government at all)".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on July 15, 2019, 12:50:51 am
lol most of the congresswomen he's upset with were born in this country so Trump said that we were the greatest and also a total catastropic corrupt disaster.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 16, 2019, 07:42:24 am
(https://scontent.fsyd4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/37091458_1613148635474233_2996234881509359616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQkSIFXlkrMfWfa_cMXArl19RFqhn68-Cc49cUMb5IPN55LPMkxUs1kbah4w6l2GDAMrnlJs_sRAEqN1lh01g_Mw&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd4-1.fna&oh=c5ea97ac7de04199cf57b203dddd2921&oe=5DB7150C)Fake? Hopefully, probably. Believable, well...I'm going with yeah
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Dr. Weird on July 16, 2019, 09:59:36 am
(https://scontent.fsyd4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/37091458_1613148635474233_2996234881509359616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQkSIFXlkrMfWfa_cMXArl19RFqhn68-Cc49cUMb5IPN55LPMkxUs1kbah4w6l2GDAMrnlJs_sRAEqN1lh01g_Mw&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd4-1.fna&oh=c5ea97ac7de04199cf57b203dddd2921&oe=5DB7150C)Fake? Hopefully, probably. Believable, well...I'm going with yeah

Yeah, it's probably from here:

https://faketrumptweet.com

(https://s.faketrumptweet.com/jy5vwd5i_4evhmm_rh8qf4.png) (https://faketrumptweet.com/fake-tweet/jy5vwd5i_4evhmm_rh8qf4)via FakeTrumpTweet.com generator (https://faketrumptweet.com)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 16, 2019, 12:06:30 pm
The problem is that it's written too coherently with proper spelling and punctuation so it's obvious it's a fake.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 16, 2019, 04:47:37 pm
That reminds me, I need to get around to mining Trump's tweets to make a Markov generator for him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 17, 2019, 10:37:06 am
Can someone explain to me what a vote to condemn Trump's racists tweets accomplishes exactly? It just seems like a wag of the finger. Do they expect Trump to just say oh wait I was wrong I'm sorry? 
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on July 17, 2019, 10:49:36 am
Can someone explain to me what a vote to condemn Trump's racists tweets accomplishes exactly? It just seems like a wag of the finger. Do they expect Trump to just say oh wait I was wrong I'm sorry?

Well, it did force all but four Republicans in the House to publicly state that they don't see any racism coming from Donald Trump.  It also showed that they're willing to drag in obscure rules from 1776 if that's what it takes to stop Dems from calling them racist.  Because it's not BEING racist that's the problem, it's that the Dems are calling them racists...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on July 17, 2019, 01:36:25 pm
Anything that forces the Republicans to personally support Trump is good. If used properly by their election opponents it can help mobilize people to vote against them and demotivate at least some of the Republican voters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 17, 2019, 01:38:46 pm
So yeah it accomplished nothing. Hardcore Republicans don't accept the racism coming from within their own party. The democrats think it's racist. This will all be blown over by next week. Just another day in America.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on July 17, 2019, 01:41:28 pm
Can someone explain to me what a vote to condemn Trump's racists tweets accomplishes exactly? It just seems like a wag of the finger. Do they expect Trump to just say oh wait I was wrong I'm sorry?

It tells international observers that while Trump might say these things, the country does not stand behind him on them. That he speaks only for himself and not for America. Which is an important message.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on July 17, 2019, 01:44:02 pm
So yeah it accomplished nothing. Hardcore Republicans don't accept the racism coming from within their own party. The democrats think it's racist. This will all be blown over by next week. Just another day in America.

For sure, some Republicans it will just bring in more voters. If this is the case, though, they would kiss his ass anyway if they know their voters. The point is to prevent those who would like to tactically distance themselves from him from doing so. Those would be the more vulnerable seats, after all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 17, 2019, 02:47:11 pm
On the other hand, I've seen it argued that Trump's comments forced House Democrats to back Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, and Pressley (when there had just been sniping between them and leadership), which Trump and the Republicans can then use as "evidence" that the Democrats are moving too far left.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 17, 2019, 02:52:25 pm
2020 is going to be ugly for Democrats. Younger Millenial voters want to move more to the left while while older Boomers want things to move to the center. If Biden becomes the nominee it could discourage younger democrats to come out to vote because he'll be seen as too similar to Trump age wise and out of touch with what younger voters want. If Sanders or Warren or Harris or Pete become the nominee it would discourage boomers because socialism is teh scary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 17, 2019, 03:04:51 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-racist-tweets-democrats-1.5213048

The article I mentioned in my last post.

As for 2020, one, I laugh at the notion that Harris or Buttigieg would do anything socialist (Buttigieg recently argued against single-payer, for instance), but two, it's still a valid point about older voters being more frightened of the term "socialism" than younger voters.

Though when you look at polls on the issues themselves, voters like socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are among the most popular programs in the US), they just don't know dick all about labels, so they don't realize that those are socialism.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on July 17, 2019, 03:16:17 pm
2020 is going to be ugly for Democrats. Younger Millenial voters want to move more to the left while while older Boomers want things to move to the center. If Biden becomes the nominee it could discourage younger democrats to come out to vote because he'll be seen as too similar to Trump age wise and out of touch with what younger voters want. If Sanders or Warren or Harris or Pete become the nominee it would discourage boomers because socialism is teh scary.

The only ones who seriously think anyone other than Bernie are somehow "socialist" are the ones who have already bought the Fox News framing that anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler is socialist (even Liz Warren insists that she's a capitalist; the only ones insisting the entire Dem field are socialists are the Repubs).  And at this point, the Dems are actualy a bit left of center; they could stand to push more left, to be honest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 17, 2019, 03:33:48 pm
FOX has probably already said multiple times that Hitler was a socialist; after all, the party was the "National Socialist" party.

As for Sanders, while he self-describes as a democratic socialist, he's really a pretty bog-standard social democrat who probably wouldn't look much out of place in UK's Labour or Germany's SDP.

And as for the Democratic Party being left of centre, that's the Washington centre. The popular centre on economic and foreign policy issues is well to the left of most elected Democrats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 18, 2019, 01:10:42 am
So the crowd at Trump's rallies were shouting "send her back." In reference to Ilhan Omar, and now I'm terrified.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on July 18, 2019, 03:30:56 am
Still better than 'lock her up'.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2019, 05:46:42 am
Still better than 'lock her up'.

Considering the state Somalia is in? It's worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 18, 2019, 07:56:45 am
He's going to get a sitting Congresscritter killed.

Ironbite-and he won't understand why when it's a member of the GOP.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on July 18, 2019, 05:20:03 pm
Still better than 'lock her up'.

Considering the state Somalia is in? It's worse.

Well the more serious thing is that you would be illegally deporting a US citizen
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 18, 2019, 05:59:34 pm
He's going to get a sitting Congresscritter killed.

Ironbite-and he won't understand why when it's a member of the GOP.

Why do you think it would be a Republican? If it's going to be anyone, my money's on one of Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, Pressley, or Amash.

Still better than 'lock her up'.

Considering the state Somalia is in? It's worse.

Well the more serious thing is that you would be illegally deporting a US citizen

That too.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on July 18, 2019, 06:09:41 pm
They are clearly threatening Ilhan Omar. If you saw the video of her house from the 'project veritas' wankers who went to her house to ask whether she'd fucked her brother she lives in a normal house without security and I think it is highly likely that she will end up being assassinated.

Which will be terrible because she's a fucking awesome politician and someone the US should be proud of. What a fucking great advertisement for US opportunity.

Edit: More importantly the rank stinking hypocrisy of the people who suggest this having run on a campaign of 'make america great again' which is necessarily premised upon the fact that the US is no longer great. Wankers.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 18, 2019, 07:51:28 pm
He's going to get a sitting Congresscritter killed.

Ironbite-and he won't understand why when it's a member of the GOP.

Why do you think it would be a Republican? If it's going to be anyone, my money's on one of Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, Pressley, or Amash.

Still better than 'lock her up'.

Considering the state Somalia is in? It's worse.

Well the more serious thing is that you would be illegally deporting a US citizen

That too.


To answer why I said there's gonna be GOP blood on his hands, I meant after his fanatics are done assassinating his Democrat targets.

Ironbite-they'll move on to purge the Party.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on July 20, 2019, 08:48:44 pm
Woman tells Trump, in person, her family was killed, Trump asks "where are they now?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=108&v=QBvgJudB28U)

Anything that isn't about him gets filtered out I guess...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 20, 2019, 10:12:28 pm
Wow, you can literally see his mind being occupied with other thoughts other than what the foreign woman was talking about.

He looks away from her. doesn't engage with what she's saying. Has a dead ass expression on his face.

The right will just say Trump is tired give him a break. Or they'll vilify this woman some how.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on July 20, 2019, 10:58:51 pm
"Her mother's cousin's half-brother's aunt's uncle's grandfather's former roommate was...BIN LADEN!!! SHE IS A TERRORIST BY EXTENSION!!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 21, 2019, 12:23:39 am
"Her mother's cousin's half-brother's aunt's uncle's grandfather's former roommate was...BIN LADEN!!! SHE IS A TERRORIST BY EXTENSION!!"

*mashes non-existent like button*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on July 21, 2019, 03:24:53 am
Woman tells Trump, in person, her family was killed, Trump asks "where are they now?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=108&v=QBvgJudB28U)

Anything that isn't about him gets filtered out I guess...

Yeah, she won a Nobel Prize for Peace.  Trump also asked her "What do I have to do to win a Nobel Prize?", immediately after asking her if they REALLY gave one to her...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on July 21, 2019, 03:49:54 pm
"Her mother's cousin's half-brother's aunt's uncle's grandfather's former roommate was...BIN LADEN!!! SHE IS A TERRORIST BY EXTENSION!!"

*mashes non-existent like button*

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 24, 2019, 06:01:03 pm
Mueller: This wasn't a witch hunt, I don't exonerate President Trump and it's up to you guys to arrest him after he's out of office, and Russia totally interfered with the 2016 election you guys and are definitely doing it again as we speak. 

Trump: This was a totally a waste of time, clearly I'm exonerated and this was all a hoax and this is really a disaster for the democrats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on July 24, 2019, 07:38:24 pm
How likely do you all think it is that Trump is going to go back to telling the more melanin rich female members of congress to 'go back to where they came from' as part of his election strategy.

Also how likely is it that he will run his campaign based on race and win.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 24, 2019, 09:28:49 pm
I'm pretty convinced he's going to win.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 24, 2019, 10:58:34 pm
Some GOP strategists are figuring that 2020 will be a repeat of 2016: Trump loses the popular vote but is re-elected President because the WTA Electoral College is stupid.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on July 25, 2019, 12:23:42 am
Trump even though the most unpopular president in recent history, is the most popular president among Republicans. He had overwhelming support from his own party who will go out in droves to vote for him. Democrats have an image problem and are split between centrists boomers and progressive millennials. Depending on who gets the nomination could really prevent one side from coming out to vote over another.
The only way Trump is going to lose is if the economy tanks.
He'll say it's the Democrats fault though. So hope for an economic down turn.
We need to focus on keeping the house and winning the Senate in 2022.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 02, 2019, 12:54:09 am
Let's have a nice throwback...

Quote
Gov. Reagan: Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did--

Pres. Nixon: Yeah.

Reagan: To see those, those monkeys from those African countries--damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearin' shoes--

Nixon: (laughs)

Nixon: The tail wags the dog there, doesn't it?

Reagan: Yeah.

Nixon: The tail wags the dog.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 02, 2019, 09:23:25 am
What were they referring to?

And on a lighter note, welcome back to the cold war. https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 02, 2019, 12:30:27 pm
What were they referring to?

UN delegates from Tanzania. The issue was a General Assembly vote on whether to recognize the People's Republic of China. Very probably the vote did not go the way Nixon wanted because of backroom deals involving the UK and France, but Nixon would have none of that; he blamed African delegates.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 02, 2019, 01:25:41 pm
It seems it was Reagan blaming the African delegates more no?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 02, 2019, 04:18:51 pm
It seems it was Reagan blaming the African delegates more no?

Nixon blaming African delegates was a later conversation with his aides and intelligence officials after they told him that the UK and France were probably more to blame than African delegates were. Nixon just wanted to blame Africans.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 21, 2019, 02:43:41 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-jewish-democrat-vote-disloyal-lacks-knowledge-1.5254115

Trump has now said that Jews who vote Democratic show "either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty". (Please hold while I laugh my ass off over Trump talking about anyone else having a "total lack of knowledge".)

"Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they are defending these two people over the state of Israel? I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty."

Now what does that remind me of...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4AAcaoW4AAiE9E.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 21, 2019, 09:05:39 am
Not supporting the abusive practices by Israel towards the Palestinians doesn't mean you're antisemitic.
You gotta love the irony of Jews in nazi Germany being treated as second class citizens compared to how the Palestinians are treated in Israel.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on August 21, 2019, 12:05:24 pm
He also cancelled a trip to Denmark because they won't sell him Greenland.  And then there's this:

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ce2da797af8fe408b9e03f662f7470b8abda58b5f52c4182e53fbae0840fbffb.png?w=800&h)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECfzbcMWsAE6Jm_?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 21, 2019, 12:22:58 pm
Trump: My real father is literally the devil.
Religious Right: Do not be hard on or denounce President Trump! He is our King Cyrus! This just means he has a connection to literal Biblical figures.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 21, 2019, 05:42:35 pm
He had a press conference today and was asked about how the trade war with China.  He then wandered away for a second, looked up at the sky, and declared himself the "Chosen One" before coming back to the press and answering the question in his rambling way.

Ironbite-he's got full on dementia now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 21, 2019, 06:50:12 pm
And of course the right wing media says he was "joking."
Whenever someone on the right says something offensive or asinine they're always "joking." I remember this back when W was president.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 25, 2019, 06:32:09 pm
Just in case you were wondering, you're right Trump is completely insane. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-great-crackup-20190825-3m5btyfh3bd4jaw4dkzmgcxjfm-story.html (https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-great-crackup-20190825-3m5btyfh3bd4jaw4dkzmgcxjfm-story.html)

 Unfortunately he still has the complete support of the Republican Party
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on August 25, 2019, 06:42:43 pm
Just in case you were wondering, you're right Trump is completely insane. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-great-crackup-20190825-3m5btyfh3bd4jaw4dkzmgcxjfm-story.html (https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-great-crackup-20190825-3m5btyfh3bd4jaw4dkzmgcxjfm-story.html)

 Unfortunately he still has the complete support of the Republican Party

Earth to all these news outlets who keep printing "Trump is unwell" articles and just leaving it at that; it's called the 25th Amendment.  FUCKING LOOK IT UP.  And don't give me any of that "We can't do that!  He's the PRESIDENT!" bullshit, because you were perfectly willing to do it when we were talking about a simple blowjob in the White House...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 25, 2019, 07:58:11 pm
25th Amendment differs from impeachment, since there's an explicit process to return to office with the former, whereas with the latter you can be barred from ever holding public office again.

Also, Sec. 4 requires that it be the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet that ask Congress to remove the President... which is a bit of an issue, since the President can fire the Cabinet at will (see, e.g., Myers v. United States, though in dicta).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 25, 2019, 08:36:06 pm
The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 25, 2019, 09:33:55 pm
You know this is exactly what he was asked:
https://forums.fstdt.net/index.php

Quote
Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

The question I was asked most today by fellow World Leaders, who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, happens to be, “Mr. President, why does the American media hate your Country so much? Why are they rooting for it to fail?”
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 25, 2019, 09:44:42 pm
The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.

Not sure that's a law as such, it's just the instructions Mueller was given for his investigation.

And it's hardly unique, the President of Germany is immune from prosecution, for instance, and can only be removed on impeachment (by either the Bundestag or Bundesrat) and subsequent conviction by the Federal Constitutional Court.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on August 26, 2019, 02:31:30 am
The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.

The assumption was that if the President was breaking the law, it would clearly be enough for the Senate to vote to remove him... I'd say the founders didn't see the Republican Party coming, but actually, they DID (which is why they railed against the idea of parties to begin with).

The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.

Not sure that's a law as such, it's just the instructions Mueller was given for his investigation.

And it's hardly unique, the President of Germany is immune from prosecution, for instance, and can only be removed on impeachment (by either the Bundestag or Bundesrat) and subsequent conviction by the Federal Constitutional Court.

It's probably worth mentioning that the instructions both Mueller and Bill Barr wave around as ironclad proof that the President cannot be charged while in office was written by one Robert Bork, during the fall of one Richard Nixon.  In short, it was invented to save Nixon from being charged during Watergate, and the whole thing has just been adopted as official policy by the US DoJ for... reasons.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 26, 2019, 03:09:57 am
The president of the US seems to have too many protections. The fact that you can't arrest a sitting president for committing a crime seems asinine to me.

The assumption was that if the President was breaking the law, it would clearly be enough for the Senate to vote to remove him... I'd say the founders didn't see the Republican Party coming, but actually, they DID (which is why they railed against the idea of parties to begin with).

As Republicans will gleefully point out, Bill Clinton did perjure himself on the matter of whether he had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and Senate Democrats unanimously voted not to convict. (Sometimes they'll acknowledge that nine Senate Republicans also voted not guilty--remember, Specter voted "not proven", not "not guilty"; Rehnquist just ordered it entered as the latter.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 05, 2019, 12:07:33 am
So Donald I've never heard of a category five hurricane despite four occurring during his presidency Trump, in an ever growing moment of senility. Made the gaffe that Dorian was going to hit Alabama despite nobody saying that. So instead of Trump either ignoring what people say about him or being a decent human being and trying to provide comfort to the people that are about to have their lives effected by the hurricane he decides to double down and alter evidence to support his lie. https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/04/politics/donald-trump-hurricane-alabama-map/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 05, 2019, 01:19:29 am
Also, altering that map the way he did is literally a crime.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on September 05, 2019, 02:01:10 am
How many layers down the reality denial cake are we now?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 05, 2019, 03:22:25 am
How many layers down the reality denial cake are we now?

Well in 2017 Sean Hannity referred to "President Clinton", so...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on September 05, 2019, 12:33:47 pm
So Donald I've never heard of a category five hurricane despite four occurring during his presidency Trump

Every time there's a Cat5 Hurricane, Trump says he's never heard of it.  And then goes on for a while to boast about the hurricane size, as if weather patterns are making themselves larger just to show he's such a great President...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 05, 2019, 06:35:56 pm
And remember they're tremendously Big and tremendously wet.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 06, 2019, 10:10:09 am
And remember they're tremendously Big and tremendously wet.

They're very wet, from the standpoint of water.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 07, 2019, 03:28:38 am
What exactly does Trump have to gain from this fiasco? I mean the majority of Alabama will support him even if he didn't give them this hey the hurricane is going to hit you too shout out. What's the point in taking up a whole news week and press conferences over a gaffe? Not to mention the lack of sympathy being directed to the people actually effected by the hurricane.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on September 07, 2019, 04:16:05 am
The majority of Alabama would support President Trump even if one of the campaign objectives of his 2020 run was to melt all Alabamans and boil them down into resources for the government to use.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 07, 2019, 04:42:07 am
What exactly does Trump have to gain from this fiasco? I mean the majority of Alabama will support him even if he didn't give them this hey the hurricane is going to hit you too shout out. What's the point in taking up a whole news week and press conferences over a gaffe? Not to mention the lack of sympathy being directed to the people actually effected by the hurricane.

You're assuming Trump is acting rationally. He's saying, "Me Trump! Me right! Me say hurricane would hit Alabama!"

Remember, the "J" in "Donald J. Trump" stands for "Joffrey".

And there is something to be gained in Alabama, don't forget: a Senate seat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 07, 2019, 09:32:35 am
The majority of Alabama would support President Trump even if one of the campaign objectives of his 2020 run was to melt all Alabamans and boil them down into resources for the government to use.

I can just imagine a super villain threatening a group of plucky heroes with the line "I WILL RETURN YOU TO THE PRIMORDIAL SLURRY FROM WHENCE YOU CAME!"  It is awesome.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on September 07, 2019, 01:07:33 pm
What exactly does Trump have to gain from this fiasco?

Trump's not bothering with what he has to gain.  He's having a narcissistic fit; someone DARED to say he was WRONG, and Trump is NEVER wrong.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 08, 2019, 01:51:10 am
Trump "fights back." That's one of the defining features of his. When he makes a mistake or whenever someone opposes him in any way, he has to fight back. He can't admit being wrong, he can't admit a defeat. This gets him into stupid fights and escalates things (remember the kerfluffle over the crowd size in his inaugural? A lot of energy was spent on arguing that and even later on he has gone on to argue about every crowd in his rallies and making fun of other people's rallies even if he has to fake evidence to support his claims.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 12, 2019, 12:13:02 pm
So Donald Trump wants to ban vaping because it's been reported by the CDC that six people have died from vaping related illnesses. Six people.
Meanwhile according to the gun violence archive 10.408 people have died and 20,760 people have been injured from fire arm related incidents in 2019 alone. With only 2,200 being classified as defensive use. But no we can't talk about banning guns or making guns safer or even look into gun violence.
This is just Trump being in the pockets of the big tobacco industry.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on September 12, 2019, 05:31:43 pm
So Donald Trump wants to ban vaping because it's been reported by the CDC that six people have died from vaping related illnesses. Six people.
Meanwhile according to the gun violence archive 10.408 people have died and 20,760 people have been injured from fire arm related incidents in 2019 alone. With only 2,200 being classified as defensive use. But no we can't talk about banning guns or making guns safer or even look into gun violence.
This is just Trump being in the pockets of the big tobacco industry.

Moscow Mitch is the one who's been pushing hard to ban vaping; he got his start in politics from Big Tobacco money.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 12, 2019, 07:50:20 pm
Why doesn't that surprise me?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 12, 2019, 08:37:13 pm
Hey, if we want to talk about "Republicans bought by the tobacco industry" isn't there footage somewhere of John Boehner handing out cheques from tobacco lobbyists to Republican Representatives on the floor of the House?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 22, 2019, 08:31:22 pm
So Trump pretty much admitted to soliciting dirt from the Ukrainian government on Joe Biden's son. https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/22/politics/adam-schiff-donald-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-investigation-impeachment/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F which according to title 52 of campaign finance laws is illegal. A contribution being someone offering money, time, knowledge or assistance to a cause.
Basically he did it again. His message isn't good enough for the voters to vote for him so all he can do is smear his opponent enough so that people hate his opponent more than him by cheating and breaking the law which he says isn't illegal.
And nothing is going to be done about this. Democrats won't impeach because it will go dead in the Senate and Republicans won't think of impeaching their darling leader.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 24, 2019, 04:51:27 pm
I guess I was wrong it looks like Pelosi is looking into impeachment for this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on September 24, 2019, 06:49:54 pm
I guess I was wrong it looks like Pelosi is looking into impeachment for this.

She just announced that they're beginning impeachment investigations around this whole Ukraine bullshit.  And since it's Trump, there's probably even more down that rabbit hole...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 24, 2019, 08:30:27 pm
I just worry that this will improve Trump's approval rating in the polls since impeachment is still highly unpopular amongst American voters. Trump will most likely play victim and talk vindication when the Senate doesn't convict him.
Bill Clinton's approval ratings went up during his whole impeachment proceedings.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on September 24, 2019, 09:48:15 pm
I think it depends on whether this is a persuasion election or a mobilisation election. Are there any people who voted trump who will change their mind? I don't think so. The real question is whether there are people who would vote against him but will stay at home because of the impeachment?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 24, 2019, 10:59:45 pm
Impeachment was unpopular when the House opened an impeachment inquiry against Nixon. Didn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIe4tAl8McQ

Also, remember who else talked to Ukraine before a Presidential election and got dirt on how their political opponents were corrupt, and what the general reaction to that was?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 25, 2019, 05:39:23 pm
So Trump released the transcript from his phone call to the Zelensky today (A short bit from a thirty minute long conversation) here are some snippets:

"The US has been very good to Ukraine, but it's not reciprocal"

"I would like you to do us a favor"

"I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."

"Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it"

"I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your économy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets." *wink wink*

But according to Trump there was no quid pro quo so it's not illegal it was just two pals chumming it up and it's like locker room talk.
Sure I guess Hey we give you a lot of money but you haven't done anything for me, so look into my political enemies and your economy could get better, isn't quid pro quo because he didn't out right say Hey I want something you want something from me give me something in return.
This makes him look like a Mob boss calling on someone to do them a favor, and this was just part of that conversation and apparently there were more of them.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 25, 2019, 06:21:09 pm
WHY DOES HE THINK HE'S SOME SORT OF FUCKING MAFIOSA!?

Ironbite-god he'd be found face down in the Hudson if he was.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 26, 2019, 12:16:48 am
WHY DOES HE THINK HE'S SOME SORT OF FUCKING MAFIOSA!?

Ironbite-god he'd be found face down in the Hudson if he was.

He was in the construction business in New York. You don't do that and don't deal with the Mafia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on September 27, 2019, 03:31:57 pm
I have been following this the past two days and this has become interesting to me. Trump getting caught with this, somehow I don't think he is going to make the 2020 win. Though I have to say seeing all his zombie followers salty and crying is very entertaining.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on September 27, 2019, 06:07:24 pm
Bill Clinton's approval ratings went up during his whole impeachment proceedings.

Bill's ratings went up because the Republicans spent years digging into every little thing trying to find something, ANYTHING, they could use to impeach him.  And they ended up going with "lying about a blowjob".  THAT was a witch hunt, which is why the Republicans like to scream "witch hunt" whenever someone tries to investigate them...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 27, 2019, 08:46:28 pm
Don't forget, Clinton was impeached on two charges: perjury and obstruction of justice.

The Senate vote was closer on the latter charge.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 30, 2019, 02:48:46 am
So Trump has been calling to meet his "accuser" face to face saying that the whistle blower is a spy and is spreading third hand information about his "perfect" phone conversation with president Zelensky. He keeps throwing that perfect word around as if that means something. But it's like dude, you're the one that released the damning transcript of your phone conversation, the whistleblower just further confirmed it.
It's not him, it's you.
It's like he's living in a different world, but I suppose it's always been that way.

And the beautiful thing is Trump's threats to the whistleblower and anyone else that released information can add more charges of obstruction of inquiry and justice.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 30, 2019, 06:03:43 am
Trump has reached the point where he can't keep up with creating new scandals to make people forget the previous scandals and apparently even Fox News is thinking about leaving the sinking ship and turning on him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 30, 2019, 03:50:59 pm
And this is where the GOP is gonna find out just what hitching your wagon to a cult of personality leads to.

Ironbite-it's gonna be a bloodbath and I can't wait to watch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 08, 2019, 12:33:20 am
This is beautiful. Not only is Trump pissing off the Democrats by shoving mud and pointing fingers while new damning allegations come out. But he's also pissing off his own party by impulsively pulling out of Syria.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 09, 2019, 10:50:28 am
Turkey is sending their military to attack Kurds from one direction while the DAESH has already struck the Kurds from the opposite direction. Has it already been a day since Trump said that he will personally destroy Turkey if they do this exact thing? Now we get to see two things:

a) Whether or not Trump will once again back away from his threats to a dictator (like he did with Kim)?

b) What happens to allies of USA once USA is done with them. There's pretty much no reason to be part of NATO anymore. Most of the countries are in EU anyway and as USA abandons its allies to genocidal dictators, there's no reason to be a member in both clubs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 16, 2019, 02:12:03 am
Trump's corruption from DC's point of view:

(https://i.imgflip.com/3dfv05.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 17, 2019, 05:27:49 am
It's always fun to see a persons first time realizing that the stories about Trump aren't exaggeration:

https://twitter.com/DKeetz/status/1184597223465783299?s=04&fbclid=IwAR3p4rx08vNIXvj_vXTLi3nSquSyqy_1WK_LxDdol4g4cEuacVni9fbDYS8

HAHA! An old man with possible Alzheimer is in control of nuclear weapons of USA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 17, 2019, 08:43:34 am
Is there any video of him calling the president Mozzerella?
I'm not seeing any credible sources that says he did.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on October 18, 2019, 12:39:24 am
Is there any video of him calling the president Mozzerella?
I'm not seeing any credible sources that says he did.

It sounds like he didn't, but seriously; doesn't the fact that people have to ask rather than dismissing it immediately seem like a MAJOR issue here?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on October 18, 2019, 08:56:28 pm
So Hilary Clinton spoke out today about "a person in the Dem Primaries who is being groomed for a third party run by Russia", and it prompted this Trumpian rant from Tulsi Gabbard (who just inadvertently outed herself as the person):

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)

Quote
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

Didn't everyone know that Tulsi with her 2% support is the leading candidate for the Dem party nomination?  And she's only being ignored because of THE ESTABLISHMENT putting her down?  And trying to destroy her reputation?

Clearly it couldn't be her defence of murderous dictators like Assad, Mohdi, Putin, and so on.  Or her insistence that Muslim murder is okay, and the only exception to her "no war" policy...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 19, 2019, 12:14:33 pm
I would think that Putin would be grooming Yang, seeing that he seems the most popular with the alt right.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 19, 2019, 04:55:32 pm
You have to look at things from Putin's perspective - he's gotten the most results from an utter idiot. Why on EARTH would Vladimir Putin shake up a formula that's worked out so well for him and his plans so far? As popular as Yang is with the alt-right, he also isn't as manipulable.

So of course he's going to back the most idiotic.

If not Donald Trump, then a total imbecile like Tulsi Gabbard who similarly likes playing footsie with dictators and comes from an easily manipulable background.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 19, 2019, 07:18:15 pm
I don't think it's Putin's goal to put in someone who is loyal to him, but more to stir chaos and distrust with the American electorate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on October 20, 2019, 12:00:58 am
I don't think it's Putin's goal to put in someone who is loyal to him, but more to stir chaos and distrust with the American electorate.

The Russians love Tulsi, because Tulsi, despite being a "Democrat", likes to talk about how the DNC and the "liberal elites" are constantly rigging everything to get a "corporate candidate" for the Dem nominee.  She threatened to boycott the last debate, claiming that it was somehow "rigged".  That, plus her constantly running to Fox News for interviews, plus her love of dictators like Mohdi, Sisi and Assad...

She runs as a Dem, because Repubs can't win in Hawaii.  But her and her father are extremely conservative, and until a few years ago, anti-LGBT+.  She claims she's not anymore, but considering that claim came right as she jumped on Bernie's bandwagon and was trying to score points with the Bernie Bros...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 20, 2019, 12:05:48 am
To call her two faced would probably insult the Batman villain.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 20, 2019, 12:59:25 am
Unfortunately she is smoking hot
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 22, 2019, 01:21:52 am
Apparently some talking head said regarding Trump that he is a "...great American who exalts those values and heritage of this nation."

I made some people angry when I agreed with him. I mean all you have to do is that assume that "great" means "large" in this instance and it is a very accurate description.

As I said elsewhere after their complaints: "Racism and greed are part of USA's heritage. So is his pompous behaviour and loud boisterous bragging. There are good things that USA has done and which are part of it as well, but Trump certainly does showcase many of the things that Yankees are known for. And of course there is the fact that he is still in power. The things he has done, the things he has ADMITTED doing should have caused the government to remove him from office long ago in any sane world. The fact that he is still the president and has the support of his political party is something that USA will be known for for a very long time. He has pulled USA out of several treaties, threatened allies, abandoned allies and this is no longer just about him, USA has allowed him to do all these things and has proven that there is no way, or desire to prevent the president of USA from acting like this. Heck, allies can no longer share information with USA because Trump has repeatedly revealed state secrets and nothing told to USA can therefore be assumed to stay confidential. No deals made by USA can be considered reliable as who knows when a next Trump-like president is voted in. The damage Trump has done to the soft power of USA is incredible. Like my president said, USA has a long history of Democracy, you should not throw it all away."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 25, 2019, 10:41:28 am
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02

According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on October 25, 2019, 12:33:20 pm
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02

According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.

Going all-in on a presidential run when you're polling at 3%. They say fortune favors the bold, but there's a fine line between courage and stupidity. And Gabbard's well over it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 25, 2019, 04:35:03 pm
Gabbard has to know she's gonna be persona non grata once this all over.  This is her Faux Noise audition.

Ironbite-which is why she's spending so much time on said network.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 25, 2019, 05:08:42 pm
Tulsi wants to be the token "Gud Lib" on Fox and Friends, who calls out anyone who dares be too liberal for them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 25, 2019, 05:12:17 pm
Tulsi is just chasing a show on Fox news. "This evening with Tulsi" most likely.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on October 25, 2019, 06:38:35 pm
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02

According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.

Yep.  And there are whispers around Washington that she's asking Wall Street about backing for a third party run... But she doesn't want it getting out yet.

So I think a bunch of very loud whiners owe Hilary Clinton YET another apology.  Not that she'll ever get it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 25, 2019, 08:05:49 pm
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02

According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.

Yep.  And there are whispers around Washington that she's asking Wall Street about backing for a third party run... But she doesn't want it getting out yet.

So I think a bunch of very loud whiners owe Hilary Clinton YET another apology.  Not that she'll ever get it.

Except that Sec. Clinton's claim, as I recall, was a little more specific than just "someone will make a third-party run"; she specifically mentioned Russia in connection with said third-party run, and that's yet to be seen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on October 25, 2019, 08:13:27 pm
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G19/HI#H02

According to The Green Papers, Rep. Gabbard will not run for re-election to the House and is instead focusing on being elected President.

Yep.  And there are whispers around Washington that she's asking Wall Street about backing for a third party run... But she doesn't want it getting out yet.

So I think a bunch of very loud whiners owe Hilary Clinton YET another apology.  Not that she'll ever get it.

Except that Sec. Clinton's claim, as I recall, was a little more specific than just "someone will make a third-party run"; she specifically mentioned Russia in connection with said third-party run, and that's yet to be seen.

AND she kept it super vague so that if any woman does make a third party run then that could be "the prediction" and "Hillary was right". I'm still not forgiving her for how poorly she handled 2016, and her fans are included in that too because they handled it even worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on October 28, 2019, 10:11:39 am
Baseball fans greeted Trump with boos and chants of "lock him up!" when he attended Game 5 of the World Series.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/playoffs/2019/10/27/donald-trump-world-series-nationals-park/2481826001/ (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/playoffs/2019/10/27/donald-trump-world-series-nationals-park/2481826001/)

That's gotta sting his ego. He's not used to being shown the people who dislike him. I like to imagine a staffer being like Smithers and trying to convince him the booing was intended as praise and the "lock him up!" chants were actually about Biden or Schiff.

"No, Mr. President, that was meant to show they're happy. In the DC area, booing is a compliment in certain contexts! And they were telling you to lock up the traitors!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 28, 2019, 07:27:59 pm
I'm pretty sure that's exactly how Trump interpreted the Lock him up chants.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 29, 2019, 04:14:26 pm
Not really.  Saw some tweets of the game, he knew what they were chanting.

Ironbite-he absolutely knew he needed to get the fuck out of there.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 29, 2019, 04:33:59 pm
Yeah now well see Trump show up at Alabama Crimson Tide football games just to get people to cheer him on.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on October 31, 2019, 12:37:22 am
The boos never happened, they were added digitally by the deep state!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/comments/dp16ug/qultist_claims_trump_being_booed_was_digitally/

(I wish I was just joking)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 31, 2019, 02:19:01 am
At the same time, because some Democrat put up a tweet where he said that he paid for tickets to war veterans who brought an anti-Trump banner to the game, they are also saying that the boos absolutely happened but that it was done by paid actors in a super secret Democrat plot to make people think that Trump is not well liked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 31, 2019, 02:23:27 am
Ultimately, it comes down to these people buying the same lie Trump does: that the cheering crowds at his rallies are just average people and not a carefully curated collection of racists and xenophobes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 06, 2019, 07:51:44 am
So the 2019 election just happened yesterday, and while it was nothing major. The Democrats won control of the Virginia Senate for the first time in two decades and won the governorship in Kentucky one of the saddest states in the country. They lost the governorship in Mississippi but it was closer than usual. Its left Republicans with a lot to explain. Could this be a sign of the momentum of the election next year?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 06, 2019, 07:51:15 pm
Lots of people are calling this the wake up call in terms of a referendum on Trump and his Republicanism.

Like I saw on rightwingwatch that a lot of the usual suspects were going absolutely ballistic about Virginia, and it ended up being a summary defeat. Mississippi was a loss, but it was a closer loss than we'd get otherwise. The people have seen what Trump really is, and they ain't happy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 06, 2019, 08:50:21 pm
So the 2019 election just happened yesterday, and while it was nothing major. The Democrats won control of the Virginia Senate for the first time in two decades and won the governorship in Kentucky one of the saddest states in the country. They lost the governorship in Mississippi but it was closer than usual. Its left Republicans with a lot to explain. Could this be a sign of the momentum of the election next year?

The Democrats didn't have Mississippi in the first place. Louisiana might flip Republican in the runoff.

Flipping the Virginia Legislature was a big win, though.

EDIT: Also, worth noting, Bevin hasn't conceded in Kentucky and has requested a recount--as he should, considering how close his election was and that all the other downballot statewide races were won comfortably by the Republican candidate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on November 13, 2019, 02:23:13 pm
So the 2019 election just happened yesterday, and while it was nothing major. The Democrats won control of the Virginia Senate for the first time in two decades and won the governorship in Kentucky one of the saddest states in the country. They lost the governorship in Mississippi but it was closer than usual. Its left Republicans with a lot to explain. Could this be a sign of the momentum of the election next year?

The Democrats didn't have Mississippi in the first place. Louisiana might flip Republican in the runoff.

Flipping the Virginia Legislature was a big win, though.

EDIT: Also, worth noting, Bevin hasn't conceded in Kentucky and has requested a recount--as he should, considering how close his election was and that all the other downballot statewide races were won comfortably by the Republican candidate.

There should be a bit of concern about Bevin refusing to concede in Kentucky; as both Matt AND the Republicans in the Kentucky Congress know, the Constitution of Kentucky states that if there is any major doubt about the election results, the result of the election falls to a vote in both sections of Congress.  And Republicans have super majorities in both.  They've floated the idea of trying this a few times in the past week, and quite frankly I wouldn't put it past them to try it.  Bevin just has to some up with something plausible-sounding, contest the election, and then the Republicans can declare him the winner of the election.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on November 13, 2019, 04:13:19 pm
Without going to a recount? That would be insane
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on November 13, 2019, 07:03:42 pm
Without going to a recount? That would be insane

Thanks to a law passed by the Republican Congress plus the voting machines they use, recounts in Kentucky are impossible anyway.  What they're asking is for them to double-check the count.

I'm going to toss you the DailyKos link to this story.  Usually I'd go straight to the source instead, but the source in this case is buried in unskippable ads...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/6/1897609/-Kentucky-Republicans-taking-steps-to-outright-steal-governor-s-election-they-just-lost

People did start screaming, though, so they've been backing away from this idea.  Better to watch out, though, because they might just be letting the heat die down.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on November 13, 2019, 08:48:16 pm
Without going to a recount? That would be insane

Thanks to a law passed by the Republican Congress plus the voting machines they use, recounts in Kentucky are impossible anyway.  What they're asking is for them to double-check the count.

I'm going to toss you the DailyKos link to this story.  Usually I'd go straight to the source instead, but the source in this case is buried in unskippable ads...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/6/1897609/-Kentucky-Republicans-taking-steps-to-outright-steal-governor-s-election-they-just-lost

People did start screaming, though, so they've been backing away from this idea.  Better to watch out, though, because they might just be letting the heat die down.

So basically keep the pressure up for a while? Is there a deadline or point where they can no longer try for that?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on November 13, 2019, 11:15:48 pm
Without going to a recount? That would be insane

Thanks to a law passed by the Republican Congress plus the voting machines they use, recounts in Kentucky are impossible anyway.  What they're asking is for them to double-check the count.

I'm going to toss you the DailyKos link to this story.  Usually I'd go straight to the source instead, but the source in this case is buried in unskippable ads...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/6/1897609/-Kentucky-Republicans-taking-steps-to-outright-steal-governor-s-election-they-just-lost

People did start screaming, though, so they've been backing away from this idea.  Better to watch out, though, because they might just be letting the heat die down.

So basically keep the pressure up for a while? Is there a deadline or point where they can no longer try for that?
Bevin only has 30 days to ask for a recheck, but I don't see any limit on contesting the election.  I'm guessing if Beshear gets sworn in, that'll be the end of it.  Though with these assholes, who knows?  They could pull a Wisconsin or a North Carolina and get Bevin to sign a bunch of bills giving Congress a bunch of the Gov.'s power...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 14, 2019, 01:37:32 am
I fully expect that, and at this point Democrats should do the same thing in places like California, Massachusetts and Maryland.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on November 14, 2019, 09:44:29 am
And here it comes...

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/matt-bevin-voter-fraud-kentucky-governor_n_5dcc3d0be4b0d43931ce2d94?ri18n=true

Quote
Erika Calihan, the Lexington-area woman behind the event, has spent the last three days making unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims of fraud and calling on the attorney general’s office to open some sort of investigation into her allegations ― most of which seem derived primarily from posts she has read on Facebook, screenshots of unofficial election results and rumors she’s heard.

Bevin, who lost the election by roughly 5,000 votes, has described Calihan as “my friend” and appointed her to a state government position earlier this year.

Calihan’s claims have gone viral-ish, at least in the corners of the internet allergic to basic facts and prone to thinking that prominent Democrats operate a child sex dungeon in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant that has no basement, or that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax meant to help the feds confiscate guns they still haven’t gotten around to confiscating.

That Bevin chose to dignify the conspiracy theorists’ fever dreams has only helped bring more chaos into an election that was already “shaping up to be a case study in the real-world impact of disinformation — and a preview of what election-security officials and experts fear could unfold a year from now if the 2020 presidential election comes down to the wire,” as The New York Times suggested last week when conservatives took a parody tweet about destroying ballots as hard evidence of fraud.

Bevin spent the weekend raising the possibility that he lost a “dirty election.”

“I would rather lose a clean election than win a dirty election. And I’ll be darned if I want to lose a dirty election,” he said at an event for young conservatives, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported.

The reason he hasn’t conceded, Bevin said, was because “if you do not think that there are people that would try to hijack our political process, and while they are yelling about Russian collusion at the front door and telling us to man the front gates against the Russians, they are all at the back gate robbing us blind. I’m telling you. I’m telling you.”

Bevin's digging for a plausible reason to contest the results and let the Republican Congress decide the election...

Edit: The dipshit finally gave up today: https://twitter.com/RylandKY/status/1195059420843139072
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on November 15, 2019, 12:05:16 am
the shit in kentucky reminds me a lot of the Bolivia coup, just manufacture outrage about "fraud" and "vote tampering" when your opponent wins.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 15, 2019, 12:21:18 am
But if there actually is fraud and vote tampering, make sure to call the "winner" and congratulate him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 15, 2019, 01:46:55 pm
Well it's a good thing Bevin conceeded yesterday now isn't it?

Also Stone got convicted on all counts and the Orange Piss Pot's trying out live witness intimidation as a larff.

Ironbite-I smell a strong sense of crapped pants from the Orange Dumbfuck right now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 15, 2019, 10:29:11 pm
He'll probably pardon Ol Roger.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 16, 2019, 01:34:20 am
Stone is already begging for a pardon and knowing Trump, whether he'll dot it depends on if it is beneficial for Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 16, 2019, 03:27:52 am
Trump has nothing to worry about. As long as his base can knock out in a primary any Republican Senator who would vote to convict, he's safe.

EDIT: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G20/MI#H13

A guy by the name of "Dude Dudenhoefer" is running to unseat Rep. Tlaib.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on November 27, 2019, 04:34:41 am
Oh shit, if I was Rudy Guiliani I would be worried. I think this is almost word for word what Trump said about Cohen.

Quote

Trump denies sending Giuliani to Ukraine

In an interview with former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly posted Tuesday, President Trump said he did not order his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to go to Ukraine in order to dig up damaging information on his political rivals. "No, I didn't direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior," Trump said. Giuliani has said he went to Ukraine at the behest of Trump, carrying out an investigation "concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption." O'Reilly asked Trump why Giuliani went to Ukraine, and the president responded, "You have to ask Rudy. Rudy has other clients, other than me. He's done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years." Several of the witnesses who testified in the impeachment inquiry said Giuliani was pursuing a shadow Ukraine agenda in order to get the country to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 27, 2019, 08:36:10 am
I mean that's clearly a fucking lie, but that's what Trump does. He goes on the news and denies involvement in anything. Pretty soon he'll start to say he didn't know Rudy very well and we never really talked. He knows Giuliani is at risk of being arrested for his involvement in this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on November 28, 2019, 01:53:13 am
So one of the witnesses, Ambassador Sondland, has been accused of sexual assault. He says that it's political in nature and trying to influence the hearings. I don't think I buy it because the most prominent woman bringing the allegations is pretty lefty and runs PDX Monthly down in Oregon.

I'm not surprised another rich dude involved in politics is a sleazebag.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 28, 2019, 02:30:44 am
This does not discredit what Sondland is saying about Trump - it just means Sondland is a creep in his personal life. A creep who is saying some incredibly damning things about Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 28, 2019, 02:41:27 am
So, just like Trump then--another creep who says incredibly damning things about Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on November 28, 2019, 03:27:46 am
This does not discredit what Sondland is saying about Trump - it just means Sondland is a creep in his personal life. A creep who is saying some incredibly damning things about Trump.

Oh but said creep will have you know that actually the only reason these women are saying he did bad shit is because they're trying to discredit him for Trump or something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 28, 2019, 07:38:16 am
Its such a bizarre play that it has to come from Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 28, 2019, 11:23:05 am
Yeah, Donald would make it incredibly obvious if he was responsible for this. The women would say things vaguely supportive of him or allege Sondland was disloyal or somehow in the "Deep State" or something. But that's not what happened.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 01, 2019, 03:37:12 am
Quote from: Nikita Khrushchev
Stalin called everyone who didn't agree with him an "enemy of the people." He said that they wanted to restore the old order, and for this purpose, "the enemies of the people" had linked up with the forces of reaction internationally. As a result, several hundred thousand honest people perished. Everyone lived in fear in those days. Everyone expected that at any moment there would be a knock on the door in the middle of the night and that knock on the door would prove fatal ... [P]eople not to Stalin's liking were annihilated, honest party members, irreproachable people, loyal and hard workers for our cause who had gone through the school of revolutionary struggle under Lenin's leadership. This was utter and complete arbitrariness. And now is all this to be forgiven and forgotten? Never!

EDIT: Rick Wiles on the impeachment proceedings.

Quote
...the way the Jews work. They are deceivers, they plot, they lie, they do whatever they have to do to accomplish their political agenda. This "impeach Trump" movement is a Jew coup, and the American people better wake up to it really fast, because this thing is moving now towards a vote in the House and then a trial in the Senate. We could have a trial by before Christmas. This country could be in civil war at Christmastime!

(That's right.)

Members of the U.S. military are going to have to take a stand, just like they did in the 1860s with the Civil War. They're gonna have to decide, are you fighting for the North or the South. Members of the government are going to have to take a side. Instead of North-South it's gonna be Left or Right. People are gonna be forced, possibly by this Christmas, to take a stand, because of this Jew coup in the United States.

We have weeks to stop it. That's why I'm speaking out. That's why I'm putting everything on the line, saying this is a coup led by Jews to overthrow the Constitutionally-elected President of the United States.

And it's beyond removing Donald Trump. It's removing you and me. That's what's at the heart of it.

(That's right.)

...

You have been taken over by a Jewish cabal, a Bolshevik revolution, and I'm gonna tell you, the church of Jesus Christ, you're next! Get it through your head! They're coming for you! There will be a purge! That's the next that happens when Jews take over a country! They kill millions of Christians!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 05, 2019, 08:31:40 am
You know if the right wing nutjobs were right and whatever group they hate was really in control of the world, they'd all have been put to death millennium ago.

Ironbite-but the fact that they aren't doesn't penetrate their little minds.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 05, 2019, 12:33:06 pm
You know if the right wing nutjobs were right and whatever group they hate was really in control of the world, they'd all have been put to death millennium ago.

Ironbite-but the fact that they aren't doesn't penetrate their little minds.

It's a common feature of the shadow people that fascists claim to fight against; they're simultaneously the most powerful group in the world, and a bunch of wimps who couldn't figure out how to screw in a lightbulb...

Whichever one makes the fascist's point at that moment in time, is what the "enemy" is...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 05, 2019, 03:35:04 pm
House is moving forward with Articles of Impeachment.

Ironbite-should be a fun show.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on December 05, 2019, 06:02:34 pm
You know if the right wing nutjobs were right and whatever group they hate was really in control of the world, they'd all have been put to death millennium ago.

Ironbite-but the fact that they aren't doesn't penetrate their little minds.

That's the big problem with these kinds of conspiracy theorists. Well, one of them, at least. If they're right, and the people running the show really are that powerful and ruthless, why haven't they died or disappeared?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 07, 2019, 09:39:15 pm
I can't wait for Trump to be a one termer, impeachment or not, and just let this thread and shitshow mercifully tail off and wrap up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 07, 2019, 10:27:51 pm
Trump's got a damn good shot at beating anyone who's likely to take the Democratic nomination.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 08, 2019, 02:46:55 am
Trump has cultivated a massive cult of personality that controls enough information that it's actually able to make people question whether Trump committed an impeachable offense when he clearly did. 2020 is not in the bag. Far from it. The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump and the only way Trump could most certainly lose is if the economy crashes, but the right wing media will turn it around on the Democrats.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 09, 2019, 03:54:31 pm
In any SANE country, it wouldn't be a problem, because Trump would have been tossed.  Quickly.

But it's the USA, who insist on doing things THEIR way, and a fucking political party that have been setting up for this since the 70's...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on December 09, 2019, 06:36:25 pm
In any SANE country, it wouldn't be a problem, because Trump would have been tossed.  Quickly.

But it's the USA, who insist on doing things THEIR way, and a fucking political party that have been setting up for this since the 70's...

I know "only in America" has become a cliche at this point, but Trump's not as unique as a lot of people think. Remember Berlusconi and his three stints as Prime Minister?

Though to be fair, Berlusconi didn't have a love-hate relationship with the North Korean government that's tilting back to hate (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/09/north-korea-insults-trump-heedless-erratic-old-man).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 10, 2019, 04:56:31 pm
Impeachment Articles are drawn up.  Only two but they're pretty big.

Ironbite-we'll probably see party lines in both House and Senate when it comes time to vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 10, 2019, 06:47:15 pm
I see more Democrats voting no than I see Republicans voting yes if any Republican's vote yes at all. He's pretty much impeached. It's too bad this will all die in the Senate and Trump can just use it as fuel to say he was innocent and that the Democrats are the do nothing party.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 10, 2019, 09:49:11 pm
Trump can just use it as fuel to say he was innocent and that the Democrats are the do nothing party.

The fact that this keeps fucking working shows more than anything that the US needs a really bad education in how their own damned government works...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 10, 2019, 10:15:50 pm
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump

Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 11, 2019, 02:55:15 am
And I suppose the rest are too establishment...

(mimes TYT cat hissing)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 11, 2019, 10:34:43 am
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump

Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.

Bernie Sanders is exciting to younger Millennial voters but scares the more centrist boomer democrats who still hold a lot of power in the party. Bernie doesn't unify the party like Obama did back in 2008. Older Democrats are more interested in Joe Biden. There's pretty much a clash of young and old voters in the party right now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 11, 2019, 12:10:10 pm
There is a campaign ad that likens Trump to Thanos. ...And it shows him in his moment of hubris just before he is defeated. BUT this ad has somehow been released by the Trump campaign. Because this way they could show Trump killing every Democrat in the world by snapping his fingers.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/trump-thanos-ad-marvel-video?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0kQblqg433-yXdsDboR85mkDOTs-4ppp-_p8NcMNxFMpvJ5_h8Ii93wCE#Echobox=1576082779

Granted, the article does note that a previous meme from Trump campaign was about the wall in GoT which also turns out to be insufficient and is destroyed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 11, 2019, 12:54:37 pm
Vote for our candidate - we'll kill everyone who ever opposed us.

Wow.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 11, 2019, 01:00:46 pm
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump

Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.

Bernie Sanders is exciting to younger Millennial voters but scares the more centrist boomer democrats who still hold a lot of power in the party. Bernie doesn't unify the party like Obama did back in 2008. Older Democrats are more interested in Joe Biden. There's pretty much a clash of young and old voters in the party right now.

The problem with Bernie is that the people he's surrounded himself with do more to turn off Dem voters than he's able to do bringing them in...

There is a campaign ad that likens Trump to Thanos. ...And it shows him in his moment of hubris just before he is defeated. BUT this ad has somehow been released by the Trump campaign. Because this way they could show Trump killing every Democrat in the world by snapping his fingers.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/11/trump-thanos-ad-marvel-video?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0kQblqg433-yXdsDboR85mkDOTs-4ppp-_p8NcMNxFMpvJ5_h8Ii93wCE#Echobox=1576082779

Granted, the article does note that a previous meme from Trump campaign was about the wall in GoT which also turns out to be insufficient and is destroyed.

So that's two Trump ads involving him murdering all of his perceived opponents.  Will Trump claim he's not involved with this one too?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 12, 2019, 09:50:28 pm
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump

Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.

Bernie Sanders is exciting to younger Millennial voters but scares the more centrist boomer democrats who still hold a lot of power in the party. Bernie doesn't unify the party like Obama did back in 2008. Older Democrats are more interested in Joe Biden. There's pretty much a clash of young and old voters in the party right now.

Yes but who's going to vote more in the primaries and who's the future of the party? Not the boomers, they're starting to die out and that's why they're afraid and trying to hang on to power and influence in ways that include ramping up the dirty tricks and smears..
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 12, 2019, 10:06:27 pm
Sanders wins if he gets unlikely voters to turn out--see Michigan, 2016. Otherwise, he loses.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 13, 2019, 08:33:01 pm
Sanders wins if he gets unlikely voters to turn out--see Michigan, 2016. Otherwise, he loses.

The past shows us that's very likely with him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 15, 2019, 07:43:35 pm
http://https://www.newsweek.com/doctors-arrested-protest-border-patrol-flu-vaccines-detained-migrants-1476691?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Meanwhile, President Thanos has decided that in addition to wanting to get rid of congressional Democrats, he'd also like to get rid of all those pesky migrants fleeing violence in Central America (much of it ultimately caused by the US-instigated "War on Drugs").

At least three detained migrants have died of influenza this year, and a group of licenced doctors in California went to the camps where they're being held to give, at their own expense, flu shots to those most at risk of dying from said preventable disease.

The doctors were instead detained, cited, and released without being allowed to administer the medicine.

Thanos's DHS put out this statement on Twitter: "Of course Border Patrol isn't going to let a random group of radical political activists show up and start injecting people with drugs." Never mind that these are licenced doctors with flu shots.

If Thanos doesn't go on trial for crimes against humanity after he leaves office (or, better, while he's still in office), the US will be clearly signaling, yet again, that it is a rogue state and its leaders are above the law and will not be held accountable for any actions, however heinous.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 15, 2019, 08:57:39 pm
The radical political position of giving people in need medicine.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 15, 2019, 09:39:09 pm
The radical political position of giving people in need medicine.

Not people, they're something less than farm animals as far as Thanos is concerned. After all, farm animals get immunizations.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on December 16, 2019, 01:08:57 pm
The democrats don't have anyone exciting enough to beat Trump

Bernie Sanders. He's the one that's mobilized a real grassroots progressive and young voter driven campaign.

This is who I am voting for this time. I agree with his policies and I agree that as far as healthcare is involved, it is a human right and we should have health care without going into debt. So Medicare for All (as well as other policies) is one of the biggest reasons I am voting for Sanders. The reason why it is a big issue for me is because of what I have seen my mother go through with her health and how both my mom and stepdad struggling to pay bills despite having decent insurance. So yeah, he is the most viable candidate for me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on December 16, 2019, 06:15:50 pm
https://www.newsweek.com/doctors-arrested-protest-border-patrol-flu-vaccines-detained-migrants-1476691?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf (https://www.newsweek.com/doctors-arrested-protest-border-patrol-flu-vaccines-detained-migrants-1476691?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)

Meanwhile, President Thanos has decided that in addition to wanting to get rid of congressional Democrats, he'd also like to get rid of all those pesky migrants fleeing violence in Central America (much of it ultimately caused by the US-instigated "War on Drugs").

At least three detained migrants have died of influenza this year, and a group of licenced doctors in California went to the camps where they're being held to give, at their own expense, flu shots to those most at risk of dying from said preventable disease.

The doctors were instead detained, cited, and released without being allowed to administer the medicine.

Thanos's DHS put out this statement on Twitter: "Of course Border Patrol isn't going to let a random group of radical political activists show up and start injecting people with drugs." Never mind that these are licenced doctors with flu shots.

If Thanos doesn't go on trial for crimes against humanity after he leaves office (or, better, while he's still in office), the US will be clearly signaling, yet again, that it is a rogue state and its leaders are above the law and will not be held accountable for any actions, however heinous.

These deaths are certainly tragic, and I understand the desire to point to somebody as the "root of the problem". But this is more complicated than "President Thanos' fault". Deaths like these would probably be happening no matter who's in the oval office because of a law called the Antideficiency Act. Essentially, it's a law prohibiting the federal government and its various arms from spending or using anything not appropriated to it by Congress - which means ICE cannot accept any goods or services without remuneration, just like how CBP couldn't accept any money raised by the border wall GoFundMe campaign. This is a law that has existed in one form or another since 1870. So this is not a problem that began with Trump.

Nor is this problem unique to America. Canada (https://theconversation.com/migrants-are-dying-in-detention-centres-when-will-canada-act-87237), Britain (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/shine-a-light/carlington-spencer-dead-in-uk-immigration-detention/) and Australia (https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/03/05/second-death-in-six-weeks-at-australian-detention-center.html) have also had problems with preventable deaths in immigrant detention.

Am I saying Trump shouldn't be criticized for this? Of course not. What I'm saying is we need to recognize that getting rid of him won't end these deaths, and that this is not and has never been a problem in only one country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 16, 2019, 07:33:17 pm
Or we could have no Mexican concentration camps at all and actually reform our immigration system. We could abolish for profit prison systems run by GEO group and CORE CIVIC who make money on keeping immigrants imprisoned indefinitely.  Where these mistreatment and deaths are occurring. I don't give a shit who started it, Trump has made it worse much worse. But the whole shitty system needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 18, 2019, 09:09:11 am
Did anyone here read or hear about the narcissistic fit that Trump wrote to Nancy Pelosi yesterday? https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/read-trump-impeachment-letter-to-house-democrats/index.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 18, 2019, 08:45:29 pm
And so Donald has been IMPEACHED!   8)

Did anyone here read or hear about the narcissistic fit that Trump wrote to Nancy Pelosi yesterday? https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/read-trump-impeachment-letter-to-house-democrats/index.html

Yeah, apparently he had an aide send a copy of it to every member of Congress, along with a Christmas Card.  He must think it's a masterpiece of literary skill...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 18, 2019, 09:06:43 pm
And the mother fucker is impeached. Too bad this will all die in the Senate and Trump will probably win reelection as impeached president.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 18, 2019, 10:10:28 pm
They went too fast. There was so much else to nail him on, but as Pelosi admitted, Trump's good for Democratic fundraising. None of it would have gone anywhere in the Senate, but they wanted this over and done with so they can say they tried.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 18, 2019, 11:21:46 pm
My biggest problem with this is once Trump feels vindicated about something he tends to double down. When he felt vindicated after the Russia scandal he went right ahead and colluded with a country to dig up dirt on a political rival. Now that he's vindicated for this he pretty much has a pass to collude with any country to get dirt on his political rivals. Because when a Republican does it it's not illegal I guess. I just fear for the next scandal that will drop. They might as well admit that they're going to bug the DNC, because it's investigating "corruption" in the Democratic party and a conspiracy theory said Obama did it to Trump so there.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on December 18, 2019, 11:50:41 pm
They went too fast. There was so much else to nail him on, but as Pelosi admitted, Trump's good for Democratic fundraising. None of it would have gone anywhere in the Senate, but they wanted this over and done with so they can say they tried.

They're openly talking about holding off on sending the Articles to the Senate immediately; Nancy has at least said she wants to see the Senate Rules before she sends the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  And they DID leave the Obstruction charge open to having more information added to it as more facts become available (I think they're hoping to get some of the court rulings before the actual trial starts).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 18, 2019, 11:54:02 pm
But are they going to add any more articles? War crimes, emoluments clause (foreign and domestic), obstruction of justice, concentration camps, financial crimes...

Don't send it to the Senate until GOP Senators are sweating their poll numbers.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 29, 2019, 06:54:59 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-lewis-congressman-civil-rights-activist-pancreatic-cancer-1.5410323

Rep. John Lewis, one of the heroes of the civil rights movement, has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

Rep. Lewis arguably is the person who kicked off the impeachment investigation after a speech on the House floor that led to the Speaker signing off on opening the investigation. (John Lewis is revered in the House Democratic caucus and for Pelosi to have gone against him would have been unwise on her part, and she knew it.)

Here's hoping for a full and speedy recovery.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on December 29, 2019, 09:42:05 pm
I've heard that they might be trying to catch Senate Republicans in a Catch-22. Either they convict and earn the wrath of his base, or they don't and risk alienating the increasingly pro-removal general public.

That's the idea, anyway. Not sure how true it is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 29, 2019, 10:08:52 pm
As the public becomes more in favor of removing the son of a bitch, let's see how long the Republicans can stand to keep around their golden heifer.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 30, 2019, 02:16:16 am
As the public becomes more in favor of removing the son of a bitch, let's see how long the Republicans can stand to keep around their golden heifer.

Two problems with that:

1. 18% of the population elects 52 Senators (never mind 34). Public opinion in favour of removing Trump doesn't matter much to the Senate if it's all concentrated in places like California and New York. (Same goes for judicial appointments, which is where Trump and McConnell are doing the most lasting damage.)

2. Trump's base votes--and in particular in Republican primaries. Nobody on that side wants to be Mark Sanford.

EDIT: https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census20/HouseAndElectors.phtml

The US Census Bureau has released an estimate of the 2020 Census... and it doesn't look good for the Democratic Party.

EDIT #2: https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings-q3-19/

Didn't check this until now... but looks like that vote for then-Judge Kavanaugh might've really, really hurt Susan Collins. (Still, she can at least claim to be doing better than Mitch McConnell.)

Also, in what should be no surprise to anybody, once again a social democrat is easily the most popular Senator.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 05, 2020, 02:29:24 am
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/

"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 05, 2020, 02:29:52 am
This timeline is the most tragicomic one I feel I could have feasably been born into.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 05, 2020, 04:06:21 am
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/

"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT

Of course they were, members of Congress aren't paying Thanos $200K a year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on January 05, 2020, 11:44:09 pm
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/

"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT

So... Trump is just blabbing classified material to random people? :o
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 06, 2020, 01:43:24 am
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/

"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT

So... Trump is just blabbing classified material to random people? :o

Well, he's already tweeted classified information, so this isn't really that surprising.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 06, 2020, 03:54:41 am
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ek1ekk/random_maralago_guests_were_told_more_about_plan/

"Random guests at Mar A Lago were told more about the plan to kill Soleimeni more than Congress was"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT

So... Trump is just blabbing classified material to random people? :o

Hey, it's not just any random person who can put up $200,000 a year to get into Mar-a-Lago.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on January 21, 2020, 05:52:03 pm
It must be hard writing at the Onion these days as there is every chance Kellyanne Conway might say this before the week is out:

https://politics.theonion.com/kellyanne-conway-suggests-martin-luther-king-jr-would-1841137797 (https://politics.theonion.com/kellyanne-conway-suggests-martin-luther-king-jr-would-1841137797)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 21, 2020, 06:48:34 pm
There was some gun nut who said MLK would have been pro second amendment because something about if slaves had guns their lives would have been better. And I'm like yeah the man was killed by a fire arm that white people have been using top hold black people down for centuries, of course he would have been pro gun.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 21, 2020, 09:29:58 pm
There was some gun nut who said MLK would have been pro second amendment because something about if slaves had guns their lives would have been better. And I'm like yeah the man was killed by a fire arm that white people have been using top hold black people down for centuries, of course he would have been pro gun.

You scoff, but he was.

http://www.cc.org/blog/mlk%E2%80%99s_arsenal_amp_racist_roots_gun_control_us (http://www.cc.org/blog/mlk%E2%80%99s_arsenal_amp_racist_roots_gun_control_us)

Quote
Martin Luther King, Jr., known for peaceful resistance, at the same time recognized the importance of gun ownership for self-defense. King understood the risks involved in being an outspoken civil rights leader, living in Jim Crow era Alabama, and took measures to protect himself, his family and others around him.

King was a gun owner.  In fact, he had a few guns–one visitor to the King family home described King’s supply of weapons as an “armory.”

Additionally, William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that he almost sat on a loaded gun while visiting King’s parsonage.

Yes, I know Dr. King later gave up his guns after embracing nonviolence, but that was purely a personal decision. In the words of his friend Andrew Young:

Quote
Martin said he would never himself resort to violence even in self-defense, but he would not demand that of others. That was a religious commitment into which one had to grow.

Now's a good time to remind you that the first gun control laws in America were intended to be used against black people, dating back to almost a century before the United States even existed in any form. As early as 1680, the Virginia General Assembly made it illegal for any black person to carry any kind of weapon.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 21, 2020, 10:27:57 pm
https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/
https://morningconsult.com/governor-rankings/

The turtle has moved out of first place.

Susan Collins is now more unpopular in Maine than Mitch McConnell is in Kentucky.

Apparently Morning Consult's links to the rankings now just auto-redirect to the most recent, though, which is aggravating if you want to do historical comparisons.

Most popular: Sanders, Barrasso, Leahy, Enzi, King, Hoeven, Klobuchar, Reed*, Coons*, Thune.

Most unpopular: Collins*, McConnell*, Ernst*, Murkowski, Menendez, Gardner*, McSally*, Fischer, Warren, Paul. (Note that Sen. Warren has a 50% approval rating, while Sens. Fischer and Paul are also net positive.)

* indicates incumbent; note that Sen. Enzi is retiring.

And that's a lot of pickup opportunities for the Democrats.

Just looking at net approval, the following Senators up in 2020 have a +5 net approval or less: Collins, Durbin, Ernst, Gardner, McConnell, McSally and Tillis. (Note that while I fully expect Sen. Jones to lose, he is +6 on net approval.)

It must be hard writing at the Onion these days as there is every chance Kellyanne Conway might say this before the week is out:

https://politics.theonion.com/kellyanne-conway-suggests-martin-luther-king-jr-would-1841137797 (https://politics.theonion.com/kellyanne-conway-suggests-martin-luther-king-jr-would-1841137797)

Well, last year Mike Pence invoked Dr. King to argue for building the wall (https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/426234-pence-quotes-mlk-in-pitch-for-trumps-immigration-proposal).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 22, 2020, 06:49:49 am
To be a little fair to Pence, there's evidence to suggest illegal immigration is very bad for African-Americans (https://www.nber.org/digest/may07/w12518.html).

And that's as fair as I'm gonna be. Trump's planned border wall, even if it does end up getting built, won't stop illegals from getting in. Not to mention that he's hardly a man known for acting in good faith.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 22, 2020, 10:56:15 pm
A quick summary of the trial of Donald Trump so far:

Dems - Laying out the face and the timeline of Donald's blackmail scheme, Rudy's mission to get rid of the Ambassador, and all the stuff we know, while noting the holes in what we know caused by Donald's obstruction.

Trump Team - LIE, LIE, LIE and LIE some more!

Senate Repubs - They walked out in the middle of the presentation to give interviews on Fox News, and on day 1 they voted against calling witnesses or trying to get documents until later.  Moscow Mitch then told the others his intention is that witnesses & documents NEVER appear, and if some Repubs chose to buck this and vote for witnesses, Moscow Mitch is going to limit the list of witnesses to whatever Trump wants.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 22, 2020, 11:11:47 pm
Oh, of course. McConnell's been saying for months that he'd rig the trial.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 23, 2020, 06:36:21 am
Party before country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 23, 2020, 01:12:02 pm
According to Lindsay Graham, Trump's innocent because he THINKS he didn't commit a crime...

Quote
According to Graham, if Trump “thought he was doing something wrong, he would probably shut up about it.”

“The president believes that the Ukraine interfered in out election,” Graham continued. “I can tell you without any doubt it was the Russians who hacked into the DNC. It was not the Ukrainians. I cannot say that there was nobody in the Ukraine that had worked with [Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort] that did a number on him. I don’t know.”

“All I can tell you is from the president’s point of view, he did nothing wrong in his mind,” the South Carolina Republican insisted.
 - https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/lindsey-graham-screeches-at-reporters-over-impeachment-trump-did-nothing-wrong-in-his-mind/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/lindsey-graham-screeches-at-reporters-over-impeachment-trump-did-nothing-wrong-in-his-mind/)

I'm sure every criminal ever convicted of a crime thinks they didn't do anything wrong, either.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 23, 2020, 01:22:13 pm
Oh I'm sorry officer. I didn't know the speed limit on this road was 30 mph and not 100 like I was going.

Oh you didn't know? Well ok then you're free to go. Said no police officer ever.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 23, 2020, 03:03:49 pm
Oh I'm sorry officer. I didn't know the speed limit on this road was 30 mph and not 100 like I was going.

Oh you didn't know? Well ok then you're free to go. Said no police officer ever.

No, Lindsey's argument is actually even WORSE...

Quote
Oh, I'm sorry officer.  I'm allowed to go 100 mph because I don't think speed limit violations are a crime.

Oh, okay, you're free to go!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 23, 2020, 05:25:39 pm
It's more like they're treating Trump like a president in training. Allowing him to "make mistakes" because derp that's how you learn. Where as Trump has been doing this illegal mafia shit his whole life.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 23, 2020, 08:03:11 pm
Whatever was on the RNC server is really bad isn't it?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 24, 2020, 06:19:44 am
What's this about the RNC server?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 24, 2020, 08:28:38 am
So back in 2016, the Democrats server was hacked by Russia.  We know this as a fact.  However, what seems to be very likely is Russia also managed to harvest the Republicans server that houses all their dirty little tricks, secrets, and rent boy payments.  The DNC is out in the wild so to speak thanks to Wikileaks.  The Republican one hasn't been published yet.

Ironbite-so what's on it that's so bad that Moscow Mitch is willing to go along with this rather then dump Trump and take a chance on the black hole of charisma that is Pence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 24, 2020, 09:12:44 am
Oh right. I remember Republicans back in the day arguing that seeing Hillary's emails and the DNC servers was fair because it lets voters get more informed in the choices they can make. I said back in the day that if we got to see what was on the DNC servers why can't we see what was on the RNC servers. What's in Trump's emails? You know so that voters can be more informed. They usually scoffed at that idea.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 24, 2020, 10:03:50 am
There doesn't have to be anything hugely damning on the RNC servers. Trump just needs to have a cult of followers who will kick out in a primary any GOP member of Congress who doesn't back him completely, which he does.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 24, 2020, 11:39:31 am
Yeah but I'm not certain there's anything Trump could do to detract his followers since he's developed a cult of personality who take his word as gospel at this point.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 25, 2020, 01:01:37 am
Yeah but I'm not certain there's anything Trump could do to detract his followers since he's developed a cult of personality who take his word as gospel at this point.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 30, 2020, 04:10:38 pm
You gotta love the Trump defense team. Actually you gotta love the whole Trump defense since the beginning. It's been proven wrong at every step of the way and they just keep making up bullshit to defend it.

The phone call was perfect read the transcript. Ok, so the transcript is pretty damning but there was no quid pro quo. Ok, there was quid pro quo but president Zelensky didn't feel any pressure. Ok he was kind of pressured but Trump released the funds to Ukraine so it's all good. Ok, he released them after he realized he was in trouble, but you have no eye witnesses to phone call so all of this is just hearsay, the whistle blower is a traitor to the American people and should be hung for treason. Ok, multiple witnesses have corroborated the whistle blower's statements and there was pressure on Ukraine to release information about a political rival. Ok, what Trump did was bad but it's not illegal I mean look at all of the stuff he's "accomplished" as president you can't possibly impeach him.
And that's the shitty thing, he won't be impeached and this will only embolden him to do more shit like this going forward since his party will defend any laws he breaks.
Seriously they're arguing right now that his "achievements" alone as president is enough to not remove him from office. That's like saying John Wayne Gacy was an upstanding citizen and was highly involved in his community and was a successful entrepreneur how could you possibly sentence him to life in prison for murdering all of those boys?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 30, 2020, 05:38:49 pm
Most of the Trump team arguments have been absolutely hilarous, if only for how batshitty they actually are.  But Dershowitz's theory about Presidential power should absolutely chill the blood of any person with a brain who hears it, as he's basically arguing that if he thinks it's in "the public interest", the President should be allowed to do ANYTHING he wants...

Under that logic, what's to stop Trump from having the entire Dem party arrested?  Or simply cancelling the elections and declaring himself the winner?  He thinks it's good for the entire country, right?

Dersh is blatanly arguing for FASCISM.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 30, 2020, 05:46:01 pm
And that's what scares me because it could very much happen if Republicans would just let him get away with what ever he wants.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 30, 2020, 05:53:58 pm
Dershowitz is the same man who argued in favor of Jeffrey Epstein.

It shows.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on January 30, 2020, 07:02:40 pm
Yes Dershowitz's argument is that 'every politician thinks their election is in the public interest', therefore as long as it doesn't amount to a statutory crime then anything they do is legal. The problem with this is that under the current DOJ guidelines nothing the president does is a crime as all that can happen is that he can be impeached.

The funny thing is I suspect what Trump did actually is a statutory crime and has got to be pretty close to treason.

What is clear is that Trump will be acquitted by the Republican Senate and they will do it without hearing any witnesses. While this should outrage the majority of Americans I suspect it will have the opposite effect. Trump's base will be energised and everyone else will feel despondent and not bother voting. Bolton's book will be published clearly outlining Trump's crime and everyone will forget about it.

Mendacious far right/ authoritarian politics appears to be taking over the world from the UK, US, Australia, Brazil etc. Putin and Xi Xinping have both moved to entrench their own power both effectively being made dictators for life. I am just grateful that none of Trump's kids appear to have his charisma.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 30, 2020, 09:42:17 pm
Well Trump has zero charisma. I would say his kids have more charisma than he does. It's that he talks like a fourth grader that makes voters think he's one of them and that he gets it.

But yes the world has swung to the right. I think due to a mass increase of refugees from scary brown countries and climate migrants. We're living in the Gilded age 2.0. Massive wealth inequality, massive immigration, Robber Barons controlling everything. I think the only thing that is going to take us out is a massive global depression the likes of which we haven't seen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 31, 2020, 12:42:15 am
Dershowitz is the same man who argued in favor of Jeffrey Epstein.

It shows.

But remember, he kept his underwear on.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 04, 2020, 10:26:30 pm
(https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/trump-tweet.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&crop=0px%2C0px%2C638px%2C337px&resize=720%2C379)

I'm surprised he deleted this rather than penning an executive order forcing the Chiefs to move to Kansas City, Kansas.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 04, 2020, 11:48:28 pm
Considering how quickly Trump and his lawyers are making the President's office more like the office of the Roman Emperor, I'm surprised he didn't try and order them to train Barron as a footballer or put his favorite betting horse on the team.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 05, 2020, 07:00:47 am

I'm surprised he deleted this rather than penning an executive order forcing the Chiefs to move to Kansas City, Kansas.

Im surprised he didn't just double down and have his press secretary go on fox news and say that the Kansas city chiefs always played in Kansas and then have fox news repeat it ad nauseam until people questioned their own reality.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 05, 2020, 09:59:01 am

I'm surprised he deleted this rather than penning an executive order forcing the Chiefs to move to Kansas City, Kansas.

Im surprised he didn't just double down and have his press secretary go on fox news and say that the Kansas city chiefs always played in Kansas and then have fox news repeat it ad nauseam until people questioned their own reality.

A staffer probably convinced him that the one thing about which Americans will not accept alternative facts is the NFL.

EDIT: Unless, of course, you're a black guy who asked members of the military what the most respectful way would be to protest police brutality. Then you hate the troops and are disrespecting the national anthem and the flag and should be blackballed from the league.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 05, 2020, 05:56:40 pm
So all they'd have to do is...move down the road?

Ironbite-cause Kansas City is both in Kansas and Missiouri.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on February 05, 2020, 09:36:19 pm

I'm surprised he deleted this rather than penning an executive order forcing the Chiefs to move to Kansas City, Kansas.

Im surprised he didn't just double down and have his press secretary go on fox news and say that the Kansas city chiefs always played in Kansas and then have fox news repeat it ad nauseam until people questioned their own reality.

A staffer probably convinced him that the one thing about which Americans will not accept alternative facts is the NFL.

EDIT: Unless, of course, you're a black guy who asked members of the military what the most respectful way would be to protest police brutality. Then you hate the troops and are disrespecting the national anthem and the flag and should be blackballed from the league.

Speaking of Colin Kapernick, anyone here see the video of Trump dancing to the national anthem at his Superbowl party, while everyone around him stare at him like he's lost it?  Apparently acting like a buffoon while the anthem plays is respectful, but kneeling is not.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 05, 2020, 11:20:02 pm
Political engagement in the era of Trump:

Quote
Yeah, go fuck your mother, you son of a bitch cause I'm gonna fucking blow your brains out you fucking piece of shit mother, fucker, you're a fucking piece of shit. You fucking piece of shit mother fucker. Yeah watch. I'm gonna fuck your asshole you piece of shit son of a bitch. Yeah come get me. I guarantee I'll fuck your brains out.

A voicemail message left by a caller from Arizona for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who said in questioning that he had been watching FOX News and was probably upset about something FOX said the Democrats had done.

Oh, and this guy is a registered sex offender, legally barred from owning firearms, and had a cache of firearms at his residence.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6551031-Jan-Peter-Meister-Response-by-Prosecutors.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 06, 2020, 03:32:40 am
Maybe he just really wants to fuck Adam Schiff?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 06, 2020, 11:34:11 pm
https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/02/05/deported-danger/united-states-deportation-policies-expose-salvadorans-death-and

Salvadorans who came to the US seeking asylum and claimed in their hearings that they would be killed on their return to El Salvador... were killed on their return to El Salvador.

Going back to at least 2013.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 07, 2020, 06:57:48 am
But hey, they're the bad guys right?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 07, 2020, 12:24:18 pm
Yeah I mean they come from a shit hole country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on February 07, 2020, 10:10:22 pm
And Trump spent today firing anybody who appeared at his impeachment... And anyone related to anyone who appeared at his impeachment, since he fired both of the Vindman brothers becasue Lt. Col. Alexander dared to testify against him.  Then he followed that up by firing Sondland.

Hey, Repubs, when does this get to "Abuse of Power" territory?  And are you all still sure he learned his lesson?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 08, 2020, 12:19:57 am
No, but they learned their lesson when Mark Sanford got beaten in a primary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 08, 2020, 08:13:03 am
They fully admitted that he abused his power. They just A don't care,  or B want to let voters decide. Which is code words for hopefully this will all be a distant memory by the time people enter the voting booths.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 08, 2020, 03:26:22 pm
Not if he keeps doing shit like this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 08, 2020, 03:37:52 pm
Future Presidents...

President Caligula: Now, I want my horse to be a senator.

Mitch McConnell: But sir, a horse cannot be a senator.

President Caligula: If a fucking turtle like you can be a senator, a horse can. Get some funds together for Senator Incitatus. I'll pen an executive order. And if you object, I'll pen another one ordering your death.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 08, 2020, 03:58:26 pm
Or C want revenge for Democrats not removing Clinton over perjury and obstruction.

But most likely B, where "let the voters decide" means "please please please Trump's rabid insane base don't do to me what you did to Mark Sanford and would have done to Justin Amash".


EDIT:

Quote
Pelosi just ripped up his speach. Road Side bomb on her way home and any other Dumbocrats.

--The assistant chief of police in Geraldine, Alabama

https://www.al.com/news/2020/02/alabama-cop-posts-online-about-roadside-bomb-for-nancy-pelosi-other-dumbocrats.html?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

In his apology, he said, "It just rips my heart out that our great country is so divided."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 09, 2020, 08:21:11 pm
"Our great country is so divided" actual means why can't they understand how great and magnificent our dear leader is.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on February 15, 2020, 01:15:32 am
The Republicans said that there was no need to kick Trump out because he has "learned his lesson" and seeing as his next action was to go after the whistleblowers it appears that he did indeed learn that he is untouchable and that his supporters still believe him to be innocent after all these crimes so might as well keep on doing more of the same.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on February 15, 2020, 08:43:18 am
I really hope Susan Collins eats those fucking words when she's hopefully voted out of office this November.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 12, 2020, 07:00:04 pm
Wow the world feels apocalyptic right now. I say this as I'm working from home today instead of the office.
The number of cases of Covid 19 are increasing and the economy is tanking. Who would've thought it would be a virus that destroyed and 11 year bull market economy. And Trump is just botching this up did anyone hear what he said in his speech last night? Here's some high lights.

"I see they've canceled their big soccer games, their championship games and a lot of other games. They've canceled a lot over in Europe and all over the world. So this is a big world problem."

Yes this is a "Big World Problem." He's got the best words remember that.

"We took the original boldest step of all when we closed very early with China. That helped us save thousands of lives. And we went very early with Europe."

The fucking virus is here Trump. The "lives" you've saved are unforeseen.

"But it'll be -- it'll go very quickly."

Uh huh.

"We'll be discussing some other moves that we're going to be making. And I think it's going to work out very well for everybody."

This was read of a teleprompter.

"And they're -- they're doing a very good job. They don't have very much infection at this point, and hopefully they'll keep it that way."

Referring to the UK who has 373 known cases at this moment. Yeah Trump didn't forbid travel to and from the UK.

"In the case of European Union, I've consulted with many people. And the same people, then they say, oh, he closed too fast, why did he close -- most of them said, why did he close with China? That turned out to be a great move."

THE VIRUS IS HERE AND IT IS SPREADING AROUND. IT DOESN"T MATTER WHEN YOU CLOSED TRAVEL WITH THOSE COUNTRIES!

"You know, you see what's going on. And so I just wanted that to stop as it pertains to the United States. And that's what we've done. We've stopped it."

No no you haven't.

"We have a big one in Tampa, all sold out. We had over 100,000 requests for tickets. But I think we'll probably not do it because people would say it's better to not do."

Referring to his campaign rallies. In wish I hope not giving him a platform to say stupid bullshit will hurt his election chances.

"And what is the number as of this morning? Is it 32? You could tell me. Is it 32 deaths, Steve, around that?"

38. The president doesn't know this number.

"I mean, think of it, the United States, because of what I did and what the administration did with China, we have 32 deaths at this point."

Congratulations?

"Other countries, that are smaller countries, have many, many deaths. Thirty-two is a lot. Thirty-two is too many. But when you look at the kind of numbers that you're seeing coming out of other countries, it's pretty amazing, when you think of it."

This sentence that sounds like it was said by a fifth grader was said by the president of the United States.
This reminds of that scene from breaking bad, when after the in air collision of two jet airliners rocks the city of Albuquerque to it's core and Walter White has to stand up in front of the school auditorium and try to console any grieving members of the school body and instead goes off about how this disaster wasn't so bad because there were so many other disasters that killed so many more people.

"We have very strong emergency powers under the Stafford Act. And we are -- we haven't -- I mean, I have it memorized, practically, as to the powers in that act."

He memorized all 192 pages of the Stafford act. I'm pretty sure he doesn't read.

"I have the right to do a lot of things that people don't even know about."

This line is terrifying.

"Look, we're in -- we're in great shape; compared to other places, we are in really good shape. And we want to keep it that way. That's why I did the ban with respect to Europe."

It's too late Trump.

"You have to remember, the stock market, as an example, is still much higher than when I got here."

In which he brings up the only thing he cares about in a speech to console a panicking population. And it's not by the way.

"They have a million tests out now. They're going to have, over the next few days, they're going to have 4 million tests out. And frankly, the testing has been going very smooth."

It's not and it hasn't.

"Well, I think the Democrats won't be having rallies, but nobody showed up to their rallies anyway, so what difference does it make?"

Zing! You feeling calmed down about this Coronavirus pandemic yet?

"My rallies are very big. They're very big rallies, and we'll be making a decision at the appropriate time."

I got the biggest Penis believe me.

"And I don't want people dying. That's what I'm all about."

This just makes me feel just so much better.

I really really hope we can get this fucker out of office this November. If this doesn't show just how incompetent and unsympathetic their leader is then I have no idea what is so appealing about him to hsi base.

 
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 12, 2020, 08:38:27 pm
Wheres the giant asteroid passing by the Earth next month? Is it too late to redirect it to be a direct hit? #GiantAsteroid2020
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 13, 2020, 08:45:40 am
Way we're going?  Probably will hit us.

Ironbite-and the Orange Piss Pot will insist that nothing's wrong until it's too late.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 13, 2020, 11:46:38 am
Way we're going?  Probably will hit us.

Ironbite-and the Orange Piss Pot will insist that nothing's wrong until it's too late.

He'll blame it on Obama.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 13, 2020, 03:26:16 pm
At this point, you could dub the teachers from the Peanuts cartoon over Donald's press conferences and learn just as much from it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFPXQkZE6hA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFPXQkZE6hA)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 13, 2020, 05:01:42 pm
Donald Trump lies dying of the Coronavirus. His last words? "I wouldn't have gotten sick if I wasn't working on dealing with Obama and Crooked Hillary--blaargh!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 13, 2020, 06:20:24 pm
Donald Trump lies dying of the Coronavirus. His last words? "I wouldn't have gotten sick if I wasn't working on dealing with Obama and Crooked Hillary--blaargh!"

Don't forget Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, Mini Mike and Pocahontas.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 13, 2020, 07:39:36 pm
The stock market bumped back up today, because Trump finally declared a national emergency.  Odds of it bottoming out again when Wall Street realizes that just because he declared a national emergency, it doesn't mean that Trump has figured out how serious this is or how to get a handle on it?

Or they're hoping that WalMart will come through for the US?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 13, 2020, 08:50:15 pm
The national emergency is that a literal science-denier is in charge of handling the national emergency.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 13, 2020, 10:36:30 pm
#GiantAsteroid2020
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 14, 2020, 01:14:54 am
#GiantAsteroid2020

#GiantAsteroidOrElse
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 14, 2020, 09:11:55 am
Who should Giant asteroids running mate be? I'm guessing depending on where it lands it would be.
#GiantAsteroid2020
   #30FootTsunami2020

Or

#GiantAsteroid2020
#Dustcloudthatblotsoutthesunandcausescenturiesofnuclearwinter2020

Or

#GiantAsteroid2020
  #TedCruz2020
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 15, 2020, 02:38:38 pm
If Trump had been smarter about his trade war with China and actually made sure the US had the domestic capacity to start producing most of the goods that are otherwise mostly made there, China wouldn't be able to do this:

https://www.techpowerup.com/264730/new-u-s-regulation-prevents-huawei-buying-from-tsmc-could-backfire-chinese-press

Hold medical supplies in exchange for letting Huawei onto domestic cell networks.

Huawei, which most intelligence agencies say is just a front for Chinese spying.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 21, 2020, 09:01:30 pm
Did Trump actually say that he wished China informed him sooner on the Covid 19? You mean like how this was first reported on back in November and became pretty serious in December, and how you had months to act on this, but insisted it wasn't bad, and it was contained and taking care of and that it was another "hoax" from the Democratic party so you did nothing about it until like a week ago. And now say you knew it was a pandemic from the beginning?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/03/21/politics/trump-china-told-us-coronavirus/index.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 21, 2020, 10:07:13 pm
Trump's base doesn't care about hypocrisy or intellectual consistency, though. All they care about is that he doesn't smack down people who call it the "Kung Flu".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 22, 2020, 04:32:08 pm
The one problem with Trump's base is that they're going to die from this.  Because they're all idiots.

Ironbite-and they'll still find a way to blame Obama.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on March 23, 2020, 12:06:31 am
If you look at footage of a Trump Rally, you see pictures of many old faces, many fat faces, and being old, being obese, that puts you at distinct risk of Coronavirus. The virus doesn't care if you think its a hoax or not, it will kill you stone cold dead.

And you know what? I'm not even gonna try and talk to anyone at risk who are parroting conspiracy theories or talking about what their pastor said.

They wanna say "come at me bro" at fate? I'll stand by and let them get bitchslapped.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 23, 2020, 01:03:49 am
For me the old saw about leading horses to water comes to mind.

The problem is that in this case, if you don't have everyone following the rules about large gatherings and such, everyone is at risk.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on March 23, 2020, 01:11:42 am
Speaking of our government being awful
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/03/20/senators-accused-of-insider-trading-dumping-stocks-after-coronavirus-briefings/#46228c054a45

Now, you may recall the name Jim Inhofe (R- Oklahoma). Probably because he's a jackass who's been quoted on the mainpage a couple of different times.
https://fstdt.com/DBS
https://fstdt.com/W6G4

and also apparently did a plane stunt to announce his reelection campaign.
https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/sen-inhofe-flies-plane-upside-down-announcing-he-is-still/article_f0f2c632-5f0f-11ea-8c2f-ff9539759600.html

Other names are Richard Burr (R- North Carolina), Kelly Loefler (R- Georgia) who is married to the literal chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Diane Feinstein (D- California). I know Burr & Inhofe are Trump bootlickers but I've not heard of Loefler or Johnson before.

Regardless, I hope all of them are removed from office as soon as possible whether through the ballot box or an investigation into their shady dealings. Very reminiscent to me of former VP Richard "Emperor Palpatine" Cheney and his little Haliburton buddies in terms of using human suffering as a chance for self-enrichment.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 23, 2020, 01:35:29 am
Ron Johnson is the rich-as-fuck do-nothing Senator from Wisconsin who unseated Russ Feingold in the 2010 Tea Party wave and then defeated Feingold again in 2016 when Trump flipped the Rult Belt.

Kelly Loefler is the appointed Senator from Georgia replacing Johnny Isakson, who resigned due to health concerns, and she's married to the head of the NYSE.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on March 23, 2020, 01:43:08 am
As someone from Wisconsin: I would shed not a single fucking tear if Ron Johnson dropped dead tomorrow.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 23, 2020, 09:22:42 am
Speaking of our government being awful
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/03/20/senators-accused-of-insider-trading-dumping-stocks-after-coronavirus-briefings/#46228c054a45

Now, you may recall the name Jim Inhofe (R- Oklahoma). Probably because he's a jackass who's been quoted on the mainpage a couple of different times.
https://fstdt.com/DBS
https://fstdt.com/W6G4

and also apparently did a plane stunt to announce his reelection campaign.
https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/sen-inhofe-flies-plane-upside-down-announcing-he-is-still/article_f0f2c632-5f0f-11ea-8c2f-ff9539759600.html

Other names are Richard Burr (R- North Carolina), Kelly Loefler (R- Georgia) who is married to the literal chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Diane Feinstein (D- California). I know Burr & Inhofe are Trump bootlickers but I've not heard of Loefler or Johnson before.

Regardless, I hope all of them are removed from office as soon as possible whether through the ballot box or an investigation into their shady dealings. Very reminiscent to me of former VP Richard "Emperor Palpatine" Cheney and his little Haliburton buddies in terms of using human suffering as a chance for self-enrichment.

The MSM keeps tossing Feinstein in there to try and BothSides this whole thing, but if you actually look at her "insider transactions", they involve selling stock... In a health care company who's stock has risen since.  Not exactly the kind of transaction you'd expect if she was insider trading.

OTOH, Burr and Loefler were selling stock in hotels, resorts and transportation companies while buying stock in companies specializing in remote working and providing health care supplies...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 23, 2020, 10:15:32 am
I admit I don't know much about insider trading laws, but if Sen. Feinstein sold said shares with the expectation that their price would drop based on what she found out, wouldn't that still be insider trading? All it would say is that Sens. Burr and Loefler are better at stock trading than Sen. Feinstein.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 23, 2020, 10:43:08 am
Diane Feinstein is too fucking old for her office and needs to resign and retire. We shouldn't be having Silent Generation people running our government.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 23, 2020, 11:34:40 am
I admit I don't know much about insider trading laws, but if Sen. Feinstein sold said shares with the expectation that their price would drop based on what she found out, wouldn't that still be insider trading? All it would say is that Sens. Burr and Loefler are better at stock trading than Sen. Feinstein.

The point is, she says her stocks are in a blind trust, and the fact that the stock sales the MSM is point to as "proof" are the opposite of the kinds of moves you'd expect if she was using her insider knowledge to play the stock market kind of hints that's the case.  Actually, Gohmert and Johnson's stock moves are similar; the only ones that SCREAM insider trading are Burr and Loefler, because the stock moves they made line up perfectly with the expected fallout of the Coronavirus hitting the market.  And then there's Burr being caught telling rich Republican donors that the fallout from COVID-19 was going to be as bad as the Spanish Flu, while telling the public it was a hoax...

Oh, and as pointed out, Loefler's husband is the head of the NYSE.  He also made a bunch of questionable transactions around that time... Probably on a tip-off from his wife.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 23, 2020, 04:45:00 pm
It also wasn't her stocks to sell.  It was her husband who sold them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 23, 2020, 09:42:08 pm
It also wasn't her stocks to sell.  It was her husband who sold them.

Which could still be on a tip (even if a bad tip) from Sen. Feinstein.

Whatever else happens, she should be included in the investigation, at least, because something looks shady even if nothing actually is in her case.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 24, 2020, 08:54:38 am
Trump is scared. Now he's saying that he wants to open up all businesses throughout the country and get people working again because people are really seeing how small his dick is without a booming economy. I hope this really shows his true colors to the voters that he cares only about himself instead of the health of the population.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on March 24, 2020, 10:31:44 am
Trump said that a Malaria medicine is a cure for Covid-19. Elderly couple saw that some aquarium cleaning powder that they had in the house had a similar name and now one of them is dead from poisoning.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/man-dies-ingesting-chloroquine-prevent-coronavirus-banner-health/story?id=69759570

And yes, though they took the wrong chemicals, they specifically did it because they were trying to follow instructions from the president of USA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on March 24, 2020, 11:53:34 am
I feel so bad for Fauci. I feel like he really wants to do the right thing and do this job right, but in order to keep his job he has to pretend he agrees with Trump who is just fucking everything up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on March 24, 2020, 03:21:57 pm
It also wasn't her stocks to sell.  It was her husband who sold them.

Which could still be on a tip (even if a bad tip) from Sen. Feinstein.

Whatever else happens, she should be included in the investigation, at least, because something looks shady even if nothing actually is in her case.


The stock that was sold was for something that wasn't even connected to the Coronavirus.

Ironbite-DO FUCKING BETTER AT THIS!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 24, 2020, 04:01:56 pm
It also wasn't her stocks to sell.  It was her husband who sold them.

Which could still be on a tip (even if a bad tip) from Sen. Feinstein.

Whatever else happens, she should be included in the investigation, at least, because something looks shady even if nothing actually is in her case.


The stock that was sold was for something that wasn't even connected to the Coronavirus.

Ironbite-DO FUCKING BETTER AT THIS!

Sure, then the investigation will exonerate her and she won't have the questions hanging over her head, except from the people who will never let go of it no matter what.

What should happen (at a minimum) is that Congress should pass AOC's bill to ban stock trading entirely by members of Congress. (Better yet, ban stock ownership, but that's got absolutely no chance.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on March 25, 2020, 04:07:08 pm
And today in gross stupidity from the Trump administration:

https://twitter.com/julianborger/status/1242849535703101444

Quote
According to Der Spiegel, the G7 foreign ministers haven't been able to agree on a joint statement because of Pompeo's insistence it refer to #coronavirus as the "Wuhan virus".  Pompeo did not deny that this morning - said G7 don't agree on everything
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on March 25, 2020, 04:42:59 pm
And today in gross stupidity from the Trump administration:

https://twitter.com/julianborger/status/1242849535703101444

Quote
According to Der Spiegel, the G7 foreign ministers haven't been able to agree on a joint statement because of Pompeo's insistence it refer to #coronavirus as the "Wuhan virus".  Pompeo did not deny that this morning - said G7 don't agree on everything

I'm tempted to say that they should agree, as long as the statement can contain a reference to the 1918-1920 Kansan flu pandemic.

(For those unaware: a) the 1918-1920 pandemic probably started in Kansas but was covered up due to wartime censorship laws that forbid the reporting of news that would lower morale, and was associated with Spain because that country was neutral and did not censor the news, especially as regarded the illness of Alfonso XIII; b) Pompeo used to represent Kansas's 4th Congressional District.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on March 28, 2020, 11:15:19 am
Trump said that a Malaria medicine is a cure for Covid-19. Elderly couple saw that some aquarium cleaning powder that they had in the house had a similar name and now one of them is dead from poisoning.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/man-dies-ingesting-chloroquine-prevent-coronavirus-banner-health/story?id=69759570

And yes, though they took the wrong chemicals, they specifically did it because they were trying to follow instructions from the president of USA.

Here's the fun part: even though we don't yet know if chloroquine even works (clinical trials are ongoing), there are already shortages because of Trump's tweet. Chloroquine is also an immunosuppresant used to treat lupus. Sucks to be you if you were already using that drug, I guess.

Plus, of course, while malaria is not a serious problem in the US, it still kills hundreds of thousands of people every year in the developing world.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 01, 2020, 09:16:36 pm
Quote
I will tell you this: if you look at before and after, the things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again. They had things in there about, y'know, election days and what you do and all sorts of clawbacks, and they had things that were just totally crazy.

Donald says the quiet part out loud.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 01, 2020, 09:26:01 pm
Yes we must stop voter fraud aka voting for a Democrat.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 13, 2020, 10:04:12 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/coronavirus-trump-fauci-1.5530731

Quote
"When somebody is president of the United States, the authority is total," Trump said at Monday's White House coronavirus briefing. "The governors know that."

Quote
Taking to Twitter, Trump wrote that some are "saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect ... it is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons."

And I have seen the argument made in all seriousness that Trump is the President who in recent history has been the most respectful of the Constitution.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 14, 2020, 08:11:11 am
Because Trump will never touch the only amendment that matters. The other ones they don't care about.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 14, 2020, 09:34:56 am
So how soon does Trump march into a Coronoavirus briefing in full military uniform, complete with medals and citations he never earned, and declare himself God Emperor of All Mankind?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 14, 2020, 10:35:57 am
Probably when he's elected to his second term.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on April 14, 2020, 01:54:19 pm
Probably when he's elected to his second term.

If. If.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on April 14, 2020, 04:19:05 pm
EDIT: Sorry, wrong thread.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 23, 2020, 09:33:03 pm
Did Trump just ask a doctor on live television if they could look into injecting UV lights or disinfectant/bleach into the body to fight Covid?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 23, 2020, 09:55:02 pm
Did Trump just ask a doctor on live television if they could look into injecting UV lights or disinfectant/bleach into the body to fight Covid?

Wouldn't surprise me.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 23, 2020, 10:21:03 pm
He's increasingly coming off as like King Charles II of Spain.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on April 24, 2020, 01:34:11 am
Did Trump just ask a doctor on live television if they could look into injecting UV lights or disinfectant/bleach into the body to fight Covid?

He did.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 24, 2020, 04:17:20 pm
Today he played if off like he was asking a sarcastic question.\

Ironbite-we're fucked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 24, 2020, 08:29:01 pm
What's the old saying about getting the government you deserve?

Ours tried to seize power by getting the opposition to give them carte blanche to tax, borrow and spend until the end of next year when they a) have only a minority of seats in the House of Commons and b) their candidates polled fewer votes than the main opposition party's candidates.

Thankfully this is probably the only thing that could get the opposition parties to force an election in the middle of a pandemic, and probably further the only thing that wouldn't lead to voters punishing them for it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 25, 2020, 01:43:30 am
So at today's press briefing a reporter from CNN was assigned to sit in the front row to which White House staff tried to tell Kaitlin Collins to move to the back row and switch with a pool reporter. She and the pool reporter refused and the secret service refused to get involved when they asked them. Because you know that would be a total breach on freedom of the press, and the white White House doesnt determine who sits where. The press does, weeks in advance.
So like a baby not getting ice cream after not finishing his dinner. Trump stormed out of the meeting after twenty two minutes refusing to answer questions.

Oh, and the whole drinking bleach thing. Trump said he was being sarcastic and was doing a whole wink wink nudge nudge to Rueters reporter Jeff Mason whom reminded Trump that he wasn't at yesterday's press briefing and that Trump was talking to Dr. Birx. Trump then proceeded to go back and forth on whether he was being sarcastic or how DHS official William Bryan was going to look into UV lights and disinfectant in the lungs much to the confusion of everybody present.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 25, 2020, 03:21:21 pm
Trump's brain is starting to get into mush territory.

Ironbite-whatever drug cocktail he's on is not enough anymore.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 25, 2020, 07:24:15 pm
Maybe he's caught COVID and it's rotting his brain away.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 25, 2020, 07:49:00 pm
I think Trump is stir crazy. He's confined to the white house where he watches 24 hour news networks for most of the day. He probably doesn't talk to many people since he probably doesn't have many friends since people are probably a means to an end for him. Even his wife or son who probably do their own thing. He can't go golfing or go to a rally where he can get his narcissistic fix so he's turned these press briefings into his rallies. Except he's not talking to his base he's talking to everyone who are wise enough to see what he is saying is bullshit, and a press who can call him out on his bullshit much to his chagrin.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 25, 2020, 08:48:06 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-questions-holding-daily-press-briefings-1.5545411

Quote
What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions, & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on April 26, 2020, 09:08:38 pm
Maybe he's caught COVID and it's rotting his brain away.

That or syphilis he's too arrogant to admit he has, thus allowing it to go untreated.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on April 26, 2020, 09:12:17 pm
I like to think it's untreated syphilis eating his brain.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on April 29, 2020, 08:39:15 am
Does anyone remember a couple of years back, there was a joke doing the rounds, that went something like "Maybe we should tell Trump supporters that drinking bleach can prevent cancer" or some such?
I only remembered it just now.  Anyway, it turns out a few of them have already died doing just that  :-\
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on April 29, 2020, 09:28:56 am
Not gonna shed a single tear for that.

Ironbite-they went with what the Orange Piss Pot said, they get the consequences.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on April 29, 2020, 03:44:21 pm
Not gonna shed a single tear for that.

Ironbite-they went with what the Orange Piss Pot said, they get the consequences.


https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on April 30, 2020, 02:47:27 pm
Not gonna shed a single tear for that.

Ironbite-they went with what the Orange Piss Pot said, they get the consequences.


https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/

People dying is bad even when you don't like their politics and even when they should've known better.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on April 30, 2020, 08:08:47 pm
Apparently, Trump's big new campaign plan is to try and manufacture more dirt on Joe Biden; this time, the claims are Joe paid China through Hunter to create the Coronavirus and unleash it, so that Trump would look bad...

And it's ridiculous, but he's got Bill Barr trying to "discover" (read: make up) evidence to that effect...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on April 30, 2020, 08:10:31 pm
That is baffling. And pretty telling that even Team Trump isn't going with the Tara Reade stuff.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on April 30, 2020, 08:13:43 pm
That is baffling. And pretty telling that even Team Trump isn't going with the Tara Reade stuff.

Apparently, Fox has picked it up, but you knew they would...

Edit: Here's the Politico article on Trump's new commercials, claiming he's done a GREAT job on the Coronavirus: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/30/trump-reelection-ads-223096

And here's the NYT article about him getting the US government to look for evidence that the Bidens were in cahoots with China: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/us/politics/trump-administration-intelligence-coronavirus-china.html
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on April 30, 2020, 08:23:27 pm
There's plenty of reason to criticize Biden and especially China without having to make things up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on April 30, 2020, 10:12:11 pm
There's an ad going around on Reddit complaining that because Biden has praised China in the past somehow proves that he hates America. The lack of self-awareness has to be intentional. There's no fucking way it's not.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on April 30, 2020, 11:54:12 pm
It's the "shout loud enough about any real or imaginary flaws the person I hate has that everyone will ignore all the flaws the person I love has" strategy.

Remember when, after the Access Hollywood tape was released, Trump brought a ton of women who'd accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment to the next debate?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 01, 2020, 09:42:40 am
Yeah that didn't help him.  It took Comney announcing that he had found emails on Carlos Danger's laptop to tip the scales.

Ironbite-and he still didn't win the popular vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 01, 2020, 09:57:33 am
Yeah that didn't help him.  It took Comney announcing that he had found emails on Carlos Danger's laptop to tip the scales.

Ironbite-and he still didn't win the popular vote.

It also meant that the Access Hollywood tape didn't hurt him. The whole thing became largely a wash, which kept him in a position where Comey's announcement could hurt Clinton enough for Trump to win.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on May 01, 2020, 11:23:09 am
Yeah that didn't help him.  It took Comney announcing that he had found emails on Carlos Danger's laptop to tip the scales.

Ironbite-and he still didn't win the popular vote.

It also meant that the Access Hollywood tape didn't hurt him. The whole thing became largely a wash, which kept him in a position where Comey's announcement could hurt Clinton enough for Trump to win.

This sort of thing NEVER hurts Republicans, because their voters don't care if their guy is immoral.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 01, 2020, 11:43:23 am
Yeah that didn't help him.  It took Comney announcing that he had found emails on Carlos Danger's laptop to tip the scales.

Ironbite-and he still didn't win the popular vote.

It also meant that the Access Hollywood tape didn't hurt him. The whole thing became largely a wash, which kept him in a position where Comey's announcement could hurt Clinton enough for Trump to win.

This sort of thing NEVER hurts Republicans, because their voters don't care if their guy is immoral.

Republicans? No. But among independents (or Democrats who flipped)? It could have hurt him, or at least dampened their willingness to show up to vote for him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 01, 2020, 12:40:49 pm
You're kinda wrong on that.  Yeah it didn't do anything for his base, but it did make him flounder pretty badly among Independants.  Then Comney put his thumb on the scale and that's all she wrote!

Ironbite-and now we're in this mess.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 01, 2020, 02:35:07 pm
You're kinda wrong on that.  Yeah it didn't do anything for his base, but it did make him flounder pretty badly among Independants.  Then Comney put his thumb on the scale and that's all she wrote!

Ironbite-and now we're in this mess.

Yes, that's my point. It made him flounder badly, then he rebutted with "look at how bad Bill Clinton is!", and that stabilized him enough for Comey's announcement to tip things in his favour.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 18, 2020, 05:47:11 pm
So Trump is saying that he's taking hydroxchloroquine. Not because he's sick. But he figures it will magically prevent him from getting the virus. This wasn't recommended or even given the thumbs up from his doctor. He instead said something along the lines of, well if that's what you want to do. I have niki fucking clue why he's pushing this drug so much other than he might have a stake in the a company that produces it or one of his family members or someone in his cabinet. The shitty thing about this is if Trump never gets covid 19 he'll claim victory because of the medication that no doctors are saying is a reliable treatment for the coronavirus.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 18, 2020, 08:24:13 pm
He needs to sell the stuff so the best thing he can do is advertise it.

Ironbite-cause he's a fucking moron.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 18, 2020, 09:30:18 pm
Honestly, I hope it kills him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 18, 2020, 10:52:49 pm
I have a theory that Trump doesn't want to be president. He never wanted to be president. He expected to lose in 2016 and wants to lose in 2020. But. Trump can never admit he's wrong or that he's losing due to his anti social personality disorder. So in order to lose he has to sabotage his own electorate by lying to get them to take a drug that could kill them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 18, 2020, 10:55:21 pm
Trump wants respect from rich people in NYC whom he knows all laugh behind his back at his incompetence. Failing that, he at least wanted to be a successful TV person, which is why he was planning to turn his campaign into Trump TV.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on May 21, 2020, 02:09:58 am
I feel like he's just kind of a raging narcissist and it doesn't help that he's getting old and fat now. It makes him insecure so he turns to his attention to the weird shit his fans say to validate his ego and even though he knows shit like Q is fake, he still rt's all those accounts because they lick his boots and it encourages them to continue seeking his attention.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on May 21, 2020, 09:06:40 am
So Trump is saying that he's taking hydroxchloroquine. Not because he's sick. But he figures it will magically prevent him from getting the virus. This wasn't recommended or even given the thumbs up from his doctor. He instead said something along the lines of, well if that's what you want to do. I have niki fucking clue why he's pushing this drug so much other than he might have a stake in the a company that produces it or one of his family members or someone in his cabinet. The shitty thing about this is if Trump never gets covid 19 he'll claim victory because of the medication that no doctors are saying is a reliable treatment for the coronavirus.

The doctors are almost definitely giving him a placebo and telling him it's hydroxchloroquine.  Because honestly, considering his age, his physical problems, and the side effects, taking it would almost certainly kill him.  And even ignoring the Hippocratic Oath, does any doctor want to become a target of the sue-happy Trump Corporation because the drug he gave Donald under-the-counter killed him?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 21, 2020, 10:17:28 am
He's not taking it at all.  But he does have a financial stake in the company that makes it so he's selling it to his base.

Ironbite-cause they're functionally barely alive.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 23, 2020, 01:21:42 am
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/05/07/as-states-reopen-covid-19-is-spreading-into-even-more-trump-counties/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sendto_newslettertest&stream=top

Regions with most Trump supporters also have been hit hardest by the pandemic.

Conspiracy theorists are now screaming that this is a bioweapon designed to make Trump lose the elections. Others think that Trump supporters thinking the disease is a hoax and refusing to do anything to prevent being infected might be a factor.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 23, 2020, 01:28:07 am
Haven't conspiracy nuts ever heard of Occam's razor?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 23, 2020, 02:37:34 am
That's the thing though. Once you get into the conspiracy theorist mindset, you cease to believe in the most plausible answers. You have uncovered one massive secret that most common sheeple are too stupid to realize -like that Elvis is still alive or that lizardmen have replaced world leaders- and you start to look for other such clues. Since most people seem to believe that the pandemic is a real disease, clearly there must be something more sinister behind it and then you go down the rabbit hole.

...And then there's the bit where Trump said that the disease is a hoax and his supporters are spending a lot of time and effort saying how Trump didn't mean that and everyone is misinterpreting him and also that he did mean it and the disease isn't real. Because cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug. There was some guy ranting how the disease is a hoax and how he got the virus earlier this year and how it felt like he was going to die so now he doesn't want this thing that definitely doesn't exist and/or has been exaggerated again...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on May 26, 2020, 08:07:34 pm
Some of Trump's tweets about ballots by mail got factchecked and now he's crying that his free speech is being infringed on and twitter is "interfering" with the 2020 election.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/tech/twitter-trump-fact-check/index.html?utm_source=twCNNi&utm_content=2020-05-26T22%3A57%3A15&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social

I've always voted by mail I have no clue why this is such a big deal the republicans are suddenly triggered by.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on May 26, 2020, 08:28:10 pm
More people voting means potentially more people voting Democrat, which must be stopped at all costs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 26, 2020, 09:10:10 pm
The entire Republican voter strategy is less voting.  Hence why the pandemic response is just "thoughts and prayers".  Voting by mail means more people voting specifically poor people.  Poor people by and large, vote Democrat.

Ironbite-as Ravy said, this must be stopped at all costs.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 26, 2020, 11:35:33 pm
Quote
I will tell you this: if you look at before and after, the things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again. They had things in there about, y'know, election days and what you do and all sorts of clawbacks, and they had things that were just totally crazy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on May 27, 2020, 12:03:52 am
I mean yeah obviously, that's why they love strict voter ID laws targeting minorities (who mostly vote Democratic) but why now vote by mail? I live in a state where even our republicans are pretty happy with it (with one leader, who's position I forget atm, even celebrating and championing it) despite most of the state being democrats. It's weird.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 27, 2020, 04:27:22 am
Because if you can vote by mail, you can just take ten to fifteen minutes at home, do a little cursory research about the candidates (maybe), mark the thing and drop it off. If you actually have to go stand in line for what might be hours, a lot of people are less likely to do that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 27, 2020, 08:02:52 pm
TRUMP VS. TWITTER!  GATHER ROUND FOLKS!  WE'RE IN FOR A SLOBBERKNOCKER!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 28, 2020, 05:21:34 am
You gotta love the conundrum Republicans have with the freedom of speech and their love of the free market with unregulated power. If a private company decides to censor someone they disagree with they all scream but muh freedom of speeches! At the same time they say that corporations are people too and should be able to vote and influence politics.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 29, 2020, 12:16:42 pm
I mean yeah obviously, that's why they love strict voter ID laws targeting minorities (who mostly vote Democratic) but why now vote by mail? I live in a state where even our republicans are pretty happy with it (with one leader, who's position I forget atm, even celebrating and championing it) despite most of the state being democrats. It's weird.

What's also weird is people completely dismissing any valid reasons to be concerned about mail-in voting (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trumps-concern-about-mail-in-ballots-is-completely-legitimate/). Don't get me wrong, Trump's got some pretty self-serving motives for what he's saying, but that doesn't mean there aren't reasons to be critical of it.

You gotta love the conundrum Republicans have with the freedom of speech and their love of the free market with unregulated power. If a private company decides to censor someone they disagree with they all scream but muh freedom of speeches! At the same time they say that corporations are people too and should be able to vote and influence politics.

Unlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 29, 2020, 12:32:24 pm
Is this a tantrum over Twitter factchecking President Dinglethorp?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 29, 2020, 12:59:34 pm
Is this a tantrum over Twitter factchecking President Dinglethorp?

That's adorable, you think I give a shit about that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 29, 2020, 01:11:35 pm
Well then, what's this about?

Because in every instance of "megacorps abusing their power against people liberals disagree with", it's pretty much warranted that the corp responds as it did against conservatives.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 29, 2020, 02:40:49 pm
Quote
Unlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.

What power are they abusing? The freedom of speech? Most megacorps usually speak out against hate speech on their platforms. That's what Democrats usually cheer on. You have a problem with that? You feel a corporation should just roll over and allow anyone to spew hate speech and misinformation and using them as representation even if they don't want it? Republicans want their freedom of speech to spout whatever bullshit they want but then cry when a corporation uses their freedom of speech to call them out on it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on May 29, 2020, 04:49:51 pm
Unlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.

A company has a right to decide what goes on on their platform. Just like the owner of FSTDT.net has the right to ban anyone they like, so too does Twitter. This right does not go away when the person they ban is a conservative, a Nazi, or whatever. And if you think it does, I've got some signs I want to put up on your property. I'm sure you won't mind - it's just me exercising my free speech after all.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 29, 2020, 07:29:10 pm
Well then, what's this about?

Because in every instance of "megacorps abusing their power against people liberals disagree with", it's pretty much warranted that the corp responds as it did against conservatives.

So you admit that this happens and don't have a problem with it. What are you, some kind of bizarro-ancap?

Quote
Unlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.

What power are they abusing? The freedom of speech? Most megacorps usually speak out against hate speech on their platforms. That's what Democrats usually cheer on. You have a problem with that? You feel a corporation should just roll over and allow anyone to spew hate speech and misinformation and using them as representation even if they don't want it? Republicans want their freedom of speech to spout whatever bullshit they want but then cry when a corporation uses their freedom of speech to call them out on it.

I wouldn't have a problem if they just "called them out". My problem is the fact that they censor.

Unlike Democrats, who talk a big game about the perils of unchecked corporate power, only to cheer left-leaning megacorps abusing their power against people they disagree with. Not to mention buying into blatant wokewashing.

A company has a right to decide what goes on on their platform. Just like the owner of FSTDT.net has the right to ban anyone they like, so too does Twitter. This right does not go away when the person they ban is a conservative, a Nazi, or whatever. And if you think it does, I've got some signs I want to put up on your property. I'm sure you won't mind - it's just me exercising my free speech after all.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo. The SCOTUS ruled in Marsh v. Alabama that if a private space is used as a public square, then it is obligated to grant first amendment protections. And considering how huge and ubiquitous these social media giants are, they should be made to conform to the first amendment like company towns before them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 29, 2020, 09:28:47 pm
You have a freedom of speech from the government.

You don't have a freedom of speech to say whatever you want on any given platform. The government can't restrict your speech, but others, others don't have to put up with it. So yes, I am absolutely okay with it, and I don't have a problem with "MUH CONSERVATURD CENSORSHIP WAAAAAH!!"

I don't know much about that Supreme Court case, but what I do know is that Trump's attempt lately to do away with OOGA BOOGA CONSERVATIVES BEING CENSORED got bitchslapped down by the courts and the lawyers of the major tech companies.

And it is kind of rich that in response to this, conservatives want to enact their own censorship.

You can just call me the intolerant left.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 29, 2020, 10:31:50 pm
And let's say that Twitter is forced to allow all speech onto its platform.

Trump is pissed because they fact checked him. They didn't stop him from saying whatever misleading dangerous shit he wanted to say, they just put up a notice that said "hey, here are the facts about the thing he's tweeting about" and it lead to him signing a fucking executive order that, in the name of "free speech," violates Twitter's free speech.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 29, 2020, 10:41:03 pm
Quote]
I wouldn't have a problem if they just "called them out". My problem is the fact that they censor.
[/quote]

Yeah, but what they're censoring is hate speech and misinformation that they're platforms don't want to be associated with. I don't understand why you see that as a bad thing. Right wing platforms censor information from the left all of thr time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 30, 2020, 01:09:01 am
You have a freedom of speech from the government.

You don't have a freedom of speech to say whatever you want on any given platform. The government can't restrict your speech, but others, others don't have to put up with it. So yes, I am absolutely okay with it, and I don't have a problem with "MUH CONSERVATURD CENSORSHIP WAAAAAH!!"

I don't know much about that Supreme Court case, but what I do know is that Trump's attempt lately to do away with OOGA BOOGA CONSERVATIVES BEING CENSORED got bitchslapped down by the courts and the lawyers of the major tech companies.

And it is kind of rich that in response to this, conservatives want to enact their own censorship.

You can just call me the intolerant left.

Alright then, I'm just going to ignore you.

And let's say that Twitter is forced to allow all speech onto its platform.

Trump is pissed because they fact checked him. They didn't stop him from saying whatever misleading dangerous shit he wanted to say, they just put up a notice that said "hey, here are the facts about the thing he's tweeting about" and it lead to him signing a fucking executive order that, in the name of "free speech," violates Twitter's free speech.

1. Being concerned about the integrity of mail-in voting is not "misleading dangerous shit". His motives are certainly far from altruistic, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

2. Censorship? From my understanding, this is a revocation of Section 230 in response to Twitter acting as a publisher and editorializing by means of selective moderation. If that's the case, then it's merely enforcement of legislation as written. If Twitter wants to act as a publisher by curating content and deciding who gets to say and see said content, then they have to give up their safe harbor protections.

Quote]
I wouldn't have a problem if they just "called them out". My problem is the fact that they censor.

Yeah, but what they're censoring is hate speech and misinformation that they're platforms don't want to be associated with. I don't understand why you see that as a bad thing. Right wing platforms censor information from the left all of thr time.

[/quote]

Yes, I recognize that private companies have the legal right to not let themselves be associated with unsavory speech... unless they're being used as public spaces. The SCOTUS ruled that a company town may technically be private property, but because it's used as a public space, it has to allow first amendment protections. And nobody can tell me with a straight face that Twitter is not being used as a public space. I don't give a shit about who these social media companies are biased in favor of, just how much power they have over public discourse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 30, 2020, 01:54:12 am
See, I don't get this controversy.

Hate speech should be restricted and fact checking fake news is something that the right wingers in USA have been screaming for more than 4 years by now. Just because it is the president doing those things should not make him immune to repercussions.

And if you're going to go with "just let him lie and spear hate speech, this is a public discussion and other more reliable sources should debate him over it instead of being silenced" then there are several things to consider:

a) If the president of USA is the one spreading misinformation, how many people are going to believe him because of his position? Especially when this misinformation he spreads has a risk to leading to deaths, it would be reckless to not fact check him immediately.

b) Hate speech is harmful and should be stopped. It appears that the POTUS is above the law so no legal repercussions are coming for him for stuff like threatening to have people killed if they protest. At the very least Twitter should treat users equally and silence open hate speech as it is a clear rules violation.

c) As for Trump needing to use Twitter because it is his de-facto platform for speaking to people and even setting govenrment policies, he has other platforms. He is a president and if he wants to release statements to be seen by people, he has a huge number of people who have been hired to enable him to do things like that and claiming that Twitter silencing him is the same as it would be for the random citizen is just plain wrong. If I get my social media accounts shut down I can't call a random TV station and get an immediate interview (or tell my people to do that for me.) If dissidents in Hong Kong get their internet blacked out they can't reach people outside Hong Kong to call attention to their plight. Trump has several platforms that he can use including some that are directly under the control of the government.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 30, 2020, 02:32:29 am
2. Censorship? From my understanding, this is a revocation of Section 230 in response to Twitter acting as a publisher and editorializing by means of selective moderation. If that's the case, then it's merely enforcement of legislation as written. If Twitter wants to act as a publisher by curating content and deciding who gets to say and see said content, then they have to give up their safe harbor protections.

Free speech != nobody gets to dispute that I might be wrong. You're not being censored by having an opposing view presented alongside yours.

Trump was not prevented from saying what he wanted to say (including spreading lies about Joe Scarborough--not that I have any love for that wingnut, but nonetheless Trump has been lying about him). Further Twitter did not control who got to see the content he posted regarding the Minneapolis riots which they blocked, since any user could click through if they chose. (When it's not a politician they just delete the tweet, which makes it a pretty damn blatant double-standard in favour of people like Trump.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on May 30, 2020, 04:13:28 am
Also, actual news reporters are getting arrested or shot at by police in USA.

HOLY HECKING CARP! *THAT* is an infringement of your first amendment and where are all those "first amendment inspectors" now?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 30, 2020, 01:00:31 pm

Quote

Yes, I recognize that private companies have the legal right to not let themselves be associated with unsavory speech... unless they're being used as public spaces. The SCOTUS ruled that a company town may technically be private property, but because it's used as a public space, it has to allow first amendment protections. And nobody can tell me with a straight face that Twitter is not being used as a public space. I don't give a shit about who these social media companies are biased in favor of, just how much power they have over public discourse.

At the end of the day twitter is a business. A business that makes its money through advertisements and celebrity endorsements. It's shown in the past that if a platform allows hate speech or controversial statements that advertisers will take their business elsewhere. As a corporation they only care about money. Conservatives decided a long time ago that corporations are people too and that money equals speech so that corps could legally donate to their campaigns. So if companies like hobby lobby can take on a religious affiliation to keep women from getting birth control. Twitter can decide how information is presented on their platform.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on May 30, 2020, 07:07:24 pm
Vanto:  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  THEY HAVE TO ALLOW EVERYTHING ON THEIR WEBSITE!  AND ALL OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE TO FOLLOW THE USA LAWS AND RULES OR THE WORLD WILL FALL INTO CHAOS AND RUIN!

Ironbite-bro....shut up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 30, 2020, 07:22:53 pm
When I talk about not using the US for precedent for anything, what I meant by that is not assuming that the US system is necessarily the best system, an assumption I have seen in far too many aspects. (Or, worse, assuming that the author's idealized form of the US system, and not the system as it actually is implemented in practice, is the best system.)

And specifically when it comes to governance, the history of Latin America (even absent US and Canadian intervention) is all the evidence I need that the US system is pretty shit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on May 30, 2020, 08:02:46 pm
1. Being concerned about the integrity of mail-in voting is not "misleading dangerous shit". His motives are certainly far from altruistic, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

2. Censorship? From my understanding, this is a revocation of Section 230 in response to Twitter acting as a publisher and editorializing by means of selective moderation. If that's the case, then it's merely enforcement of legislation as written. If Twitter wants to act as a publisher by curating content and deciding who gets to say and see said content, then they have to give up their safe harbor protections.

Ignoring you taking Trump's bait on mail-in voting hook, line and sinker, way to demonstrate that you're not even trying to understand my point.

Twitter. Did. Not. Stop. Trump. From. Saying. Anything.

Trump's Tweet was not censored because Twitter put a tag on his Tweet that said "here's the facts about mail-in voting." Because even if I grant that Trump has the right to use Twitter (which I won't, but that's beside the point), other parties, including Twitter, have the right to respond to him lying on Twitter. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want consequence free. It means that the government cannot punish you for the opinions you hold. Trump is allowed to have opinions on mail-in voting, regardless of whether or not those opinions are supported by the facts. He is NOT, however, allowed to stop anyone from fact checking those opinions or expressing opposing opinions.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 30, 2020, 10:33:09 pm
Vanto claimed this wasn't about Twitter and Trump getting allegedly censored on there.

It actually was about Twitter.

1. The only people who whine and complain about mail in voting are people who want to restrict people from voting. Trump said that part out loud.

2. Fuck conservatives and their pathetic victimization fetish. They face completely no risk or danger, but they insist they're SOOOO persecuted and not welcome.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 31, 2020, 01:50:55 am
See, I don't get this controversy.

Hate speech should be restricted and fact checking fake news is something that the right wingers in USA have been screaming for more than 4 years by now. Just because it is the president doing those things should not make him immune to repercussions.

And if you're going to go with "just let him lie and spear hate speech, this is a public discussion and other more reliable sources should debate him over it instead of being silenced" then there are several things to consider:

a) If the president of USA is the one spreading misinformation, how many people are going to believe him because of his position? Especially when this misinformation he spreads has a risk to leading to deaths, it would be reckless to not fact check him immediately.

b) Hate speech is harmful and should be stopped. It appears that the POTUS is above the law so no legal repercussions are coming for him for stuff like threatening to have people killed if they protest. At the very least Twitter should treat users equally and silence open hate speech as it is a clear rules violation.

c) As for Trump needing to use Twitter because it is his de-facto platform for speaking to people and even setting govenrment policies, he has other platforms. He is a president and if he wants to release statements to be seen by people, he has a huge number of people who have been hired to enable him to do things like that and claiming that Twitter silencing him is the same as it would be for the random citizen is just plain wrong. If I get my social media accounts shut down I can't call a random TV station and get an immediate interview (or tell my people to do that for me.) If dissidents in Hong Kong get their internet blacked out they can't reach people outside Hong Kong to call attention to their plight. Trump has several platforms that he can use including some that are directly under the control of the government.

1. I'm not against fact-checking on principle, I just think it should be done accurately and without bias. Twitter ignored multiple lies from Chinese officials about the Wuhan coronavirus having been introduced to China by the American military, and Ali Khameni's claims that it was a Zionist plot.

2. I don't know where you're from, but in my country, we recognize the right to say things that may be offensive, because we understand that putting up with unpleasant speech is preferable to giving the government power to decide what can and can't be said (with exceptions like defamation and incitement). And Twitter admitted in an email to the White House that the tweet didn't violate any rules.

3. You think this is just about Trump? Or even mostly about him? No, I'm far more concerned about people who don't have the advantages that he does.

2. Censorship? From my understanding, this is a revocation of Section 230 in response to Twitter acting as a publisher and editorializing by means of selective moderation. If that's the case, then it's merely enforcement of legislation as written. If Twitter wants to act as a publisher by curating content and deciding who gets to say and see said content, then they have to give up their safe harbor protections.

Free speech != nobody gets to dispute that I might be wrong. You're not being censored by having an opposing view presented alongside yours.

Trump was not prevented from saying what he wanted to say (including spreading lies about Joe Scarborough--not that I have any love for that wingnut, but nonetheless Trump has been lying about him). Further Twitter did not control who got to see the content he posted regarding the Minneapolis riots which they blocked, since any user could click through if they chose. (When it's not a politician they just delete the tweet, which makes it a pretty damn blatant double-standard in favour of people like Trump.)


Like I said, I don't really care about the fact-checking itself. It's just a symptom of a bigger problem.

As for the "double standard in favor of politicians"... outright deleting tweets by politicians could very easily be construed as interfering with government processes. I don't blame Twitter for not wanting to open up that can of worms.

Also, actual news reporters are getting arrested or shot at by police in USA.

HOLY HECKING CARP! *THAT* is an infringement of your first amendment and where are all those "first amendment inspectors" now?

Right here. You think I'm not against that? Unlike some people, I'm consistent in my principles. Much as I think CNN is full of shit, Jimenez and his crew did nothing to warrant the cops' response.


Quote

Yes, I recognize that private companies have the legal right to not let themselves be associated with unsavory speech... unless they're being used as public spaces. The SCOTUS ruled that a company town may technically be private property, but because it's used as a public space, it has to allow first amendment protections. And nobody can tell me with a straight face that Twitter is not being used as a public space. I don't give a shit about who these social media companies are biased in favor of, just how much power they have over public discourse.

At the end of the day twitter is a business. A business that makes its money through advertisements and celebrity endorsements. It's shown in the past that if a platform allows hate speech or controversial statements that advertisers will take their business elsewhere. As a corporation they only care about money. Conservatives decided a long time ago that corporations are people too and that money equals speech so that corps could legally donate to their campaigns. So if companies like hobby lobby can take on a religious affiliation to keep women from getting birth control. Twitter can decide how information is presented on their platform.


Weren't you against authoritarian libertarianism just a few days ago? I have zero sympathy for genuine haters who get censored, but when push comes to shove, I'm going to bite the bullet and defend their right to use de facto public platforms to spread their bullshit, even if it kills me inside to do so.

Not to mention how Twitter doesn't apply its rules rules consistently, and sometimes censors and cracks down on completely innocuous stuff, like their recent suspension of Imam Tawhidi for sharing an anti-terrorism cartoon.

And again, I feel like you're misunderstanding my positions. I'm not a conservative and I'm against corporate personhood.

There's a Twitter alternative called Gab that's run by groypers, and as you can probably imagine, it has a strong hard-right bias that tends to manifest as having double standards against left-wingers. If it were Gab that were the ubiquitous social media site, rather than Twitter, would you still be against the government forcing social media sites to choose between abiding by the first amendment and keeping their safe harbor protections?

Fact of the matter is, Dorsey had every opportunity to walk back on the censorship and double standards. But out of stubbornness, pride, insanity or just plain foolishness, he doubled down. Say what you will about Zuckerberg, at least he had the good sense to change course when it became clear the feds weren't going to stop breathing down his neck unless he did. To be frank, after all of Twitter's double standards and flouting regulations, I hope Trump shoves the long dick of the law so far up Dorsey's ass he spends the next twenty years coughing up jizz.

Gonna ignore the comments that were posted in the meantime, because they don't have anything substantive to say pertaining to the topic that I haven't already discussed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 31, 2020, 01:54:32 am
[People who don't have the advantages he does]

Please won't SOMEBODY think of the poor little Nazis who'd be hurt by hate speech laws?

And I am from America, and I'd trade out our free speech for the anti-hate speech kinds of laws EU countries have any day of the week.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 31, 2020, 02:37:42 am
[People who don't have the advantages he does]

Please won't SOMEBODY think of the poor little Nazis who'd be hurt by hate speech laws?

And I am from America, and I'd trade out our free speech for the anti-hate speech kinds of laws EU countries have any day of the week.

What do you think of AfD? Or Fidesz?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 31, 2020, 03:30:34 am
AfD? Those jokers are never going to win an election of any sort of note. They'll scrape for provinces and claw for mayoral wins, but they're never going to have a winning share in the actual government. And they know it.

As for Fidesz, Hungary is basically a dictatorship by now and not reflective of the EU in general. They're ruled over by a gang of fanatical Christian despots that probably think by now that electricity is a sin. And Fidesz is the forefront of that. They were recently pointed out to not exactly be a real Democracy.

You're pointing out a few outstanding examples to try and make the EU countries seem worse than they really are. If it were up to me, I'd kick out Hungary from the EU and put so many sanctions on them they'd freefall into oblivion. And AfD has no business existing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 31, 2020, 04:55:51 am
Germany also has a history of grand coalitions. It would probably take the AfD winning an outright majority of the second vote to form government; my guess is that the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Greens would rather form a government with Die Linke than let the AfD anywhere near power. (And they don't especially want to form government with Die Linke, probably, but Die Linke is part of the government in Berlin, Bremen and Thuringia anyway alongside the SPD and Greens.)

EDIT: As for AfD existing, they serve as a useful net to catch all the anti-Semites and other such nutcases who can be kicked out of the mainstream parties and left to rot at ~12% in the Bundestag while the rational people run the country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on May 31, 2020, 09:53:08 am
Quote
Weren't you against authoritarian libertarianism just a few days ago?

I am against authoritarian libertarianism. The point I'm making is that if this is the bed that Republicans and conservatives have chosen to lie in, than they can't cry when they realize that it can go both ways. They love an unchecked free market so much but hate it when it's used against them because they're hypocrites.

Quote
Not to mention how Twitter doesn't apply its rules rules consistently, and sometimes censors and cracks down on completely innocuous stuff, like their recent suspension of Imam Tawhidi for sharing an anti-terrorism cartoon.

Ok? There's no law that says twitter has to be consistent. They're free to do with they're business as they want.

Quote
And again, I feel like you're misunderstanding my positions. I'm not a conservative and I'm against corporate personhood.

You could've fooled me.

Quote
There's a Twitter alternative called Gab that's run by groypers, and as you can probably imagine, it has a strong hard-right bias that tends to manifest as having double standards against left-wingers. If it were Gab that were the ubiquitous social media site, rather than Twitter, would you still be against the government forcing social media sites to choose between abiding by the first amendment and keeping their safe harbor protections?

Fox news is the most watched 24 hour news network. Conservatives have a strong stranglehold on talk radio. They use their platforms to spew hate and disinformation all day everyday. They're highly influential and you could argue that they control the narrative on the daily political discourse. I hate this fact but they're free to do this because it's how they want to run their business. The left hates them but you don't see them having toddler temper tantrums like Trump when they censor or edit left wing talking points. If Gab was the number one influencers on social media which thankfully it is not. Than they are free to decide what they want on their platform. Just like Fox.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 31, 2020, 06:31:28 pm
AfD? Those jokers are never going to win an election of any sort of note. They'll scrape for provinces and claw for mayoral wins, but they're never going to have a winning share in the actual government. And they know it.

As for Fidesz, Hungary is basically a dictatorship by now and not reflective of the EU in general. They're ruled over by a gang of fanatical Christian despots that probably think by now that electricity is a sin. And Fidesz is the forefront of that. They were recently pointed out to not exactly be a real Democracy.

You're pointing out a few outstanding examples to try and make the EU countries seem worse than they really are. If it were up to me, I'd kick out Hungary from the EU and put so many sanctions on them they'd freefall into oblivion. And AfD has no business existing.

You're right, Fidez is an outlier. But AfD is not. Right-wing extremists are getting more numerous and influential all over Europe. More and more Europeans are in favor of not just changes in immigration policy, but outright expelling people based on their ethnic/racial group, regardless of citizenship status or criminal record.

Do you honestly believe that hate speech laws would have stopped the Nazis from coming to power?

Germany also has a history of grand coalitions. It would probably take the AfD winning an outright majority of the second vote to form government; my guess is that the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Greens would rather form a government with Die Linke than let the AfD anywhere near power. (And they don't especially want to form government with Die Linke, probably, but Die Linke is part of the government in Berlin, Bremen and Thuringia anyway alongside the SPD and Greens.)

EDIT: As for AfD existing, they serve as a useful net to catch all the anti-Semites and other such nutcases who can be kicked out of the mainstream parties and left to rot at ~12% in the Bundestag while the rational people run the country.


That's basically what a lot of people used to say about the Sweden Democrats, but now they're part of mainstream Swedish politics, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't share your optimism.

Quote
Weren't you against authoritarian libertarianism just a few days ago?

I am against authoritarian libertarianism. The point I'm making is that if this is the bed that Republicans and conservatives have chosen to lie in, than they can't cry when they realize that it can go both ways. They love an unchecked free market so much but hate it when it's used against them because they're hypocrites.

Quote
Not to mention how Twitter doesn't apply its rules rules consistently, and sometimes censors and cracks down on completely innocuous stuff, like their recent suspension of Imam Tawhidi for sharing an anti-terrorism cartoon.

Ok? There's no law that says twitter has to be consistent. They're free to do with they're business as they want.

Quote
And again, I feel like you're misunderstanding my positions. I'm not a conservative and I'm against corporate personhood.

You could've fooled me.

Quote
There's a Twitter alternative called Gab that's run by groypers, and as you can probably imagine, it has a strong hard-right bias that tends to manifest as having double standards against left-wingers. If it were Gab that were the ubiquitous social media site, rather than Twitter, would you still be against the government forcing social media sites to choose between abiding by the first amendment and keeping their safe harbor protections?

Fox news is the most watched 24 hour news network. Conservatives have a strong stranglehold on talk radio. They use their platforms to spew hate and disinformation all day everyday. They're highly influential and you could argue that they control the narrative on the daily political discourse. I hate this fact but they're free to do this because it's how they want to run their business. The left hates them but you don't see them having toddler temper tantrums like Trump when they censor or edit left wing talking points. If Gab was the number one influencers on social media which thankfully it is not. Than they are free to decide what they want on their platform. Just like Fox.



If it were only the "private companies can do whatever the fuck they want" types, I could at least laugh at them getting what they asked for. But as I've said, it's not.

And yes, it is the law that Twitter has to be consistent if they want to be considered a platform and entitled to safe harbor protections. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Look, I'm trying not to make assumptions about your politics (and I apologize if I have), so I don't think it's too much to expect that you return the favor.

Well, at least you're consistent in applying this to all companies, regardless of their politics. Maybe we have more in common than I thought.

EDIT: I just realized I got you confused with DarkPhoenix, and I'm sorry about that. God, I'm an idiot sometimes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on May 31, 2020, 07:00:49 pm
Did Sweden have Germany's history of grand coalitions, though?

(And yes, I'm aware that Austria did have that history--more of one, if anything--and it still happened there anyway.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 31, 2020, 07:04:16 pm
Did Sweden have Germany's history of grand coalitions, though?

(And yes, I'm aware that Austria did have that history--more of one, if anything--and it still happened there anyway.)

That's a good quesstion. I don't know.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on May 31, 2020, 10:11:43 pm
The Nazis came to power in a different age from this, with drastically different circumstances, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about stopping the Nazis from coming to power. We're talking about how much better things would be with hate speech laws.

Your citing of these parties also indicates the Perfectionist fallacy, that if something doesn't work perfectly one hundred percent of the time there's no reason to have it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on May 31, 2020, 11:14:48 pm
The Nazis came to power in a different age from this, with drastically different circumstances, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about stopping the Nazis from coming to power. We're talking about how much better things would be with hate speech laws.

Your citing of these parties also indicates the Perfectionist fallacy, that if something doesn't work perfectly one hundred percent of the time there's no reason to have it.

Are you afraid to answer my question?

I'm not talking about something that's not working perfectly, I'm talking about something that's not working at all.

On a related note, Twitter seems to have started fact-checking more consistently (https://www.newsweek.com/us-cities-burn-twitter-fact-checks-messages-that-may-inflame-racial-tensions-1507626). This feels like a desperate Hail Mary to stop the government from coming down on them, and I'm not sure how much we should trust social media sites to determine what's true, but at least things look like they're changing for the better.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 01, 2020, 02:00:23 am
The Nazis came to power in a different age from this, with drastically different circumstances, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about stopping the Nazis from coming to power. We're talking about how much better things would be with hate speech laws.

Your citing of these parties also indicates the Perfectionist fallacy, that if something doesn't work perfectly one hundred percent of the time there's no reason to have it.

Are you afraid to answer my question?

I'm not talking about something that's not working perfectly, I'm talking about something that's not working at all.

On a related note, Twitter seems to have started fact-checking more consistently (https://www.newsweek.com/us-cities-burn-twitter-fact-checks-messages-that-may-inflame-racial-tensions-1507626). This feels like a desperate Hail Mary to stop the government from coming down on them, and I'm not sure how much we should trust social media sites to determine what's true, but at least things look like they're changing for the better.

I do not know if they could stop the fucking Nazis from coming to power, and I also don't know why this is relevant to the greater conversation here. You introduced this whole "could hate speech legislation stop the Nazis" thing just so you could continue making an argument that hate speech laws do not work, when they very obviously do.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on June 01, 2020, 05:26:04 pm
The Nazis came to power in a different age from this, with drastically different circumstances, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about stopping the Nazis from coming to power. We're talking about how much better things would be with hate speech laws.

Your citing of these parties also indicates the Perfectionist fallacy, that if something doesn't work perfectly one hundred percent of the time there's no reason to have it.

Are you afraid to answer my question?

I'm not talking about something that's not working perfectly, I'm talking about something that's not working at all.

On a related note, Twitter seems to have started fact-checking more consistently (https://www.newsweek.com/us-cities-burn-twitter-fact-checks-messages-that-may-inflame-racial-tensions-1507626). This feels like a desperate Hail Mary to stop the government from coming down on them, and I'm not sure how much we should trust social media sites to determine what's true, but at least things look like they're changing for the better.

I do not know if they could stop the fucking Nazis from coming to power, and I also don't know why this is relevant to the greater conversation here. You introduced this whole "could hate speech legislation stop the Nazis" thing just so you could continue making an argument that hate speech laws do not work, when they very obviously do.

For your sake, I hope you don't have money riding on that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 01, 2020, 07:23:40 pm
Trump's trying to declare himself dictator.

Ironbite-just thought you'd all like to know.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 01, 2020, 11:16:55 pm
Basically telling the Governors to impose martial law, or he will.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on June 01, 2020, 11:42:16 pm
Hmm... are there other options that might work better?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 01, 2020, 11:46:45 pm
Than imposing martial law? Sure. Haul every police officer who's killed a black guy into court, give them an actual trial with jurors who don't automatically believe that cops can do no wrong and judges who don't throw out evidence like "You're fucked" being on the side of the murderer's rifle, and chuck their asses in prison.

Then pass an actual economic sustenance and recovery plan for COVID that doesn't just read as "hope you like shopping at Wal-Mart, Amazon and Costco because everyone else is going to go out of business" and "hope you like sleeping on the street because you aren't making rent/paying your mortgage for the foreseeable future" and maybe you might start to have an abatement of the chaos.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 01, 2020, 11:50:34 pm
Hmm... are there other options that might work better?

Are you suggesting that martial law is the best option?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on June 02, 2020, 12:38:56 am
Than imposing martial law? Sure. Haul every police officer who's killed a black guy into court, give them an actual trial with jurors who don't automatically believe that cops can do no wrong and judges who don't throw out evidence like "You're fucked" being on the side of the murderer's rifle, and chuck their asses in prison.

Then pass an actual economic sustenance and recovery plan for COVID that doesn't just read as "hope you like shopping at Wal-Mart, Amazon and Costco because everyone else is going to go out of business" and "hope you like sleeping on the street because you aren't making rent/paying your mortgage for the foreseeable future" and maybe you might start to have an abatement of the chaos.

Second part, I can see where you're coming from, though I think easing the lockdowns might be an overall better idea. But the first part has a pretty glaring problem right off the bat (not that I don't appreciate the sentiment). The cops involved have been fired, and Chauvin has been charged (though I'm pretty frustrated that the others haven't been charged yet, AFAIK, and I've signed the petition calling for charges against them (https://www.change.org/p/mayor-jacob-frey-justice-for-george-floyd)). They might end up getting off (and I'll be angry if they do unless some really convincing evidence of their innocence turns up, which I doubt it will), but we don't know that yet. I'm not sure if the riots started before or after Chauvin and his asshole buddies were fired, but either way, it doesn't look good for your idea.

Are the rioters wrong to be angry about what happened? Of course not, I'm furious too, and I think Chauvin's apologists should experience getting their necks knelt on for 10 minutes and see how good they feel. Hell, I'll volunteer to help them experience it. But why should I assume that the first part of your solution would do anything, considering the timing of events?

Hmm... are there other options that might work better?

Are you suggesting that martial law is the best option?

Not necessarily, I just want to make sure I know what other options are available. If it has to be done, it has to be done, but it should only be done if 1. a certain threshold has been passed and 2. it's the most viable option. Should I have to choose between martial law and complete, out of control havoc, I know which I'm gonna pick.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 02, 2020, 01:03:18 am
1. This is a breaking point. You think this has nothing to do with, say, Tamir Rice or Eric Garner? Or Trayvon Martin? You think this has nothing to do with every other dead black man whose uniformed (or non-uniformed) murderer got off scot-free in the courts? Who immediately had his past looked into to see if he ever used marijuana rather than having unending shame and scorn heaped on his killer?

2. You can't ease the lockdowns with a pandemic raging; that's just a recipe for more people dying. What you need to do is realize that what is essentially happening is that everybody is being ordered to work for the government: their job is to stay home so that medical personnel aren't overwhelmed with sick people. Consequently, they deserve some form of remuneration for this, which can take the form of rent relief, interest-free mortgage and car-loan deferrals, utility bill relief, and direct cash payments (and similarly for businesses ordered to close). People aren't going to work for $1,200, once, for an indefinite period of time. You need to keep businesses open (commercial rent relief and mortgage deferral) and people in their jobs (wage subsidy) so that everyone knows they'll have something to go back to when things do reopen and you don't have a massive reshuffling of the workforce that will leave many people unemployed for months after the economy starts up again. And anyone who has to be in the line of fire (medical personnel, grocery store workers, and such) should get a gigantic raise.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on June 02, 2020, 02:39:10 am
1. This is a breaking point. You think this has nothing to do with, say, Tamir Rice or Eric Garner? Or Trayvon Martin? You think this has nothing to do with every other dead black man whose uniformed (or non-uniformed) murderer got off scot-free in the courts? Who immediately had his past looked into to see if he ever used marijuana rather than having unending shame and scorn heaped on his killer?

2. You can't ease the lockdowns with a pandemic raging; that's just a recipe for more people dying. What you need to do is realize that what is essentially happening is that everybody is being ordered to work for the government: their job is to stay home so that medical personnel aren't overwhelmed with sick people. Consequently, they deserve some form of remuneration for this, which can take the form of rent relief, interest-free mortgage and car-loan deferrals, utility bill relief, and direct cash payments (and similarly for businesses ordered to close). People aren't going to work for $1,200, once, for an indefinite period of time. You need to keep businesses open (commercial rent relief and mortgage deferral) and people in their jobs (wage subsidy) so that everyone knows they'll have something to go back to when things do reopen and you don't have a massive reshuffling of the workforce that will leave many people unemployed for months after the economy starts up again. And anyone who has to be in the line of fire (medical personnel, grocery store workers, and such) should get a gigantic raise.

1. Yes, I know this isn't just about Floyd's death. But if all four officers being fired and one being hit with criminal charges wasn't enough to prevent/stop the riots, what makes you think reopening old cases will necessarily help?

To be clear, I'm not dismissing your overall idea out of hand, and I think it's something worth exploring regardless. I'm just saying it may not get the results you think it will, especially since there are reports of people deliberately inciting riots.

2. You make some excellent points about remuneration. However, I'm not sure you're addressing the possibility that restlessness from being cooped up was also a contributing factor.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 02, 2020, 03:43:24 am
1. This is a breaking point. You think this has nothing to do with, say, Tamir Rice or Eric Garner? Or Trayvon Martin? You think this has nothing to do with every other dead black man whose uniformed (or non-uniformed) murderer got off scot-free in the courts? Who immediately had his past looked into to see if he ever used marijuana rather than having unending shame and scorn heaped on his killer?

2. You can't ease the lockdowns with a pandemic raging; that's just a recipe for more people dying. What you need to do is realize that what is essentially happening is that everybody is being ordered to work for the government: their job is to stay home so that medical personnel aren't overwhelmed with sick people. Consequently, they deserve some form of remuneration for this, which can take the form of rent relief, interest-free mortgage and car-loan deferrals, utility bill relief, and direct cash payments (and similarly for businesses ordered to close). People aren't going to work for $1,200, once, for an indefinite period of time. You need to keep businesses open (commercial rent relief and mortgage deferral) and people in their jobs (wage subsidy) so that everyone knows they'll have something to go back to when things do reopen and you don't have a massive reshuffling of the workforce that will leave many people unemployed for months after the economy starts up again. And anyone who has to be in the line of fire (medical personnel, grocery store workers, and such) should get a gigantic raise.

1. Yes, I know this isn't just about Floyd's death. But if all four officers being fired and one being hit with criminal charges wasn't enough to prevent/stop the riots, what makes you think reopening old cases will necessarily help?

To be clear, I'm not dismissing your overall idea out of hand, and I think it's something worth exploring regardless. I'm just saying it may not get the results you think it will, especially since there are reports of people deliberately inciting riots.

2. You make some excellent points about remuneration. However, I'm not sure you're addressing the possibility that restlessness from being cooped up was also a contributing factor.

1. Because it isn't just about those four officers, and it isn't just about Floyd. (And we've seen plenty of other officers get rehired elsewhere, such as Tamir Rice's killer, who did turn down the job... but the police union in Cleveland is still trying to say he was wrongly dismissed.) Punishing the people who killed Floyd wasn't going to stop people from finally having had enough. No punishment inflicted on them will bring back George Floyd; the only thing that's going to prevent this sort of thing from happening again is better training for the police and actual enforcement of the law against them when they do screw up. (For instance, overturning Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor might be a start. And then move on to cases like Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez... and keep in mind that even though the police don't have to assist you if you request it, it's a crime for you not to assist them if they request it.) And starting with actually punishing all the other uniformed murderers would at least be a step in that direction.

2. Restlessness alone doesn't induce people to mass protest and violent riot. That's indicative of much deeper problems with society. Easing people's economic anxieties is a necessary measure when you're literally denying them the ability to earn a living.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on June 02, 2020, 11:09:00 am
This shit has been building up for generations.  Since long before Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were even born.  I'll be blunt: for the past century and a half, it has essentially been a crime, in America, to be black.  Its a crime to be Hispanic.  Its a crime to be poor.  Its a crime to be gay or transgender.  Why?  Because the law does not behave the same for us as it does for the well-off, straight, white man.  Fuck, I'll tell ya a little fuckin' story.  Cozy up motherfuckers.

When I was a kid, around middle school age or so, my uncle visited us to help fix our AC.  The details have gotten a little faded with time, but while my uncle was standing not two meters off our driveway, he got into an argument with a man from our neighbourhood.  The man in question decided to stab my uncle.  In broad daylight.  In front of myself and the rest of my family.  Our family lived within easy walking distance of both the local police station and the biggest hospital in the state.  Now, you might be thinking that the cops and EMS rushed to the scene and all was well.

It would've been, if we didn't live in a poor, predominantly black neighbourhood.

Prolly the only thing that kept my uncle from bleeding out was his Army training.  It took police and EMS over 20 minutes to get to our house.  Let me remind you that I could've walked to either location and back in that time.  The police took our reports and proceeded to halfheartedly search the area.  The only reason they caught the guy was because the Mensa candidate decided the best place to hide would be the alleyway behind our house.  My uncle survived, thankfully, and the guy that stabbed him did jail time, but the lackadaisical response we got to, again, my uncle literally being stabbed in the stomach in broad daylight, just goes to show how high a priority for them we weren't.

And that's not the only time people in our neighbourhood got fucked over by the cops just deciding it wasn't a priority to respond to calls from a specific area.  Gunshots were a common enough occurrence that I could sleep through them before I'd hit double digits.  I lived right across the street from an actual, factual crack dealer that never got so much as a stern talking-to from the 5-0.

All this is far from isolated; its all over this damned country and has been going on for generations.  This is why gangs exist.  This is why riots happen and vigilantism starts cropping up.  When people feel that the justice system society has built no longer works in their best interest, they will start enacting their own justice, even if that justice is violent and scattershot in its implementation.

Fix the justice system and this shit wouldn't happen.  Punish officers that murder innocent people.  Investigate all uses of lethal force thoroughly.  Murder is murder no matter who does it.  No one is above the law, especially not the men and women who enforce it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 02, 2020, 12:26:44 pm
One thing that appears to be missing from USA is proportional reaction.

A man gets choked to death after it is mistakenly believed that he faked a check and people go "he shouldn't have committed a crime."

Even if he had been guilty of that, is death really a reasonable punishment? And if so, wouldn't he deserve to go to court at least? And just how much violence can the police use against him when he wasn't actually resisting them?

Police have assaulted politicians, have taken down USA's flags and replaced them with their own, opened fire on unarmed people (now and previously over the decades numerous times) and assaulted members of media who hadn't violated any laws.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 02, 2020, 03:40:29 pm
Because, in America, there's one crime that's on no law book, for which there is no punishment at statutory law or common-law, but which is enforced regularly and especially against anyone who's not "respectable" (ie not white, Christian, cis, straight, and well-off), and for which the sentence is all too often death: making a police officer think you might disrespect them.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind that all the cases that we're all seeing now (Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Philando Castile, George Floyd...) are because of advances in technology--dashcams, bodycams, smartphones, and such. Do you really think that this sort of thing hasn't been happening to black people for a long time and only now that there's a critical mass of people with cameras in their pockets is it being exposed as the ugly, harsh reality it is?

Remember that in the antebellum South, "police" were mostly just slave-catching patrols. And it was those groups, not the police from the North, who formed the core of a lot of police departments after the Civil War.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on June 02, 2020, 06:48:18 pm
It's also probably worth mentioning that it's not really a surprise that Minneapolis ended up being the start point, considering the head of the Police Union in this area and his general thought process:

Quote
In December, a couple of months after Lt. Bob Kroll, the head of the Minneapolis police union, stood onstage with President Donald Trump at a campaign rally and praised the “wonderful president” for “everything he’s done for law enforcement,” he received a short Facebook message from a disgruntled city resident: “Nazi piece of shit,” the man wrote to him.

Kroll fired off a reply, pointing out his family’s record as defenders of the Allied forces during both World Wars, and then launching into a series of insults: “Keep spewing uniformed [sic] shit from your computer in your moms [sic] basement, loser,” he wrote to the man, according to a report by the Minneapolis City Pages, a local newspaper. “If you hate me so much, why don’t you stop by and beat the shit out of me?…My bet is it won’t happen, because you are a cowardly cunt.”

It might not have been the response you’d expect from a public official who represents 800-plus rank-and-file police officers. But Kroll, who has led the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis for five years, has a reputation for inflammatory remarks. Now, his brash leadership and influence over the police department’s culture are in the spotlight amid protests over police violence in the city after George Floyd’s death at the hands of a white officer on Monday.

“Now is not the time to rush to judgment and immediately condemn our officers,” Kroll said about Floyd’s death.
As Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey calls for reform and the district attorney files criminal charges against the officer, Derek Chauvin, activists are demanding changes to a department they say has long been plagued by racism and misconduct. Kroll, who has been accused of using excessive force and making racist remarks in the past, is standing behind his colleague as the public backlash mounts. “Now is not the time to rush to judgment and immediately condemn our officers,” he said on Tuesday, before the department fired Chauvin and three other officers who did not intervene in Floyd’s death.

The Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis union became powerful in the 1970s, after one of its former leaders, Charles Stenvig, was elected mayor. Kroll became president of the union in 2015. Today, protesters and other activists in the city say the union, not the police chief, holds the most sway over officers and their behavior on patrol. “The only authority they respect is Police Federation President Bob Kroll,” Tana Hargest, a Minneapolis-based artist and activist, tweeted a day after Floyd’s death. “[T]here’s nothing our elected representatives can or will do to bring them to heel.”

 - https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/05/minneapolis-police-union-president-kroll-george-floyd-racism/

Trump fan?  Check.  White supremacist?  Check.  Advocates for the police being as violent as possible, and specifically pushes training emphasizing permanent damage and/or death to "perps"?  Check.  Willing to defend ANYTHING, including murder?  Check.  Offered to pay to allow cops to train in violent techniques to apprehend suspects after the Mayor passed a bill banning them?  Check.

And as the article mentions, the cops in Minneapolis are loyal to Bob Kroll, not to the city.  And now he's out there insisting that Floyd was a horrible perpetrator and Chavin isn't guilty of anything.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on June 02, 2020, 06:49:05 pm
Because, in America, there's one crime that's on no law book, for which there is no punishment at statutory law or common-law, but which is enforced regularly and especially against anyone who's not "respectable" (ie not white, Christian, cis, straight, and well-off), and for which the sentence is all too often death: making a police officer think you might disrespect them.

Or just, ya know, living while black.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 02, 2020, 10:01:08 pm
Because, in America, there's one crime that's on no law book, for which there is no punishment at statutory law or common-law, but which is enforced regularly and especially against anyone who's not "respectable" (ie not white, Christian, cis, straight, and well-off), and for which the sentence is all too often death: making a police officer think you might disrespect them.

Or just, ya know, living while black.

All black people are automatically under suspicion of being disrespectful toward police. I was just trying to be more inclusive.

Also the state of Minnesota has filed a human rights complaint (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-protests-george-floyd-1.5594474) against the Minneapolis police department.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/iowa-steve-king-1.5596173

In a bit of good news today, Steve King lost his primary.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 03, 2020, 03:09:51 pm
Anonymous, or just really anyone sufficiently good at net stuff, should figure out who each and every single person following Trump's orders at the Lafayette Square incident were. All of the police and National Guard and military police. Doxx all of them, and publicize who they are, what they did, and deny them their riot helmets' secrecy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on June 03, 2020, 07:03:22 pm
How much evidence is there that the looting and vandalism is connected to the protests over George Floyd's death? As opposed to opportunism created by the COVID shutdowns and the protests. Certainly most of the violence coming through appears to be by police shooting people with rubber/wooden bullets. Much of this violence appears directed at the press.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 04, 2020, 01:42:53 am
And now the bugaloo boys are joining the riots fully armed and ready to start the second civil war.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 04, 2020, 02:27:54 am
To be clear, I'm not dismissing your overall idea out of hand, and I think it's something worth exploring regardless. I'm just saying it may not get the results you think it will, especially since there are reports of people deliberately inciting riots.

Many of those are in uniform, wearing riot gear. Get those thugs under control and you will see an immediate decrease in violent conflict.

I hope you like the taste of boot polish.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 04, 2020, 03:04:03 am
Consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z56j06plUgs

This guy is a lawyer from DC describing the attack on the peaceful protestors that occurred recently.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 04, 2020, 03:10:18 am
Again, we need to expose the names and identities of the men who participated in the charge to clear the way for Trump. Fascists do not have privacy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: SCarpelan on June 04, 2020, 03:51:52 am
Again, we need to expose the names and identities of the men who participated in the charge to clear the way for Trump. Fascists do not have privacy.

It's a mistake to attribute the chaos to Trump. He is making it worse but the roots are much deeper in the American system and he and his enablers are more a symptom than the cause. When it comes to police violence you urgently need to deal with the power police unions have over politicians and justice system on the local level. Then you have one less obstacle in fighting for actual demilitarization of the police force including banning the sale of military surplus equipment to police which means you have to fight the military industrial complex.

Electing Democratic politicians is just one step on the way, not the solution. They aren't going to do anything without public pressure including protests and if nothing else helps, riots. If you have Republicans in power they are more likely to push back with more fascism since their voter base loves uppity minorities getting shown their place with explicit violence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 04, 2020, 08:01:31 pm
Just what the fuck has Donald Trump been doing? I mean I don't want him to get re elected at all but doesn't he realize this is an election year? Yet he continues to quadruple down on his strategy of appealing to maybe thirty five percent of the country. That might have worked in 2016 because A the electorate didn't know how Trump would govern, and B the electorate hated Hillary just as much, but in the most challenging year of his presidency with a global pandemic, a recession and riots and protests. He's been hands off, blames everyone else and even incites more violence. Instead of trying to unite a wounded country he continues to divide it even more. This strategy didn't work for him in 2018 and it's gotten worse. He either A thinks he's invincible, B doesn't believe what polls are telling him,  C figures he has nothing to lose so he might as well take the country down with him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 04, 2020, 09:15:23 pm
Or D he only needs 35% since GOP state legislators will suppress them, GOP Senators will shoot down House bills about it, and GOP judges will uphold all those laws.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 04, 2020, 10:53:55 pm
It's shitty that despite how terrible he is his party still adores him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on June 04, 2020, 10:55:06 pm
It's shitty that despite how terrible he is his party still adores him.

Not despite. Because of. It's important to remember that he's not just one guy. The entire party is like this. They just hid it until recently.

All Republicans Are Bastards.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 05, 2020, 12:25:51 am
It's shitty that despite how terrible he is his party still adores him.

Not despite. Because of. It's important to remember that he's not just one guy. The entire party is like this. They just hid it until recently.

All Republicans Are Bastards.

Only the ones who vote for Republicans. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiG0AE8zdTU)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 05, 2020, 08:22:24 am
Just what the fuck has Donald Trump been doing? I mean I don't want him to get re elected at all but doesn't he realize this is an election year? Yet he continues to quadruple down on his strategy of appealing to maybe thirty five percent of the country. That might have worked in 2016 because A the electorate didn't know how Trump would govern, and B the electorate hated Hillary just as much, but in the most challenging year of his presidency with a global pandemic, a recession and riots and protests. He's been hands off, blames everyone else and even incites more violence. Instead of trying to unite a wounded country he continues to divide it even more. This strategy didn't work for him in 2018 and it's gotten worse. He either A thinks he's invincible, B doesn't believe what polls are telling him,  C figures he has nothing to lose so he might as well take the country down with him.

He never wanted the job.  Look at his reaction at election night.  It was one of shock and disbelief.  He did not want the job and still doesn't.  Because it's nothing what he believed it was.  So, unconsciously, he's trying everything he can to get out of it.  Meanwhile, all of his efforts are being praised and applauded by the very people who want to keep him in power.  The minority of voters and the entire GOP who see his victory as a validation of their beliefs and a way to maintain power for generations to come respectivly.

Ironbite-don't think for a minute Trump's not replaceable but for now, he's the best thing the GOP has to maintain a stranglehold on this country for generations.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on June 05, 2020, 01:06:55 pm
One thing that appears to be missing from USA is proportional reaction.

A man gets choked to death after it is mistakenly believed that he faked a check and people go "he shouldn't have committed a crime."

Even if he had been guilty of that, is death really a reasonable punishment? And if so, wouldn't he deserve to go to court at least? And just how much violence can the police use against him when he wasn't actually resisting them?

Police have assaulted politicians, have taken down USA's flags and replaced them with their own, opened fire on unarmed people (now and previously over the decades numerous times) and assaulted members of media who hadn't violated any laws.

Thankfully, the cops who killed Floyd were condemned by virtually everyone aside from the Minneapolis police union. If there's any good to come out of his senseless death and the senseless violence that's followed, it's that we may finally see true police accountability nationwide... I hope.

To be clear, I'm not dismissing your overall idea out of hand, and I think it's something worth exploring regardless. I'm just saying it may not get the results you think it will, especially since there are reports of people deliberately inciting riots.

Many of those are in uniform, wearing riot gear. Get those thugs under control and you will see an immediate decrease in violent conflict.

I hope you like the taste of boot polish.

Look, I don't hit you with drive-by insults, so could you please not do that to me?

You have a point, there have been cases where cops made the unrest worse. However, we've also seen reports of the boogaloo boys, Antifa, racial identitarians, and just plain self-serving opportunists pouring gasoline on this dumpster fire.

In other news, Jake Paul's been arrested (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/04/jake-paul-arrested-role-arizona-mall-looting-during-protests/3147245001/).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 05, 2020, 04:06:54 pm
One thing that appears to be missing from USA is proportional reaction.

A man gets choked to death after it is mistakenly believed that he faked a check and people go "he shouldn't have committed a crime."

Even if he had been guilty of that, is death really a reasonable punishment? And if so, wouldn't he deserve to go to court at least? And just how much violence can the police use against him when he wasn't actually resisting them?

Police have assaulted politicians, have taken down USA's flags and replaced them with their own, opened fire on unarmed people (now and previously over the decades numerous times) and assaulted members of media who hadn't violated any laws.

Thankfully, the cops who killed Floyd were condemned by virtually everyone aside from the Minneapolis police union. If there's any good to come out of his senseless death and the senseless violence that's followed, it's that we may finally see true police accountability nationwide... I hope.

That's great. Now where was such near-unanimous condemnation of the cop who killed Tamir Rice? Or Eric Garner? Or Philando Castile? Or how about the civilian thug who killed Trayvon Martin?

It didn't matter how much condemnation there was against Floyd's killer, or whether he gets convicted or not. This has been building for centuries and the dam finally burst.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on June 05, 2020, 08:12:26 pm
Minor correction: it burst again.  Let's not forget the 1992 LA riots.  Its gonna keep bursting til shit gets fixed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 05, 2020, 08:48:24 pm
Minor correction: it burst again.  Let's not forget the 1992 LA riots.  Its gonna keep bursting til shit gets fixed.

Did the LA riots spread literally nationwide, though? That was a time before mass social media, after all.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-floyd-economic-report-1.5600068

Holy ever loving fuck can this dirtbag get any more insensitive?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 05, 2020, 09:28:25 pm
It's like he WANTS to lose the Race in November.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on June 06, 2020, 01:51:49 am
One thing that appears to be missing from USA is proportional reaction.

A man gets choked to death after it is mistakenly believed that he faked a check and people go "he shouldn't have committed a crime."

Even if he had been guilty of that, is death really a reasonable punishment? And if so, wouldn't he deserve to go to court at least? And just how much violence can the police use against him when he wasn't actually resisting them?

Police have assaulted politicians, have taken down USA's flags and replaced them with their own, opened fire on unarmed people (now and previously over the decades numerous times) and assaulted members of media who hadn't violated any laws.

Thankfully, the cops who killed Floyd were condemned by virtually everyone aside from the Minneapolis police union. If there's any good to come out of his senseless death and the senseless violence that's followed, it's that we may finally see true police accountability nationwide... I hope.

That's great. Now where was such near-unanimous condemnation of the cop who killed Tamir Rice? Or Eric Garner? Or Philando Castile? Or how about the civilian thug who killed Trayvon Martin?

It didn't matter how much condemnation there was against Floyd's killer, or whether he gets convicted or not. This has been building for centuries and the dam finally burst.

For Eric Garner, there was. SNL even did a skit about it, with Al Sharpton being baffled that everyone agreed with him for once. Rice's death saw a lot of condemnation too, and it spurred then-governor Kasich to reform Ohio police.

You are, however, right that the reactions to the deaths of Castile and Martin were more divided... which is at least partly because there was more room for debate about whether their killers acted wrongly. Multiple use of force experts, including one who testified at Jeronimo Yanez's trial, said Yanez acted reasonably. Vincent Di Maio, a forensic pathologist, testified that the physical evidence was consistent with George Zimmerman's testimony. And countless legal experts said the jury made the right decision.

Their deaths were certainly nothing to celebrate, but they also weren't cut-and-dry cases of murder like you seem to be saying. Are there valid criticisms of how Yanez and Zimmerman acted? Sure, but given the facts available, we can't really say they're outright murderers. Not saying they're necessarily good people, just there's no reason to assume they're as bad as you're saying.

It's like he WANTS to lose the Race in November.

For all we know, maybe he does. But something tells me even if that's the case, we got a good chance of a Springtime for Hitler.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 06, 2020, 02:07:04 am
With Rice, the cop who killed him was literally offered another job as a cop.

With Garner, did you not see the people who said that the fact that he could say "I can't breathe" was proof he could, in fact, breathe and did not suffocate? Or the political pressure on the coroner to rule his death not a homicide? (Which, to her credit, she refused to do.)

With Castile, what was probably most infuriating is that he did everything right: he told the cop he had a gun, he showed the cop the gun, and he still died for, essentially, exercising his Second Amendment rights while black--and the NRA, that great defender of gun rights (which worked with Reagan to enact California's gun restrictions after the Black Panthers marched into the state Capitol armed, when any number of white groups had previously done so), was silent on the fact that a legal gun owner was cut down in cold blood by a cop (and don't try to tell me they wouldn't have been raising hell if Castile had been white).

And as for Martin, look at the reaction in parts of the media. The focus wasn't on the guy who killed Martin; it was on how Martin did drugs and was a bad kid and such, as if that somehow mitigated what his killer had done.

White people do not, by and large, get treated the same way black people do in the US, in life or in death. White people's lives matter more than black people's lives.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 06, 2020, 02:21:46 am
Castile didn't show the gun. The law required him to inform the officer that he had a gun because it was part of the rules when a license to carry a concealed weapon and when the officer asked to see his license Castile reached for his wallet, prompting the police officer to panic and scream "don't reach for it!"

And it wasn't even over then, what followed was Castile insisting that he isn't reaching for a gun and the cop screaming repeatedly before emptying his gun on Mr. Castile.

AND THEN, while Mr. Castile was dying, his girlfriend had to calm down the police officer so that he wouldn't shoot her as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 06, 2020, 02:33:42 am
Ah, I got that part wrong. I thought Castile had revealed the gun. Nonetheless he did inform the officer of his gun, as the law required.

There's a case to be made that Castile died because he followed the law--knowing he had a gun may well have made the cop more nervous.

And as for the cop's acting "reasonably", let's keep in mind that the legal standard allowing cops in the US to get away with killing people is ludicrously lower than that for anyone else.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on June 09, 2020, 04:04:02 am
Ah, I got that part wrong. I thought Castile had revealed the gun. Nonetheless he did inform the officer of his gun, as the law required.

There's a case to be made that Castile died because he followed the law--knowing he had a gun may well have made the cop more nervous.

He wouldn't be the only one. You can comply as much as possible and still be murdered.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on June 09, 2020, 08:47:45 pm
Just what the fuck has Donald Trump been doing? I mean I don't want him to get re elected at all but doesn't he realize this is an election year? Yet he continues to quadruple down on his strategy of appealing to maybe thirty five percent of the country. That might have worked in 2016 because A the electorate didn't know how Trump would govern, and B the electorate hated Hillary just as much, but in the most challenging year of his presidency with a global pandemic, a recession and riots and protests. He's been hands off, blames everyone else and even incites more violence. Instead of trying to unite a wounded country he continues to divide it even more. This strategy didn't work for him in 2018 and it's gotten worse. He either A thinks he's invincible, B doesn't believe what polls are telling him,  C figures he has nothing to lose so he might as well take the country down with him.

Donald is so narcissistic, he believes that he can change reality itself to whatever he wants it to be.  Thus, he thinks this plan will work.

Plus, remember that the loud 35% of Trump supporters believe they are the great majority.  So does Donald.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 09, 2020, 10:48:24 pm
Trump's approval rating is sliding downward, and even now, he refuses to accept anything not presented to him by sycophants as factual.

It's, again, like Hitler toward the end of World War II - a mess of paranoia, hate and ranting lunacy. Considering the bunker, I wonder if Trump after being beaten in the election would end it all the same way - in the bunker.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 10, 2020, 12:20:22 am
And despite him tanking in the polls with just five months to go I still feel like he'll win.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 10, 2020, 02:04:25 am
And despite him tanking in the polls with just five months to go I still feel like he'll win.

Because his supporters' enthusiasm level is sky-high, while Biden's supporters' enthusiasm level is decidedly not. And if there's bad weather or the polling place got moved or whatever, that can make all the difference in determining whether someone comes out to vote.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 10, 2020, 02:05:47 am
Yeah, there's a reason I'm not assuming Trump will lose until the votes are counted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 10, 2020, 05:02:56 am
Yeah, the next election will not be over before there is a civil war in USA.

I'm not sure if Trump will try to cancel the elections or not but shots will be fired one way or another.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on June 10, 2020, 02:37:08 pm
It also doesn't help when I see otherwise intelligent people hop onto the "I can't tell who's worse" bandwagon while taking everything that Biden says that can come across as bad out of context. In 2016 all fucking over again in so many ways.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 10, 2020, 03:06:46 pm
The only way Trump can win is to make Biden look worse than him. Which he and the media are going to do a lot of the next five months.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 13, 2020, 02:14:11 am
I was trying to remember this name... Walter Scott, the guy murdered by being shot in the back by a cop as he was running away, the cop being acquitted due to a hung jury, since reportedly one juror refused to convict a cop on general principle. (Which I would think would disqualify you from being a juror when a cop is on trial.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 13, 2020, 03:36:54 am
There are also several occasions of police shooting people who were sleeping in their cars. Without waking them up.

The 5 officers who shot a sleeping couple, for example, appear to have gotten away with it legally speaking, though it is hard to know the truth because I can't seem to access the stories without the websites asking for money or telling me to turn off my adblocker.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/couple-killed-inglewood-police-shooting-asleep-mayor-butts/2021858/
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-inglewood-police-shooting-20170221-story.html

This article says that the police claim to have seen a gun in the hand of a sleeping woman. Another article said that the gun was on her lap or inside her purse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on June 13, 2020, 02:44:10 pm
The only way Trump can win is to make Biden look worse than him. Which he and the media are going to do a lot of the next five months.

Media NEEDS their horse race!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on June 15, 2020, 11:27:55 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-supreme-court-lgbtq-1.5612327

Well, this is certainly interesting--and, as a matter of law, not a ruling I'm entirely certain I agree with.

(I think that LGBT people should be protected under civil rights legislation; I'm just not sure if, on principle, they are protected by the statute as written, or if it's a change that should be made legislatively.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 20, 2020, 09:54:30 pm
So Trump is pissed that his first campaign rally in Tulsa Oklahoma pulled in a crowd much lower than the 100,000 expected. So much so that his spill over crowd speech stage had nobody in attendance so he had to cancel it. Trump is of course blaming the media and the protests that are thirty minutes away from the arena.
I hope that this is a sign that Trump's message is losing it's steam with voters and it's a sign that his reelection bid could be in danger. It could also be that people are taking covid 19 way more seriously than Trump wants them to.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on June 21, 2020, 06:55:57 pm
So Trump is pissed that his first campaign rally in Tulsa Oklahoma pulled in a crowd much lower than the 100,000 expected. So much so that his spill over crowd speech stage had nobody in attendance so he had to cancel it. Trump is of course blaming the media and the protests that are thirty minutes away from the arena.
I hope that this is a sign that Trump's message is losing it's steam with voters and it's a sign that his reelection bid could be in danger. It could also be that people are taking covid 19 way more seriously than Trump wants them to.

"Lower than 100,000" is an understatement.  The estimated crowd was 6,200!

Of course, the Dumbshit Donnie campaign has decided to blame this on "the protesters"...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 21, 2020, 07:45:10 pm
100,000?  Bro he thought he was getting 1 million based on ticket requests.  Like he was gonna flood Tulsa with so many of his supporters, the black folk of the city would be exterminated like they were 100 years ago.  It was gonna be great in his mind.

https://twitter.com/Bogswallop/status/1274695722512900103

Ironbite-that's the image of a man who's so exhausted he can't really function.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 21, 2020, 09:09:49 pm
And now he's turning upon his own campaign manager because the man won't give Donnie everything he wants when he wants it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 22, 2020, 12:53:29 pm
There's something satisfying about seeing a dejected Trump walk sadly out of a helicopter with his tie undone and holding his MAGA cap in his hand. Like coming back from a date where he was stood up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on June 22, 2020, 02:25:07 pm
He really is an expert at turning everybody against him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on June 23, 2020, 03:09:28 am
Everyone keeps pointing out that if those people in the crowd had been told to keep distance between themselves, the crowd could have filled the stadium AND they would have been complimented for taking these precautions...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 23, 2020, 07:19:08 am
Why would they? They've been told this whole time that Covid 19 is a hoax and or is completely under control.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 28, 2020, 01:06:38 pm
So Trump retweeted a video showing a group of white supporter s in a senior citizen complex one of which is seen shouting white power. Trump thanks them for their support. Yeah so that happened.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on June 28, 2020, 01:53:18 pm
He's trying to distract from the report Putin was offering bounties on AmericanNATO soldiers, Trump was briefed, and he chose to take no action in response.  Worse, he then spent the next two months repeatedly kissing Putin's ass...

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on June 28, 2020, 02:40:25 pm
And this somehow makes him look better?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on June 28, 2020, 07:37:06 pm
It doesn't but Trump was desperate to get the bounty story off the news for a bit.

Ironbite-and it worked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on June 29, 2020, 06:50:47 pm
And this somehow makes him look better?

We know Trump is a white supremacist.  Him retweeting white supremacist garbage likely isn't going to move anybody anymore.  But if it can push the Russian bounty scandal out of the headlines, it's good for Trump, because that scandal might change opinions that haven't been changed yet.

Now that it's been pushed out of the headlines, the Repubs have had time to get their stories straight, so you're going to see them fanning out to insist that the "Deep State" hid all this from Donald to make him look bad, and that's why Donald didn't know anything about it, so it's not HIS fault...

I suspect they'll let someone in Intelligence take the fall for this one.  Gina Haspel or Richard Grenell, maybe?  The point is to make sure EVERYONE knows Trump and Pence know nothing, so they can't be blamed for lack of response!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 05, 2020, 01:02:18 am
https://twitter.com/KeatonPatti/status/1242110916679864322

Quote
I forced a bot to watch over 1,000 hours of Trump Coronavirus Press Conferences and then asked it to write its own Trump Coronavirus Press Conference. Here is the first page.

(images hidden because large)

(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on July 05, 2020, 10:25:46 am
One word: MOAR.

I love the character of Vile-President Mike Pants and his working bibles trying to cure the Toyota Corollavirus.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on July 08, 2020, 10:51:30 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/george-floyd-chauvin-arrest-transcripts-1.5642789

While being choked to death, George Floyd, saying "I can't breathe" (sound familiar?), was told by his killer that it "takes a heck of a lot of oxygen to talk".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on July 09, 2020, 02:34:09 am
it always strikes me how endlessly cruel someone would have to be to perpetrate something like this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 07, 2020, 11:31:41 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mail-ballots-u-s-election-1.5677465

Here's a scary thought: what happens if, on the night of the election, Trump looks to be leading by a substantial margin, and makes, if not a victory speech, at least a speech warning about attempts to "steal" the election, but once mail-in ballots are counted and those results roll in over the next week or two, Biden pulls ahead?

And let's also keep in mind that Trump put a hack donor in charge of the USPS, who has been systematically hamstringing that agency, leading to huge backups and delays--possibly to the point where many ballots won't be accepted since they won't get delivered on time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 07, 2020, 09:40:12 pm
Most people should be getting their ballots in now, and if they wait to the last minute they should personally drive their ballot to a polling station.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 13, 2020, 11:35:56 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-usps-fox-interviews-1.5684732

Trump admits that he and Republicans in Congress are blocking new COVID-19 relief because they won't sign off on giving more money for the USPS and election security measures to allow for expanded vote-by-mail, even though we're in the middle of a deadly pandemic that has hit the US harder than anywhere else.

Hey, Donald: you're not supposed to say the quiet parts about voter suppression out loud.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 20, 2020, 10:55:07 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bannon-trump-charges-1.5693359

Steve Bannon has been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. He's the second Trump campaign chair, after Paul Manafort, to be criminally charged.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 23, 2020, 03:01:39 pm
So he'll be pardoned eventually.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 23, 2020, 03:11:44 pm
No he won't.  Bannon and Trump had a very bad falling out when Bannon got ousted.  This?  This'll make Trump giggle like a schoolgirl.

Ironbite-cause Bannon went against him or some shit like that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 23, 2020, 04:27:33 pm
Yeah, Bannon went against Trump's family, and tried to oust Kushner.

Who responded by outplaying the daydrunk Nazi and getting him basically destroyed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on August 23, 2020, 08:12:59 pm
Anyone think the RNC is really going to sway voters? Or do you think most voters have made up their minds by now?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 23, 2020, 08:16:34 pm
The problem with assuming voters have made up their mind is that it ignores that swing voters tend to be FUCKING IDIOTS. So many swing voters are willfully ignorant of how bad Trump is doing and that he is literally trying to make himself a fascist dictator either because they just don't want to actually stand for something or have convinced themselves that they're "above" partisan politics.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on August 23, 2020, 10:27:58 pm
As someone reminded me, Trump's other campaign chair (Corey Lewandowski) was also twice charged criminally, once for concealing a loaded hangdun in a bag, and also for shoving someone in a scrum during the 2016 campaign. Charges were dropped in both cases.

EDIT:

(https://i1.wp.com/leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/09/both-sides-are-equally-bad.png?resize=675%2C770)

EDIT #2: Meanwhile, Trump kicked off the RNC by claiming that if he loses, the election was rigged.

American democracy is in its death throes.

EDIT #3: An acquaintance of mine (with whom, to be sure, I disagree on almost all political matters) wrote this piece about how American democracy might die.

https://www.jamesjheaney.com/2020/08/23/and-the-war-came/
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on August 25, 2020, 06:18:25 pm
Quick summary of Day 1 of the Republican Convention:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ovm1J_AxLQ
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on August 25, 2020, 06:59:20 pm
I take it Guilfoyle and Trump Jr share a dealer.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on August 25, 2020, 09:42:26 pm
Kimberly "SCREAMS WITH SUCH A SHRIEK!!!" Guilfoyle
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on August 25, 2020, 11:48:48 pm
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/z1yt08mbcur1qo3/EgPb7fVU0AAgv49.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on August 26, 2020, 04:56:49 pm
Rita Repulsa deserves better.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 01, 2020, 11:43:11 am
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/what-s-at-stake-for-canada-in-the-next-u-s-election-1.5703837/biden-needs-a-decisive-victory-to-avoid-contentious-fallout-after-u-s-election-day-says-professor-1.5705807

It could get really ugly if Trump declares victory on November 3, only for Biden to win once the mail-in votes are counted.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 01, 2020, 05:48:07 pm
That's why the asshole shouldn't declare victory until all of the votes are counted. That's like equivalent to videos where you see somebody show boating at the end of a race only to get passed up right at the last second.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 01, 2020, 08:44:50 pm
That's why the asshole shouldn't declare victory until all of the votes are counted. That's like equivalent to videos where you see somebody show boating at the end of a race only to get passed up right at the last second.

Yes, but he's been priming his supporters to think that mail-in ballots are illegitimate. So he'll declare victory based on election-night returns, and then if the later vote counting swings the result to Biden claim that the election was stolen from him.

And his supporters will eat it up.

He has nothing to lose by declaring victory on November 3 if he's ahead then.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 02, 2020, 01:37:56 am
That's why the asshole shouldn't declare victory until all of the votes are counted. That's like equivalent to videos where you see somebody show boating at the end of a race only to get passed up right at the last second.

Declaring victory before the votes haven't been counted worked for Bush in 2000. Remember how that went?

And if Trump is mainly interested in causing chaos, declaring victory and then having to fight when people say that the count isn't over, would fit right in with his narrative that the Democrats are trying to steal the election through voting by mail. At the minimum he would ensure that for the entirety of Biden's term, there will be protests and screaming and lots of angry Republicans who will refuse to do anything that the president wants. At worst you'll see blood on the streets.

...A mediocre success for him would be a massive legal battle that ensures that he can stay on TV for the rest of his life talking about how democracy died in USA because Democrats were allowed to "cheat" and the Republicans would be the dicks they always are and nod their heads in agreement while trying to get all the donations and votes they can by capitalizing on the lies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 03, 2020, 01:19:40 pm
So Trump told his voters in North Carolina in order to prevent Democrats from committing imaginary voter fraud to vote twice and commit voter fraud.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 03, 2020, 02:46:02 pm
And then Bill Barr pretended that Trump did nothing wrong by telling people to commit voter fraud.

All setting up to try to illegitimatize a Biden victory.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 03, 2020, 06:36:47 pm
The only way this isn't going to be messy is by a clear Biden win on election night.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 03, 2020, 08:50:27 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 03, 2020, 09:10:35 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-north-carolina-voting-1.5710497

Source.

Meanwhile, Trump will claim to be the candidate of law and order and his supporters will eat it up.

Even as he encourages them to break the law.

Biden's not going to be the clear winner on election night. He might well be the actual winner but it won't be on the night itself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 05, 2020, 01:32:31 am
And now the net is filled with people arguing "the president was just trollling the libs," "the president didn't mean to break the laws, just to go ask if the letter you sent has arrived and to vote if it hadn't come through" and of course my favourite "the law requires you to go to the polling place and show your ID after you have voted by mail."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 05, 2020, 03:59:18 am
Never mind that in North Carolina, at least, not only is it a felony to vote twice, it's (apparently) a felony to induce someone to vote twice.

Donald Trump is a felon in North Carolina.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 05, 2020, 04:43:47 pm
Well Donald Trump is a felon to the whole country.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 05, 2020, 04:53:33 pm
Well Donald Trump is a felon to the whole country.

True. Which is why he's desperate to stay in office--the moment he leaves, there's no longer any questions about "can you prosecute a sitting President?"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 06, 2020, 10:42:20 am
Nah, he'll die of "natural causes."  Ya know, kinda like how Epstein totally killed himself.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 06, 2020, 01:25:33 pm
Nah, he'll die of "natural causes."  Ya know, kinda like how Epstein totally killed himself.

There's a key difference between Epstein and Trump, which is that Epstein had information that could have incriminated many, many other people (including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and the Duke of York), whereas with Trump the trail probably dries up insofar as finding bigger fish goes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 07, 2020, 04:24:59 pm
Unless he's got info on the Pope or something.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 08, 2020, 02:01:25 am
I just really hope that the next president wouldn't pardon Trump of everything that he has done.

I still consider it likely because although Democrats are in all ways superiour to Trump-cult, they would definitely want to avoid the hassle that comes from when Republicans start shooting up people in the streets and cry about partisan politics and Fascism if Trump faces any sort of consequences for his crimes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 08, 2020, 05:38:35 am
Trump can only be pardoned of so much by the next President. There's still state-level charges he could be facing in New York.

(Of course, Andrew Cuomo might decide to pardon him of those, too.)

But keep in mind that accepting a pardon means admitting guilt, which opens you up to civil litigation.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on September 18, 2020, 07:59:49 pm
RGB Died. God this fucking year can't get any worse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 18, 2020, 09:11:42 pm
And Turtle's gonna have a full vote for whomever Trump nominates.

Ironbite-BEFORE THE ELECTION BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING HYPOCRITE!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on September 18, 2020, 10:58:35 pm
Of course, i also saw that she requested specifically for it to only happen after the election, with the next president. So this is directly against her own wishes too.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on September 19, 2020, 01:27:02 am
Of course, i also saw that she requested specifically for it to only happen after the election, with the next president. So this is directly against her own wishes too.

Mitch doesn't care about his OWN actions and statements, much less statements and actions by other people.  He's going to try and set the record for a SC nomination in the next 47 days.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 19, 2020, 02:08:31 am
And if Trump loses, he'll try to ram through a nomination in the lame-duck period.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 19, 2020, 02:57:26 am
McConnell won't let it get to that point. He's going to give Trump a win before the election.

EDIT: Here's how he'll do it:

1. Trump nominates someone.
2. McConnell moves that the nominee be considered by the full Senate without a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee.
3. The Democrats filibuster the motion.
4. McConnell moves to change the rules of the Senate to end the filibuster on motions to advance to a vote on a nominee without a positive recommendation from a committee.
5. This vote passes.
6. Trump gets a third Supreme Court Justice.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on September 19, 2020, 04:59:22 am
Someone suggested that they might postpone the vote until after the election so that they can rile up the voterbase by saying that the supreme court seat is on the line. ...And after the elections but before Biden gets sworn in Trump would use his last few days to nominate and vote in a Republican anyway as a final "fuck you" to Democrats.

...But McConnell couldn't wait two hours before saying that he'll get in a new justice ASAP. So there went that theory.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 19, 2020, 05:38:44 am
Sometimes it's better to demoralize your opponents than it is to rile up your own base.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on September 19, 2020, 09:14:43 am
This might have backfired on him as fundraising for key tickets on th Democratic side just sky rocketed.

Ironbite-and that's not good for Michy
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 19, 2020, 03:41:30 pm
McConnell probably doesn't care about keeping his Senate seat at this point. Unless the Democrats can win a ton of Senate seats in 2020 and 2022 to give them 67, while also winning the Presidency in 2020 and holding the House in both years, and then be willing to impeach judges over nothing other than political differences, he'll have accomplished what he set out to do: complete the task laid out for the Republicans a half-century ago by Lewis Powell and put control of the federal courts firmly in conservative hands for decades.

Of course, this could also lead to a decision greeted comparably to Dred Scott being made and Democrats getting elected in droves on the promise of ignoring whatever said decision might be.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 19, 2020, 04:09:54 pm
McConnell's seat is also super safe. Regardless of what Twitter roses think, there is literally no one that the Democrats could put against him that has any significant chance of beating him. Republican voters don't vote for candidates or policy, they vote against Democrats. And Kentucky has Republican voters to spare.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 19, 2020, 04:13:42 pm
McConnell's seat is also super safe. Regardless of what Twitter roses think, there is literally no one that the Democrats could put against him that has any significant chance of beating him. Republican voters don't vote for candidates or policy, they vote against Democrats. And Kentucky has Republican voters to spare.

McConnell is also not very popular in Kentucky, and just last year Andy Beshear toppled the unpopular incumbent Republican Governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin. Admittedly by less than 0.4 percentage points, but he did win.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 19, 2020, 04:16:58 pm
He's been unpopular for years. You'll forgive me if I don't have much expectation of him losing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on September 19, 2020, 04:56:32 pm
McConnell won't let it get to that point. He's going to give Trump a win before the election.

EDIT: Here's how he'll do it:

1. Trump nominates someone.
2. McConnell moves that the nominee be considered by the full Senate without a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee.
3. The Democrats filibuster the motion.
4. McConnell moves to change the rules of the Senate to end the filibuster on motions to advance to a vote on a nominee without a positive recommendation from a committee.
5. This vote passes.
6. Trump gets a third Supreme Court Justice.

The webmaster of DailyKos posted a story today that I think correctly reads McConnell's motivations right now; the Republicans are staring at a complete wipeout electorally, and even having this seat available may not help them.  Since they're staring at a complete loss, McConnell wants to rush this through as fast as possible to avoid having to take risks during the lame duck, and then he's going to hope that the now conservative SC will stop the Dems from doing anything for the next couple of years, at which time the Repubs will pull out the 2010 playbook again...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on September 19, 2020, 05:55:59 pm
He's been unpopular for years. You'll forgive me if I don't have much expectation of him losing.

I'm aware. I don't think there's that great a chance of the Democrats knocking McConnell off, but I also don't think it's impossible.

Of course, there's also the other option for the Democratic Party, which is to expand the courts (killing the legislative filibuster if necessary). Then put four or six more Justices on the Supreme Court, and also a good number on the circuit and district courts, given how many cases stop at those.

(What I'd actually advise them to do is change the filibuster rule to make it so that any vote must have the support of not only half of the Senate, but Senators representing half of the population of the states. The Democrats have had a majority in the Senate in the latter sense continually since at least 1985. Now granted such a rule change, even if only internal to the Senate, might be unconstitutional, since the US Constitution is explicit that each Senator has one vote. But it'd be worth exploring.)

EDIT: As for DailyKos' summary, sure, but, like I said, that could backfire if the Supreme Court makes a decision that sparks Dred Scott levels of outrage. That would enable the Democrats to run specifically on ignoring that decision, just as the Republicans did in 1860.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 02, 2020, 01:25:54 am
Looks like Trump's probably got the plague. Best news I've heard since this whole nightmare started.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 02, 2020, 02:25:20 am
If Trump dies of COVID, the US is probably going to explode into open warfare.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 02, 2020, 05:54:32 am
Looks like Trump's probably got the plague. Best news I've heard since this whole nightmare started.

It's very poetic. I'm worried for Biden though. Biden was only a few feet away from that screaming monster a few days ago.

There's also rumors that this is a lie to get out of debating. Trump's lied so much it's hard to tell what the truth is anymore.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 02, 2020, 08:35:35 am
You'll excuse me as I offer my thoughts and prayers at this time

Ironbite-*collapses into a singularity of giggling*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 02, 2020, 09:12:54 am
You'll excuse me as I offer my thoughts and prayers at this time

Ironbite-*collapses into a singularity of giggling*

Legit the first thing I did on learning the news.  Its just so...yup.  That's exactly the kind of laugh I needed, this is fucking gold.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 02, 2020, 11:13:12 am
Apparently Trump has mild symptoms at the moment. I don't really know how the virus works. If it can start off mild and get increasingly worse as time goes on.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 02, 2020, 08:10:35 pm
And then he got a huge ass fever and had to be rushed off to...

Walter Reed.

He's fucked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 02, 2020, 08:19:31 pm
And then so is the US, because Trump has primed his base to think that COVID is a hoax (or at least overblown), that it's a Democratic plot to defeat him, that he can't possibly lose unless the Democrats cheat...

In most democracies, since the system is flexible and can handle these sorts of things, the election would simply be delayed. (It happened in 2019 in PEI's provincial election.) In the rigid, inflexible US system?

(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/WiltedAllBat-small.gif)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 02, 2020, 10:11:40 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Trump dies, the nomination falls to Pence. And Pence doesn't have Trump's appeal to white supremacists that helped him win in 2016. I don't want to argue that Biden would have an easier fight against him because dipshit swing voters would possibly see Pence as respectable, but the entire Republican platform this year is "trust dear leader," so he'd have less than a month to build an actual platform since their platform would literally be dead.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 03, 2020, 12:01:44 am
If Trump dies, the Presidency falls to Pence, but the nomination goes to whomever the RNC's executive committee decides it does.

The thing is, can the states then be persuaded to reprint all the ballots?

And what about the millions of votes that have already been cast?

And, as I said, what about the Trump supporters who will see this as a Democratic hoax to deny Trump a second term? "They couldn't beat him and they knew it, so they killed him!"

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/presidential-nominee-incapacitated-1.5747565
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 03, 2020, 12:30:23 am
Well, Repubs, this is what happens when you choose a candidate who thinks science and reason are Chinese hoaxes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 03, 2020, 12:50:28 am
Well, Repubs, this is what happens when you choose a candidate who thinks science and reason are Chinese hoaxes.

It's what happens when you prime your base to think that science and reason are liberal hoaxes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 03, 2020, 03:03:23 am
Consider this:

a) After discovering that Hope Hicks tested positive for COVID, White House did nothing to warn people she had been in contact with and thus they have possibly infected more people in the meantime.

b) Trump and his family arrived late at the debate intentionally, because they knew that if they arrived on time they would be tested for COVID, as per the rules. Instead they came in late knowing that there was no way in hell the president and his family would have been banned from the debate just because there wasn't time to test them. Also, Trump's family refused to wear masks even after being asked to do so.

c) Trump was at a fundraiser, possibly infecting dozens of billionaires who had been donating money for his campaign.

...There comes a point where you have to wonder is this much incompetence humanly possible or are they intentionally trying to infect people?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 03, 2020, 08:53:02 am
Yeah if Trump dies, both the Presidency and Nomination fall to Pence because that's who's on the ticket with the Orange Piss Pot.  Cause that's how it works.  No nonsense about getting a new candidate who isn't that well known to the people or anything like that.

Ironbite-and Pence doesn't win elections.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 03, 2020, 01:27:22 pm
Yeah if Trump dies, both the Presidency and Nomination fall to Pence because that's who's on the ticket with the Orange Piss Pot.  Cause that's how it works.  No nonsense about getting a new candidate who isn't that well known to the people or anything like that.

Ironbite-and Pence doesn't win elections.

Pence is on the ticket as the candidate for Vice President. Doesn't mean he automatically becomes the candidate for President. A lot of states that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote choice in the state don't really say anything in their laws about who the electors have to vote for if one of the people on the ticket has died.

But RNC rules specify that if a candidate on their Presidential ticket dies, the executive committee chooses the replacement. Could be Pence, but doesn't have to be. There's no Constitutional requirement on the point, unlike with the Presidency.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 03, 2020, 01:53:50 pm
Man, Hope Hicks, Trump and Melania, Kelly Anne Conway, two no three, GOP senators, Trumps campaign manager and now Chris Christie all within days of each other. I can hear the conspiracy theories sprouting already. A well coordinated attack of the president by Joe Biden who had Covid but was asymptomatic at the debate. I can hear it now. Also Attorney general Barr probably also has it but is refusing to quarantine.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 03, 2020, 05:57:55 pm
My response to hearing that Ron Johnson has the plague was literally "ha! Get fucked, Ron."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 03, 2020, 07:14:11 pm
Quote from: Matteo Salvini
In Italy and in the world, whoever celebrates the illness of a man or of a woman, and who comes to wish the death of a neighbour, confirms what he is: An idiot without soul. A hug to Melania and Donald.

I don't want Trump to die of COVID. I want him to live and get humiliated at the polls.

EDIT: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/02/matteo-salvini-set-to-be-tried-over-migrant-kidnapping-charges-italy

Yes, I'm well aware that Salvini is himself a pretty horrible human being.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 05, 2020, 03:41:07 pm
So Trump is leaving the hospital today tweeting out to people to not be afraid of Covid. This means he's either:

A. Not sick and this was all a political scheme to downplay the virus and make Trump look like a tough guy.

B. He's ignorant of the fact that he has the best health care in the world.

C. Is lying that he's all better which he wouldn't be.

D. Just doesnt give a shit.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 05, 2020, 04:29:15 pm
My guess is B. And C. And D.

Shame on Dr. Conley for his active obfuscation on Trump's status, as well.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 05, 2020, 05:21:15 pm
It's not A. The ethics violations by personnel at Walter Reed would be enormous.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 05, 2020, 11:39:30 pm
Yeah seriously.  He's still sick and infectious.  The photo op he had and taking off the mask clearly shows him struggling to just breath.

Ironbite-dumb ass move from a dumb ass man.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 06, 2020, 01:46:07 am
Herman Cain was sick for weeks stating he was feeling better before dying. This isn't over for Trump. He may be able to take steroids to keep his lungs from collapsing but there's no cure for this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 06, 2020, 08:48:03 am
C at least has more evidence backing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQYEQOa_DIE&ab_channel=GuardianNews

Trump seems to be in pain and having trouble breathing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 06, 2020, 09:14:07 am
Seems to have trouble breathing?  He can barely handle going up the stairs.  And that was before this whole infection.  Oh yeah, this ain't over for him.

Ironbite-he'd rather die on his throne then admit weakness.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 06, 2020, 07:32:44 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stock-markets-tuesday-trump-1.5752768

Trump: Look at how great the stock marketeconomy is!

Also Trump: Hey Republicans, stop trying to pass another fiscal stimulus bill!

The stock market then tanked.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 06, 2020, 11:29:16 pm
And Trump goes on a steriod fueled rager.

Ironbite-oh I love this country so so much.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 07, 2020, 01:23:10 am
On one hand, it looks like he wants to lose the elections on purpose, on the other hand everything he has done since the start of his first campaign has looked like he could be sabotaging himself to not win the elections, so it is hard to be certain.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on October 08, 2020, 03:42:10 pm
On one hand, it looks like he wants to lose the elections on purpose, on the other hand everything he has done since the start of his first campaign has looked like he could be sabotaging himself to not win the elections, so it is hard to be certain.

He's morphing into Yosemite Sam...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 08, 2020, 06:56:36 pm
Shit, didja see him shortly after he actually got in?  Dude looked like he just won a job washing dishes at a run-down Denny's in Sisterfist, Arkansas.  Wouldn't be surprised if he's just plain sick of bein' there, having to do actual work instead of coasting on name recognition and branding.  What with being infested with The Varus(TM) and the well documented deleterious effects the Presidency has on one's health (seriously, look at any before-and-after style pics of any President ever, shit's plain as day) and his already shitty, shitty health prior to election, I wouldn't be surprised if he keels over on the campaign trail.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 09, 2020, 08:42:34 am
The walking petri dish wants to hold rallies in Florida and Pennsylvania this weekend.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 09, 2020, 11:14:38 am
Trump is a Nurgle cultist.

Seriously though, I am still not certain whether he is intentionally trying to sabotage his campaign and infect people OR if he is simply so stupid and stubborn that he doesn't understand that what he is doing could actually harm others and is therefore shutting down anyone trying to explain the situation to him. I wouldn't be surprised if after 4 years his staff (the ones that still go to work) simply are too tired to try to reason with him and are just hoping to survive to the end of the year and go look for a new job then.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 09, 2020, 12:47:36 pm
The last one.  Let's be honest, here, he's not exactly the brightest fecker around.  I mean, he managed to have a casino, of all things, fail.  Those bastards are basically an excuse to print arbitrary sums of money; to fuck one up so bad that it can't stay open lends credence to the theory that his brain is as smooth as a baby's arse.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 09, 2020, 05:06:31 pm
He didn't have one casino fail; he had three (IIRC) since he decided that it wasn't enough to have one casino in a city, or even two, but he had to have three.

Because Trump has to have the biggest, the best, the most of anything. It's part of why his government shutdown lasted longer than any other shutdown in US history.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 09, 2020, 10:44:36 pm
And why his pandemic is the largest of all pandemics. Go big or go home. Now he wants to give a rally to thousands on the white house lawn. I'm starting to become convinced he's trying to kill off his electorate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 09, 2020, 10:46:58 pm
Hooray, more blatant violations of the Hatch Act!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on October 09, 2020, 10:50:29 pm
Trump is a Nurgle cultist.

Seriously though, I am still not certain whether he is intentionally trying to sabotage his campaign and infect people OR if he is simply so stupid and stubborn that he doesn't understand that what he is doing could actually harm others and is therefore shutting down anyone trying to explain the situation to him. I wouldn't be surprised if after 4 years his staff (the ones that still go to work) simply are too tired to try to reason with him and are just hoping to survive to the end of the year and go look for a new job then.

He knows what he's doing can kill people.  He simply doesn't care about anyone other than himself.  Look at the interview he gave pre-Covid about his indoor rallies; when asked about creating superspreader events, what with jamming thousands of his supporters in a confined space, Trump responded by pointing out that HE was socially distanced from the crowd, so it was all right; HE wouldn't catch Covid.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 10, 2020, 12:05:01 am
"In Communism, one dies for the sake of all. In Fascism, all die for the sake of one."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 10, 2020, 12:33:55 am
But one death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on October 10, 2020, 12:44:19 am
Trump is a Nurgle cultist.

Seriously though, I am still not certain whether he is intentionally trying to sabotage his campaign and infect people OR if he is simply so stupid and stubborn that he doesn't understand that what he is doing could actually harm others and is therefore shutting down anyone trying to explain the situation to him. I wouldn't be surprised if after 4 years his staff (the ones that still go to work) simply are too tired to try to reason with him and are just hoping to survive to the end of the year and go look for a new job then.

Paul Krugman has advocated a third possibility that I think is reasonable: He knows he is going to lose the election and is trying to do as much harm as possible to spite the USA for not obeying him and to hurt Biden's presidency as much as he can.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on October 10, 2020, 02:27:09 am
Well, IMO if Trump wants to throw these massive rallies and defy COVID restrictions I say let him.

The less chodes wasting our air the better.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 17, 2020, 12:48:46 am
Trump referred to his lackey, Matt Gaetz, as "Rick." The current theory is that he mistook Gaetz as Rick Gates (who has a similar name, but has already been imprisoned for his crimes.) This is embarrasing to all three of them.

If this were Biden, the Trumpistas would already been raging up a storm about his senility.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 17, 2020, 09:20:04 am
This coming off of the fact that his big counter-programing of Biden's ABC Town Hall off of the canceled debate didn't go too good for him.

13 million vs. 13.9 million

Ironbite-and Trump had more exposure for his.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 17, 2020, 01:53:12 pm
I love how if you take Trump out of his cock sucking cultist element he really shows he has no substance.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 27, 2020, 05:03:47 pm
Election is a week from today. Anyone as nervous as I am?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 27, 2020, 05:16:06 pm
I'm nervous for what could happen if the election goes to the courts, and the eventual ruling in favour of Trump is 5-4 with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett comprising the majority.

If I were a US Supreme Court Justice, I'd be investing in extra security right about now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 27, 2020, 07:53:15 pm
Absolutely infuriating that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett aren't legally required to recuse themselves. Them ruling on a case that benefits the asshole who put them on the bench is an immeasurable conflict of interest.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 27, 2020, 08:24:03 pm
Not really. It absolutely would be a conflict of interest if Trump could remove them from the bench, but he can't. Only Congress can do that. They are independent of him, and he can't (legally) exact any sort of retribution on them if they were to rule against him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 27, 2020, 11:31:21 pm
I'm really hoping Roberts doesn't want his legacy to be kingmaker.  But I'm not holding out too much hope.

Ironbite-landside or thin sliver of victory, Trump will contest if Biden wins.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 27, 2020, 11:38:53 pm
Roberts has been playing kingmaker. He gives both sides victories, such as Shelby County for the right, and Obergefell for the left.

The problem is that now he can't play both sides. He has to pick one, and losing is an unacceptable outcome for both.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on October 28, 2020, 12:12:10 am
I think it will come down to how close it is, if it is close - I expect the Court to swing republican.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on October 28, 2020, 05:24:16 am
My optimism is telling me Joe is probably going to win by quite a bit in the EC and blow Clinton's popular vote count from last time out of the water.

I sent in my ballot a few days ago, straight ticket Dem. I'm in an extremely safe blue state so I'm really just praying at this point the people over in places like PA, MI, GA, etc come out in droves to reject all the nonsense that's been happening.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 28, 2020, 09:37:39 am
So far early voting numbers are already at half of 2016s total vote number blowing 2016s early voting out of the water especially in battleground states. Trump only won rust belt states by meager numbers. If there's record turn out it could be bad for Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on October 28, 2020, 10:09:25 am
Apparently the supreme court of USA already voted (thanks to their newest judge) to make it legal to stop the counting of the votes in some states. The precedent being the 2000 elections where this tactic was successfully used to make the person with less votes win the election.

Now that Trump has been urging HIS voters to vote on the election day and Democrats have been urging people to vote by mail, the effect is that a state or two will go to Trump because as soon as Trump has the lead, they can stop counting the votes by mail.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 28, 2020, 10:24:05 am
That's...not even close to what happened.  It only applied to Wisconsin.

Ironbite-and proved once again why Brett Kavanaugh should not be on the Court.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 28, 2020, 03:10:25 pm
At the same time, Wisconsin has been pretty consistently used to be a dry run for how the Republicans use minority rule.

Not coincidentally, if Biden wins, I fully expect McConnell and Trump to use the lame duck period to strip as much power away from him as possible.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on October 28, 2020, 09:08:36 pm
Republicans were able to pull off that stunt in North Carolina and Wisconsin because they controlled both legislative houses and the executive prior to the election. What I expect McConnell and Trump to do is fill as many judicial vacancies as possible, but there's less they can do when it comes to taking actual powers away since the Democrats can block actual legislation in the House.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on October 28, 2020, 10:51:04 pm
Right, hence the qualifier of "as possible." A lot of it would require them to hold the House. They're still going to try.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on October 28, 2020, 10:54:08 pm
What's to stop the Democrats from just giving that power right back once they control all of the chambers again?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on October 28, 2020, 11:38:37 pm
Absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 31, 2020, 07:50:03 pm
For what it's worth, from Victoria, Australia - good luck you mob.

I've friends over there in the states and this year I've been fearful for them, I still am - and for you lot as well.

Here's to anyone other than a washed up, bankrupt, reality tv star turned fascist running your country next year.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 05, 2020, 12:47:03 pm
Not to sure he's gonna get reelected.

Ironbite-chances are rather slim right now.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 05, 2020, 11:28:36 pm
I'm still nervous, but if trends hold, Biden's got all of the remaining battlegrounds except North Caronlina.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 06, 2020, 05:01:05 am
I really hope Georgia goes to Biden just so that its election-stealing Governor who bragged about deporting undocumented immigrants in his truck has to sign something appointing the Democratic slate as Georgia's electors.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 06, 2020, 08:46:09 am
Biden's overtaken Trump in Georgia! If the lead holds this could be over. Well not over Trump will challenge it until inauguration day. But the election will be declared.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 06, 2020, 09:46:39 am
So who puts him over?  PA, GA, or NV?

Ironbite-THE RACE IS ON!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 06, 2020, 09:58:33 am
Biden has overtaken Trump in Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 06, 2020, 11:58:27 pm
Well, it's de facto over. Trump will likely take North Carolina, but he can't keep up in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona or Nevada.

We will soon have an adult in the White House again!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 07, 2020, 12:17:09 am
I mean there's still mechanisms the GOP can use to try to do stuff, for instance by having Republican Governors of states Biden carried (like Georgia and Arizona in particular, but in theory some New England states and Maryland, too) refuse to certify those electors.

The Electoral Count Act is a mess.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 07, 2020, 09:25:56 am
Yes please overturn this election during a pandemic.  When your state budgets are in shambles, people are dying wholesale and mostly from your mishandling of the pandemic, and oh yeah, Trump won't offer one red cent.

Ironbite-they're jettisoning him and hoping to keep his cult around for easy votes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 07, 2020, 02:43:19 pm
And now Trump is a lame duck. Congratulations Biden!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 07, 2020, 03:33:28 pm
What can we take away from this election?

Well, first of all, the whole "phenomenon" candidate idea has been dealt a decidedly strong blow today. Ideologues and populists will persist, but this election demonstrated that they are far from all powerful. Biden, an establishment candidate willing to hear the reasonable ideas of the further Left, has won. He has a lot of work to do and we need to hold him to promises and necessary steps, but this represents something.

Everyone on here predicted a Trump win, or a Bernie blow-out of everyone else in the primaries, and now we have President Biden.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 07, 2020, 03:42:56 pm
I didn't predict a Trump win. I was just jaded. It's still very sad that Trump gained 10 million voters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 07, 2020, 04:26:30 pm
What's really important is not letting what happened in 2010 happen again in 2022.

Democrats have to hold the House, and the decreased majority gives far less room for failure there. Having Governors in states like Wisconsin and Michigan will help, but there will likely be a seat lost in Maryland to Hogan's veto over a 7-1 map as currently exists, and Arizona Republicans will probably try to draw a map that won't sometimes result in a 5-4 Democratic majority, etc.

As for the Senate, Mark Kelly still has to win again in Arizona, while Michael Bennet, Catherine Cortez Masto, and Maggie Hassan are all up for re-election in close states. Meanwhile some of Marco Rubio, Richard Burr, Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson need to be knocked off, plus Kelly Loeffler if she wins in Georgia (otherwise, Raphael Warnock's seat will need defending).

Given the historical performance of the President's party in midterm elections, this could be a very tall order.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 07, 2020, 04:43:08 pm
Democrats have a stronger chance to take the Senate in 2022 due to more Republicans being up for reelection than Democrats. The house is a different story.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 07, 2020, 04:49:03 pm
Democrats have a stronger chance to take the Senate in 2022 due to more Republicans being up for reelection than Democrats. The house is a different story.

Didn't a lot of people think that this time, too, though?

And unless both Georgia seats flip, Republicans will still control the Senate, and Democrats will have more marginal seats to defend than they did this time around.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Radiation on November 07, 2020, 05:31:46 pm
Democrats have a stronger chance to take the Senate in 2022 due to more Republicans being up for reelection than Democrats. The house is a different story.

Didn't a lot of people think that this time, too, though?

And unless both Georgia seats flip, Republicans will still control the Senate, and Democrats will have more marginal seats to defend than they did this time around.

I am really hoping that we will get the two Georgia Democrats in the runoff. I would like to see a Democratic majority in the Senate, we can start to get things done that we haven't been able to in the past 4 years. Glad that Social Security is safe for now for one thing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 07, 2020, 05:37:21 pm
Democrats have a stronger chance to take the Senate in 2022 due to more Republicans being up for reelection than Democrats. The house is a different story.

Didn't a lot of people think that this time, too, though?

And unless both Georgia seats flip, Republicans will still control the Senate, and Democrats will have more marginal seats to defend than they did this time around.

I am really hoping that we will get the two Georgia Democrats in the runoff. I would like to see a Democratic majority in the Senate, we can start to get things done that we haven't been able to in the past 4 years. Glad that Social Security is safe for now for one thing.

That assumes Manchin and/or King don't flip anyway.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-election-biden-result-1.5790534

Quote
Trump's supporters are fuming over the results. Michael Brietenbach attended a protest in Philadelphia on Friday, insisting the vote count was being conducted unfairly.

"We will drag this fight on until our president concedes," he said.

"When our president concedes, his people will concede. Because that's how we are. We follow him. And that's what it is."

So... that's basically a cult, right?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-election-biden-trudeau-wherry-1.5792300

The main lesson of the last four years is that the Americans can't be trusted on the global stage. Any agreement made with them can be ignored or even torn up at a moment's notice.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on November 08, 2020, 01:56:30 am
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/08d9de7969fc11c79b0de48b477cf4db4e8d6bf73812970b209f284f72db611f.jpg?w=800&h=333)

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/d2953f30873422c78ad2d5fce0490f72/tenor.gif?itemid=17327042)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 08, 2020, 02:05:40 am
Q Anon will be... interesting to watch.

They're not going away. I think their influence is going to start shrinking, but they're going to be there. And they're likely going to continue to inspire white nationalist terrorism. Especially since a Q Anon supporter was "elected" to the House.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 08, 2020, 03:01:38 am
Why did you put "elected" in scare quotes? Did the candidate win by acclamation?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 08, 2020, 04:50:17 am
She was running unopposed.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 08, 2020, 07:18:42 am
She was running unopposed.

Well, in that case, it would've been up to someone else to step up and run against her. Election by acclamation is no less legitimate than any other form of election.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 08, 2020, 09:23:41 am
Its a problem Democrats have.  If they feel they can't win in certain areas, they just don't waste the money.  It's a pragmatic view of things and one that anyone can take but I feel that seat was up for grabs.

Ironbite-and as the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 08, 2020, 02:46:28 pm
There's also plenty of seats Republicans don't contest, and not just because they've drawn the maps to make a few of them so safely Democratic that there's no point; go look at Massachusetts.

They too miss 100% of the shots they don't take.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 08, 2020, 04:03:59 pm
Its a problem Democrats have.  If they feel they can't win in certain areas, they just don't waste the money.  It's a pragmatic view of things and one that anyone can take but I feel that seat was up for grabs.

Ironbite-and as the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

She did briefly have an opponent. He dropped out of the race and moved out of the state suddenly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 08, 2020, 11:02:30 pm
https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/1325626888858054656?fbclid=IwAR1Jd6-BDWmPbThyMrHKGebZJhymCvb3Z2AmRwwp84PQhwhknJY0j-GFbN4

The Four Seasons venue fiasco is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on November 09, 2020, 12:07:04 am
That's the best thing that has come out of all of this...perfect summation of the entire administration.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 09, 2020, 04:37:32 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-2021-legal-challenges-1.5794891

Potential legal and financial difficulties facing Donald Trump once he leaves office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 09, 2020, 09:45:44 pm
It's the major reason why he wanted to stay in power. Not to run the country but to keep the tax man off his back.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 10, 2020, 01:50:06 am
New York and the IRS want to nail him to a wall, and he probably owes some really scary people a lot of money.

A lot of people with Italian accents and some very capable hitmen.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 10, 2020, 03:25:09 am
A lot of people with Italian Russian accents and some very capable hitmen.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 10, 2020, 03:38:13 am
A lot of people with Italian Russian accents and some very capable hitmen.

Fixed that for you.

In fairness it's probably both.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 10, 2020, 08:25:48 am
Little gift from down my way, enjoy!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DcQ9__8UJSc4&ved=2ahUKEwiM25qmiPjsAhVXVH0KHaNPCn4QwqsBMAB6BAgBEAM&usg=AOvVaw0rNBtF-8jCTV-2aVTglc0H
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 10, 2020, 03:57:10 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pompeo-biden-smooth-transition-1.5796934

Mike Pompeo is promising a smooth transition--to a second Trump administration.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 10, 2020, 08:14:48 pm
I dont think its realistic to expect Trump to successfully steal the election at this point. But he is going to make as incredibly painful as he can.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 10, 2020, 09:24:36 pm
He's going to make sure Biden doesn't get a sniff of anything until January 20, and then the Republicans will blame Biden for not having his Cabinet all ready to go on that day.

Never mind that they'll stall the appointments in the Senate and that Trump had almost nobody picked up by his inauguration and that it's because of Trump and his administration that Biden's prospective Cabinet Secretaries can't get vetted for security clearances...

It's the same playbook as Republicans use on the deficit. When Republicans are in charge, run up the deficit because that stimulates the economy. When Democrats are in charge, deficit-shame them into cutting spending, which slows the economy. Then remind everyone how good the economy was when Republicans were in charge, and run up the deficit again.

EDIT: For that matter I wouldn't put it past Pence to twist the Electoral Count Act into knots if he can find a way to manipulate that into keeping Trump in office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 10, 2020, 10:26:59 pm
The right wing headlines after Biden's first week in office will be "how come Biden hasn't cured Coronavirus yet and fixed the economy?  We're waiting! Then a week later they'll blame the whole economy on Biden saying this is Biden's economy now. You can't blame this on Trump.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 11, 2020, 04:44:08 am
I dont think its realistic to expect Trump to successfully steal the election at this point. But he is going to make as incredibly painful as he can.
He's just fishing for an exit plan. Guy's a con artist and it's not the first time the con's gone sour. It's not like he wouldn't WANT to steal the election, if he could pull off a Fuhrer Donny he'd go for it in a heartbeat but he hasn't got the backup or the smarts. He just wants to bolt as far away from his incoming legal troubles as he can.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 11, 2020, 07:02:41 pm
Wouldn't be surprised if he's got a nice, long flight planned to a non-extradition country.  Hopefully, one that he didn't piss off and would subsequently just shoot him on arrival and huck him in a hole, somewhere.

Fuck, who am I kidding?  The slow-witted cunt probably thinks he can just barricade himself inside Trump Tower.  After all, it means moving less.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 11, 2020, 07:49:55 pm
Wouldn't be surprised if he's got a nice, long flight planned to a non-extradition country.  Hopefully, one that he didn't piss off and would subsequently just shoot him on arrival and huck him in a hole, somewhere.

Fuck, who am I kidding?  The slow-witted cunt probably thinks he can just barricade himself inside Trump Tower.  After all, it means moving less.

He probably thinks he can just charter flights between Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago direct.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 11, 2020, 08:17:33 pm
Yeah, let's not forget - we are not dealing with a super-genius here. We're dealing with Donald Trump, a senile sputtering COVID patient who'll probably go right back to death's door the minute he's off the steroids.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 11, 2020, 09:27:28 pm
I wonder if in 2024 he'll break Eugene Debs' century-old record for "most votes received for a Presidential candidate in prison".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 11, 2020, 11:35:55 pm
Wouldn't be surprised if he's got a nice, long flight planned to a non-extradition country.  Hopefully, one that he didn't piss off and would subsequently just shoot him on arrival and huck him in a hole, somewhere.

Fuck, who am I kidding?  The slow-witted cunt probably thinks he can just barricade himself inside Trump Tower.  After all, it means moving less.

He's going to Russia to get Trump Tower Moscow off the ground.

Ironbite-is what I would've said had the rumors that Putin's done being the power on the throne.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 12, 2020, 01:23:42 am
Yeah, Putin is the one with a relationship with Donald. Whoever succeeds him does not have any inkling to help him.

So Trump is up shit creek without a paddle. He has utterly no choices left. He's made no real allies, only enemies.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 12, 2020, 02:53:08 am
Fuck, who am I kidding?  The slow-witted cunt probably thinks he can just barricade himself inside Trump Tower.  After all, it means moving less.

I may have a solution...

(https://i.imgur.com/397SQ0m.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 12, 2020, 02:55:02 am
Excellent! Just lead him out of the White House with burgers, then when he comes back he's just not allowed in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on November 12, 2020, 05:17:30 pm
He's going to go to Mar a lago for Christmas and never go back to the Whitehouse. Then he will go to Trump Tower. He won't run anywhere he will stay at Trump Tower and will almost certainly be left alone and never charged for what he did while President. The State of New York will come for him though
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 12, 2020, 06:01:37 pm
No US President ever faces consequences for what they did as President. Ford pardoned Nixon. Further, as Chomsky pointed out, every US President from Truman through Bush Sr. is a war criminal, and every one from Clinton since is also.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 12, 2020, 08:25:18 pm
I think the Biden presidency will be more focused on retaining power, which won't be easy. Winning formerly Republican voters in the suburbs of Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Phoenix who were turned off by Trump but not necessarily the GOP was a big factor in winning the presidency but so was the activism of minority voters, particularly black women. There were also, I'd imagine plenty of people who were motivated primarily by the desire to get the orange bastard gone as well as the opposed camps of Biden and Bernie supporters. Keeping all of those folks happy once Trump is history will be challenging.

A lot depends on Georgia in the coming months, the GOP will be gunning hard for the mid terms in 2022 and taking full advantage of the conservative activist judges Trump placed to stymie Biden's agenda. Trump may be disappearing behind the curtain but he revealed how many people in America are ok with racism, authoritarianism and the notion that only one party has a legitimate claim to power. That's not to say that all Trumpies are racists, but all Trumpies were prepared to give it a pass when it suited their interests, more than a few were straight out, up front racists and there are still over 70,000,000 Americans who were fine and dandy with all the appalling shit he did.

IMO America dodged a bullet and that's reason for celebration, but this victory won't necessarily last forever. As with most things, Trump was BAD at doing the whole wanna be dictator thing because he's a lazy, stupid slob. The Coronavirus presented the perfect opportunity to cement his position and he flubbed it. A national crisis where people will forgive attacks on civil liberties until the crisis passes so long as the leader musters the resources of a nation to do what 'must be done'? Please, even George Bush Jr understood that! Trump had a golden opportunity and he...tweeted and golfed. The next right wing populist with Fascist tendencies waiting in the wings could be a lot more competent.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 12, 2020, 08:58:52 pm
No US President ever faces consequences for what they did as President. Ford pardoned Nixon. Further, as Chomsky pointed out, every US President from Truman through Bush Sr. is a war criminal, and every one from Clinton since is also.

Well, I see no reason much to pay heed to this, since I do not think much of Chomsky. Chances are, you'll go to the grave banging on that drum you alone maintain.

--------

Considering how monumental Trump was in the Republican Party, the Republicans have two choices; drive down turnout by going for more moderate choices and thus making it easier for following Democratic Presidencies - or, double down and select increasingly racist and xenophobic candidates that will activate the Democratic base more and more.

And Demography is against the Republicans.

And keep in mind how instrumental mail in votes were. What we need to do is expand mail in voting, make it even easier, and further empower Stacy Abrams' organization, spread it nationwide.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 12, 2020, 09:44:07 pm
Believe it or not, niam, people are capable of having principles, such as the principle that your actions should be judged by the same standard by which you judge your adversaries' actions, as was done at Nuremberg.

--

As for the Republican Party, maybe. But the Cult of Trump isn't as strong as you might at first think. Consider that in 2016, Trump became the Republican nominee not because he had majority support among Republican primary voters, but because the party uses delegate allocation rules that hand a disproportionate advantage to anyone who can command a plurality share of the vote, which he did. If the other candidates had gotten out of each other's way and the non-Trump vote had coalesced around someone like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich, 2016 would have gone very differently. (If nothing else, one of those three would have been President for the last four years. Which would still have been terrible, but at least they're minimally competent at governing.)

Then in the general election you got people voting for Trump because they might have hated both him and Hillary Clinton, but they hated him less.

There's other points I could make but I'm going to wait until full results have been certified.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-four-fronts-1.5798857

More world leaders have acknowledged Joe Biden as US President-elect than US Senate Republicans.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on November 13, 2020, 11:08:46 am
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/221f6057a0284bb123d813f7c6ec06fc3800a4d024770f9c5d95efb09331fd54.jpg?w=800&h=401)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on November 14, 2020, 10:26:39 am
When the dead rise just to get you out of office, ya know you've done fucked up.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on November 14, 2020, 10:45:16 am
No US President ever faces consequences for what they did as President. Ford pardoned Nixon. Further, as Chomsky pointed out, every US President from Truman through Bush Sr. is a war criminal, and every one from Clinton since is also.


Yes, but war crimes from a sitting president are a dignified tradition, tax evasion is just tacky.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 14, 2020, 01:56:38 pm
No US President ever faces consequences for what they did as President. Ford pardoned Nixon. Further, as Chomsky pointed out, every US President from Truman through Bush Sr. is a war criminal, and every one from Clinton since is also.


Yes, but war crimes from a sitting president are a dignified tradition, tax evasion is just tacky.

Trump evaded taxes long before he became President, though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 14, 2020, 08:53:18 pm
Apparently Glenn Greenwald has been having a pissy fit about this too, because he liked that Trump was razing the institutions he hated so much to the ground. Fuck you, Glenn.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 14, 2020, 09:35:11 pm
Trump was sort of doing that, but in such a hamfisted manner that the end result would have been worse than having them in place.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-biden-states-senate-electors-1.5802587

Republicans control the legislatures in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In all four, state legislative leaders have ruled out intervening to appoint electors for Donald Trump to replace those chosen by the people.

Also, fun fact: As the article notes, if the House and Senate can't agree on who won the Electoral College vote, then Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, becomes President. This is because when the Presidential line of succession was provided for, the Speaker of the House was a political ally of the President, while the President pro tempore of the Senate was not.

And now it's the other way around; if it were the President pro tempore of the Senate who became President before the Speaker of the House, it would be Chuck Grassley, rather than Nancy Pelosi, succeeding in the office should it be vacant as of when Trump and Pence's term expires.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 15, 2020, 12:02:04 am
I would rather it not come down to President Pelosi, but that would have a silver lining of causing the mother of all Trump meltdowns.

I fully expect that the Republicans will relent as soon as they see no more gain from denying it. But of course we have a lot of Twitter panic that Trump will be able to pull off a military coup based on his actions with the Pentagon last week. Not saying that we shouldn't be taking that seriously, because we very much should be, but a military coup would require cooperation from, well, the military. And unless I am EXTREMELY mistaken, military leadership won't let the military get involved in a domestic political dispute.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 15, 2020, 12:24:02 am
I would rather it not come down to President Pelosi, but that would have a silver lining of causing the mother of all Trump meltdowns.

I fully expect that the Republicans will relent as soon as they see no more gain from denying it. But of course we have a lot of Twitter panic that Trump will be able to pull off a military coup based on his actions with the Pentagon last week. Not saying that we shouldn't be taking that seriously, because we very much should be, but a military coup would require cooperation from, well, the military. And unless I am EXTREMELY mistaken, military leadership won't let the military get involved in a domestic political dispute.

Any military lawyer would advise any commander who asks for advice should Trump issue orders to keep Biden (or Pelosi) from succeeding to the office that the orders are illegal and not to be followed.

As for the Republicans, right now the Cult of Trump is strong enough in the party that anyone with 2024 Presidential aspirations (assuming Trump doesn't run again, even if he has to pull a Eugene Debs to do it) has to kowtow to them. It's why Lindsey Graham made a huge donation to the legal fund Trump is amassing to try to fight the results in court.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 15, 2020, 05:23:00 am
People complain about Biden being just as bad as Trump but let's compare their "shady" charity organizations. Trump has repeatedly had charities in his name or related to him that were used as a piggy bank by him and his family. His campaign finance charity openly admits that money donated to it only goes to campaign funding IF it is over 8'000 dollars, otherwise it all goes to his legal fund.

Biden meanwhile... His cancer research charity organization is under fire when tax documents showed that the organization spent 3 million dollars in the two years it existed for overhead costs (like wages and travel funds) and zero (0) dollars donated to cancer research. ...No why would his organization do something like that? Simple: Rather than funneling money first to the org and then to the research, they lobbied for cancer research and the 400'000'000 dollars that went to cancer research, went there directly. In other words, rather than begging dollars from random people, they went directly to rich people and companies and sent millions to cancer research. And the organization shut down because of Biden's campaign. First Biden and his family left the org so that there would be no ethical questions about him misusing his campaign or political position, and then the org shut down when they saw that without Biden and his connections, they simply could not reach the same results they did while he was involved.


Is Biden perfect? No. But unlike Trump, he doesn't turn everything he touches into shit with his Mid-Ass touch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 16, 2020, 05:31:47 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concession-supporters-1.5803081

Trump supporters: If Trump says he lost, we'll accept it.

You want a political cult? This is a political cult.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 16, 2020, 09:54:33 am
Cult.  Nothing political about it.

Ironbite-it's just a cult.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 16, 2020, 08:02:48 pm
This is basically populism in a nutshell and showing its worst excesses prominently. A personality cult around a singular leader who the cult attaches total reverence to.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 18, 2020, 06:49:29 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/toronto-firm-dominon-trump-voter-fraud-1.5806983

Elections Canada notes in a Tweet that it doesn't use vote tabulators from Dominion or from any other such company, in response to multiple questions from Canadians about the security of our voting system.

This is because, since we only vote on one thing at a time (above the municipal level, anyway), all our ballots are hand-marked and hand-counted.

Trump, being the ignorant fool that he is, seizes upon this as "evidence" that Dominion, based in Toronto, makes terrible systems that can't even sell domestically. (I think they might make the vote-counting machines that we use for municipal elections in my city and I've never heard a complaint about them.)

Naturally, come January 21, everything wrong with the US will be Joe Biden's fault and will always have been Joe Biden's fault.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 18, 2020, 10:05:54 pm
Yup and if the economy improves drastically under Biden's presidency it will not be improving enough until the next Republican comes into office where miraculously over night the US will have the greatest economy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 19, 2020, 09:34:18 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/georgia-recount-election-1.5807799

Every life lost due to COVID in the US for some time after Joe Biden takes office will be blood on Donald Trump's hands.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on November 20, 2020, 04:12:34 am
I bet the GOP manages to make their voters believe that Biden and Democrats are responsible for it and the economic impact. ...And they'll probably believe that Biden was born in Algeria.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 20, 2020, 09:54:40 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/georgia-recount-election-1.5807799

Every life lost due to COVID in the US for some time after Joe Biden takes office will be blood on Donald Trump's hands.

Until OAN tells it's viewers that all of the covid deaths are Biden's fault. Just like the great recession was Obama's fault.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 21, 2020, 02:05:21 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-jr-covid-19-tests-positive-1.5810837

And now Donald Jr. has tested positive for COVID, but is asymptomatic and is quarantining.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 21, 2020, 02:30:07 am
Ahh, how tragic. The Coronavirus has tested positive for Don Jr. I cannot imagine how much that poor virus is panicking knowing somewhere within it is Donald Trump Jr., the living embodiment of "PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE NOTICE ME DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!"
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 21, 2020, 09:11:40 am
Trump summoned the GOP leadership in Michigan to tell them to send electors that'll vote for him in December.  They told him to get stuffed.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/20/biden-adviser-michigan-lawmakers-cant-intervene-election-result/6355274002/

Maybe not in so many words but they're not going to go against the will of the people for this Orange Piss Pot.

Ironbite-if only because they understand the consequences better then he does.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 21, 2020, 01:54:34 pm
Trump really is leaning into the "Hitler raging out in his bunker" aesthetic.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 21, 2020, 05:24:22 pm
The sad thing is, it might just end up working, if only because Brian Kemp and Georgia Republicans might figure, well, we stole one election two years ago, what's the harm of stealing another?

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-threats-cost-1.5810848

Oh and death threats. Did I mention death threats?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 21, 2020, 07:39:41 pm
Thankfully you get further with honey than with vinegar, and Trump is completely inept about this.

Raffensberger concluded the recount and Georgia definitively went to Biden.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 21, 2020, 07:51:41 pm
Trump can still ask for a recount per Georgia law, and no doubt he will. It's highly unlikely it will change anything, but there'll be a recount there. (The second count was an audit of results; state law requires that a race be recounted, the choice of such to be made by the Secretary of State, and Raffensberger chose the Presidential race due to its close margin and significance.)

It'll be interesting to see how the Senate runoffs play out. My suspicion is that while Biden's win in Georgia wouldn't have been conceivable without Abrams' efforts in voter registration, what tipped the balance was people who voted Republican on all races except the Presidential race, where they voted for Biden, Jorgensen, or nobody at all. So that's enough to put Georgia in the Democratic column for the Electoral College, but won't be enough to flip either Senate seat.

I wonder what the registration rules are for the runoffs.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pennsylvania-vote-certification-trump-biden-1.5811628

A Trump campaign effort to prevent certification of Pennsylvania's results has been thrown out of court.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 21, 2020, 11:23:18 pm
WITH PREJUDICED! 

Ironbite-that's cold man.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 22, 2020, 12:16:18 am
You know, I'm glad the President is such an incompetent buffoon who hired a senile vampire to lead his legal defense.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 22, 2020, 12:20:45 am
The article I linked above has been updated:

1. Trump is planning an appeal, of course.

2. Trump has requested a recount in Georgia, as is his right.

3. Pat Toomey has acknowledged Joe Biden as President-elect.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 22, 2020, 02:19:15 am
I wonder if the recount of the recount will get appealed, and Trump will angrily order a recount from there.

He's just gonna keep ordering recounts until he somehow wins Georgia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 22, 2020, 02:36:31 am
I wonder if the recount of the recount will get appealed, and Trump will angrily order a recount from there.

He's just gonna keep ordering recounts until he somehow wins Georgia.

Per state law, what's already been done was not a recount; it was an audit of results. For all legal purposes, it was the first count of ballots.

The recount will proceed per the Trump campaign's request; I don't see what legal recourse he'll have should the results show that Biden is still leading. Certainly he'll be out of options for recounts.

Now, extralegal recourse (Brooks Brothers Riot, anyone?) is another matter entirely.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 22, 2020, 09:21:38 am
Biden's lead in Georgia is 12,000 votes.  Not a huge margin when you think about it but enough.  Every time they did a recount or anything, that lead widened.

Ironbite-I don't think we overturn Georgia.  Trump lost 2 weeks ago and he needs to face that reality.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 22, 2020, 04:19:02 pm
Georgia isn't being overturned, but the audit actually shrank Biden's lead compared to the initial computer count, from around 14,000 votes to a little under 13,000. Apparently there were some ballots that had missed being fed into the computers at first.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 22, 2020, 11:30:12 pm
They fired True Believer Sidney Powell from the Legal Defense Force.  You know, the one who's been spouting the wacky wavy conspiracy theory that Trump actually won and everything we've seen so far is setting us up for a Biblical Fight.  The reason?  She might be costing them the Senate.

Ironbite-the other True Believers are not happy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 22, 2020, 11:56:48 pm
Why do they think she might cost them the Senate? Her allegations about Kemp and Raffensberger being in league with Biden?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 23, 2020, 12:35:25 am
I've actually seen a movement from trumpers in Georgia to write in Trump's name instead of voting for the Republican. I say more power to them. Write in Trump's name all you want.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2020, 12:49:30 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnS9hbmXcAQJH5n?format=jpg&name=large)

I am almost brought to tears by laughing so hard at this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on November 23, 2020, 03:03:13 am
They might actually give us the win by sheer force of their own delusional thinking.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 23, 2020, 09:23:53 am
Why do they think she might cost them the Senate? Her allegations about Kemp and Raffensberger being in league with Biden?


Before she was fired, she was screaming that Kelly Loeffler, one of the current Senators from Georgia fighting for her job, was not the winner of the Primary.  Instead, she was urging people to vote for Doug Collins and of course, President Trump.  Cause that's how run offs work.

Ironbite-but the woman was a QAnon believer and firing her is not gonna go over well with them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 23, 2020, 03:24:01 pm
What ever makes them tear themselves apart from the inside.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2020, 03:44:02 pm
It's why McConnell, Cornyn, Thune and the like are dancing around the question of whether Trump has actually lost. They all know he has, they just don't want to piss him off and have him sit at Mar-a-Lago and sulk when they could potentially have him holding rallies in Georgia and getting his base excited for vote for Perdue and Loeffler.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 23, 2020, 04:41:27 pm
Yeah if he even does that at all. He doesn't seem to be interested in doing any sort of governing since he lost except to play golf. He's a resentful fuck who probably views Georgia as dead to him since they chose to vote for Biden.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2020, 05:02:02 pm
On the other hand, the one thing he does like doing when it comes to politics is campaigning. He loves drawing crowds and having people hang on his every word. That's the Trump that McConnell is trying to bring to Georgia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 23, 2020, 06:48:31 pm
True but since it's not about him I don't know why he would care? He might do it, but he would just be bitching and crying about the "fraudulent" election the whole time and probably talk shit about Georgia.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on November 23, 2020, 09:14:08 pm
Trump won because he was highly successful in speaking to disenfranchised rural blue collared voters who have been largely feeling ignored for a long time. Their jobs have been disappearing for a long time and  what once was large booming towns filled with steel mills, or mines, or manufacturing plants are slowly turning to ghost towns filled with meth dens and crumbling infrastructure. Trump spoke out against NAFTA and TPP which a large population of middle america hate and blame for jobs going over seas. Truth is these jobs have been starting to leave way before NAFTA became a thing. Trump and Clinton were already both highly disliked candidates. What hurt Clinton was that the same people who came out for Obama didn't come out for Clinton this time. Southern blacks and younger voters didn't feel energized by Clinton's more moderate democrat stance. Blacks didn't feel they were helped out much from eight years with Obama, so why would they turn out for someone who doesn't understand them. Younger voters are growing more progressive and Clinton just seemed more status quo.
Trump was able to excite a large group of voters that were previously ignored, and they came out in droves to vote for him. Not all of them are racists, not all of them hate foreigners, but some feel he can bring their jobs back and they were willing to over look the dangerous borderline racists, sexist shit Trump has said in the past.
The truth is Trump is not going to bring the jobs back, and any jobs he tries to force to stay here will be costly. Wall street big wigs will fight him on that. He can try to impose tariffs on businesses importing goods into the US that manufactured in foreign countries, but that will just end up hurting the consumer with higher prices in an already stagnated economy with stagnated wages. Republicans want to impose tax cuts on the extremely wealthy again which is just going to hurt the middle class even more. He's not going to be able to build a wall. Republicans hate spending on infrastructure and they certainly are not going to spend billions on a pipe dream that will most likely take way past Trumps four years in office to even start development, and no Mexico is not going to pay for it. The same will happen on deportation.
Every candidate makes promises or goals that they want to accomplish that will never pass, like Obama and Gitmo. The problem is Trump spoke of grandious promises that will most likely never come to fruition. A lot of voters will most likely see this and not turn out to vote next time.

Wow this is what I posted just over four years ago. I ended up being right about a lot of it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 23, 2020, 10:17:35 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-transition-can-begin-gsa-1.5813414

Looks like someone got in Trump's ear and convinced him that if he didn't let Emily Murphy sign off on starting the transition, he'd get raked over the coals for months to come.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on November 24, 2020, 04:50:05 am
WITH PREJUDICED! 

Ironbite-that's cold man.

I like to call that kind of ruling "Polite legal speak for 'get the fuck out, now'".
And it's the most beautiful way to see this shit get smacked down with.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 24, 2020, 09:22:01 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-transition-can-begin-gsa-1.5813414

Looks like someone got in Trump's ear and convinced him that if he didn't let Emily Murphy sign off on starting the transition, he'd get raked over the coals for months to come.


Well that's the story now.  Before he tweeted out that he was graciouslly allowing the transition to start, Ms. Murphy came out and said she had independently came to the conclusion that the transition needed to start now.  Not, you know, when Biden was the clear winner or anything. 

Ironbite-with one tweet, Trump made Emily Murphy his bitch and threw her under the bus.  I love it.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on November 24, 2020, 12:07:08 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-transition-can-begin-gsa-1.5813414

Looks like someone got in Trump's ear and convinced him that if he didn't let Emily Murphy sign off on starting the transition, he'd get raked over the coals for months to come.


Well that's the story now.  Before he tweeted out that he was graciouslly allowing the transition to start, Ms. Murphy came out and said she had independently came to the conclusion that the transition needed to start now.  Not, you know, when Biden was the clear winner or anything. 

Ironbite-with one tweet, Trump made Emily Murphy his bitch and threw her under the bus.  I love it.

Given what happened to Christopher Krebs, I doubt Emily Murphy would've signed off on starting the transition without at least some sort of approval from Trump.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-election-leave-biden-electoral-college-1.5818444

Trump's saying he'll leave the White House if the Electoral College votes for Biden, but not ever personally concede.

Which means there'll be millions of Americans who view Biden as an illegitimate President.

EDIT #2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/wisconsin-recount-biden-trump-1.5821417

Trump paid $3 million to add 87 votes to Biden's lead in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on November 30, 2020, 11:37:02 pm
So Trump's done.  All 6 Battleground States have certified Joe Biden's win so...there's that.

Ironbite-god he's lost so much I'm tired of winning.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 01, 2020, 06:31:38 am
Don't worry, he'll keep suing.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 02, 2020, 11:43:19 am
Most likely from a near future interview.
Setting outside Mars A Lago Trump sits in a white polo shirt.

Chris Wallace: "So you don't think you lost the election?"

Trump: "No, no I don't think I lost. If you look around there was a lot of fraud going on. You know it and I know it. A tremendous amount of fraud, and the lying media, which has treated me very badly by the way and frankly you're treating me very badly. Just isn't reporting it."

Chris Wallace: "Mr Trump with all due respect, there just wasn't enough evidence of fraud."

Trump: "There is evidence. A tremendous amount of evidence, and were looking into it and looking into it very carefully. We had dead people voting. I win by a lot on election night, some people would say a landslide and all of a sudden millions of votes come in for Biden?

Chris Wallace: "But it seems like your evidence hasn't held up in court."

Trump: "Look we had the best economy the country has ever seen. You don't lose when you have the best economy."

Chris Wallace: "The country was in a recession."

Trump: "Until Chyna brought their little virus over here. We had the best economy for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Educated and not so educated who I love by the way. You simply don't lose when you have the greatest economy the world has ever seen."
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 04, 2020, 08:07:22 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-culture-war-pandemic-statues-immigration-1.5826976

The culture war, viewed as a conflict between the "Anywheres" and the "Somewheres".

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-electors-president-california-certification-1.5829778

With California's certification, there are now officially enough electors pledged to Biden that the votes submitted to Congress for its consideration on January 6 will have a majority cast for Joe Biden.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 05, 2020, 11:39:00 am
But but what about the suitcase in Georgia that had extra fake votes in it. All votes for Biden should be thrown out in Georgia! Trump won by 50 million votes! Biggest election landslide in history!  MAGA!

That was fun to type.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 06, 2020, 04:30:02 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/rudy-giuliani-tests-positive-covid-19-1.5830603

And now Rudy Giuliani has tested positive.

I wonder how much more incoherent this will make his legal arguments.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 06, 2020, 06:14:07 pm
Considering COVID's list of symptoms include becoming deranged, I think it might push him into outright insanity.

Like, outright trying to call his cousin Vinny up to the stand to testify.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 06, 2020, 07:57:58 pm
No matter how deranged he gets, though, nothing can top his claim that the US didn't suffer terrorist attacks until Barack Obama was elected President.

Certainly they didn't suffer one in 2001.

In the city where he was Mayor at the time.

And he never tried to run for President on the basis of having been said Mayor at said time, including before Obama took office.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on December 06, 2020, 09:11:07 pm
You know how Biden said Rudy Giuliani knew a noun a verb and 9/11?

I'm beginning to think that may be a bit of a stretch in terms of Rudy's linguistic abilities.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 07, 2020, 11:10:01 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Georgia_Secretary_of_State_election

Just a reminder: the last time there was a statewide runoff in Georgia, for Secretary of State in 2018 (won by Brad Raffensperger, the same guy now getting death threats for upholding state law), the Democratic candidate's vote share declined in the runoff.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 07, 2020, 11:33:50 am
Yeah but that was also off of the heels of a MAAAAAAAAAAAAAASIVE voter purge done by now Governor Kemp.  Stacy Abrams and co have been doing some massive registration of folks and are really enthusiastic about this vote.  In fact, one of the Democratic candidates is ahead of their opponent in polls right now.

Ironbite-so have some hope.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 07, 2020, 11:44:51 am
Yeah but that was also off of the heels of a MAAAAAAAAAAAAAASIVE voter purge done by now Governor Kemp.  Stacy Abrams and co have been doing some massive registration of folks and are really enthusiastic about this vote.  In fact, one of the Democratic candidates is ahead of their opponent in polls right now.

Ironbite-so have some hope.

Was there yet another voter purge between the general election and the runoff?

I'm not saying there's no hope of winning those races; I am saying that historically, Republican turnout is better in Georgia runoffs than Democratic turnout, and already in both races in the general election, Republican candidates, taken together, outpolled Democratic candidates, taken together. (Warnock beat Loeffler, yes, but Loeffler had a strong Republican challenger in Doug Collins; Warnock had no such challenger on the Democratic side.)

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/krebs-death-threats-digenova-lawsuit-1.5833016

Christopher Krebs, who ran the federal agency tasked with ensuring election security and was fired by Trump after reporting that the 2020 had been the most secure in American history, has received death threats after a lawyer went on a show licenced by NewsMax and called for him to be killed. Krebs is now suing the lawyer, NewsMax, and the Trump campaign.

EDIT #2: https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-pennsylvania-election-results/

In one of those "bet you didn't remember that clause of the US Constitution" instances, Texas has sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin over alleged violations of election law directly at the Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction for cases between states.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 08, 2020, 10:54:01 pm
Yeah funny how they sued on safe harbor day. So it's a lawsuit that will go absolutely no where.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 08, 2020, 10:56:13 pm
They have to do something or get primaried, but it will probably be thrown out on an opening motion to dismiss for failure to show injury.

EDIT: Here's an interesting fact.

In Florida, Donald Trump, who has said that the minimum wage should be lower, won its electors by a wider margin of victory than he did in 2016, or than Barack Obama did in 2012 or 2008. Also this year, voters approved a state constitutional amendment to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr by 2026, a measure which required a 60% supermajority.

In California, Joe Biden won its electors by a slightly smaller margin of victory than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, but by a substantially wider margin than Barack Obama did in 2012 or 2008. Also this year, voters rejected a proposal to remove the state's ban on affirmative action, with around 57% voting against. Voters also repealed a bill that replaced cash bail with risk assessments in criminal trials.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-election-supreme-court-challenge-1.5834985

Seventeen other states have joined Texas' suit. All but three have Republican Governors; all are represented by Republican officials.

The Trump campaign has applied for intervenor status in the case.

EDIT #2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-lawsuit-supreme-court-defeat-1.5838403
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

The US Supreme Court has rejected Texas' bid to sue Pennsylvania and three other states over the alleged unconstitutionality of the conduct of their election this year.

The Court noted that "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

Justices Alito and Thomas would have permitted Texas to file the complaint, on the grounds that the Court cannot deny filing when a case falls into its original jurisdiction. However, they would not have ordered either that the Electoral College vote be delayed from December 14, nor that the current slates of electors in the four defendant states be set aside.

EDIT #3: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/texass-frivolous-lawsuit-seeks-to-overturn-election-in-four-other-states/

Andrew McCarthy: Yes, we all know Democrats want to steal elections and all that. But Ken, you know as well as I do that this tactic isn't going to work.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on December 12, 2020, 02:01:44 pm
(https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rebelmouse.io%2FeyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk1MDY1NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MjkzMTg3OH0.XvCNOBC9kILRNdsQDbayoiD-3VWa0zh3aX2ypq7SmY4%2Fimg.png%3Fwidth%3D980&key=uIJ_ITtwPOhmmzk_YstPZw&w=800&h=517)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 12, 2020, 04:33:19 pm
People still listen to Milo?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 13, 2020, 06:46:41 am
https://www.newsweek.com/gop-al-rep-mo-brooks-wants-force-republican-vote-trumps-election-overturn-effort-1553968

Mo Brooks is hoping to force every Republican lawmaker to go on record as supporting or opposing Trump's efforts to remain in office for a second term by invoking a provision of the Electoral Count Act requiring Congress to vote on whether to accept a slate of electors from a state.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 13, 2020, 09:46:04 am
Quote
While Republicans and Trump's re-election team have been unable to prove claims of widespread election fraud, with 51 of 52 such cases being dismissed or withdrawn from court due to lack of evidence, Brooks' challenge would be a last-ditch effort to at least symbolically protest the election of President-elect Joe Biden while also pledging loyalty to Trump and avoiding the wrath of his supporters.

I think this paragraph sums it all up.

Ironbite-anyone who supports this shouldn't be sat in Congress.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 13, 2020, 12:22:46 pm
Quote
While Republicans and Trump's re-election team have been unable to prove claims of widespread election fraud, with 51 of 52 such cases being dismissed or withdrawn from court due to lack of evidence, Brooks' challenge would be a last-ditch effort to at least symbolically protest the election of President-elect Joe Biden while also pledging loyalty to Trump and avoiding the wrath of his supporters.

I think this paragraph sums it all up.

Ironbite-anyone who supports this shouldn't be sat in Congress.

Very likely any Republican who doesn't support it won't be in Congress. It's why over half the House caucus supported Texas' suit at the Supreme Court, and the rest have been silent on whether Biden actually won. It's why the Senators who have said, yeah, Biden won are the ones who aren't too worried about re-election--for instance, Sasse and Collins just won, Murkowski already proved she can win as a write-in, and Toomey isn't running again. (There's more by now, but those are the names that come to mind.)

This is a loyalty test for 2022 and 2024.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-trump-electoral-college-votes-1.5840102

The Electoral College has voted, with a majority of votes cast for Joe Biden for President and Kamala Harris for Vice President.

Also, William Barr is resigning as Attorney General effective December 24.

EDIT #2: Roy Blunt and Lindsey Graham are the most recent Republican Senators to acknowledge Biden as President-elect, significant since Blunt is a member of Senate Republican leadership and Graham is a staunch Trump ally.

EDIT #3: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/putin-biden-u-s-election-1.5841673

Mitch McConnell has acknowledged Biden's victory.

EDIT #4: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/15/mcconnell-gop-election-results-445524

So McConnell got on a conference call with Senate Republicans and asked them not to join Rep. Brooks' effort to challenge the election in Congress. Apparently, according to Sen. Capito, nobody on the call objected to McConnell's request, but Sen. Paul apparently hasn't ruled out joining Rep. Brooks, and Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville wasn't on the call.

My money's on Ted Cruz, though.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on December 17, 2020, 12:35:27 am
I don't think Milo has to do anything to get his "revenge", the republicans are quite busy at work to destroy themselves the more wacky and out of touch they become.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 17, 2020, 12:41:34 am
I don't think Milo has to do anything to get his "revenge", the republicans are quite busy at work to destroy themselves the more wacky and out of touch they become.

Not for a good long while so long as they can keep their pro-life voting base from paying too much attention to people like Scott DesJarlais.

EDIT: Also, looking at the 2022 US Senate elections, it's arguably neither as bad for Republicans as this year's, nor as bad for Democrats as 2018.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 19, 2020, 09:06:03 pm
So Trump is apparently thinking about declaring martial law in swing states and have the military redo the election. As being suggested by Worm tongue. I mean Sydney Powell. You know basically committing what might be treason against state governments.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on December 20, 2020, 05:32:40 am
Remember the Jade Helm controversy?

Weird how the same people who were freaking out in fear of Obama declarin martial law and taking over the country (from himself?) are now really, really quiet at the prospect of Trump using the military to stay in power.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 20, 2020, 06:32:33 am
I would not be at all surprised if many of the same people who insisted that all Bloc Québécois MPs (if not voters) should be treated as traitors, not seated in the House of Commons, denied parliamentary pensions, have their votes disregarded (such as for same-sex marriage), and so on, now support the Maverick Party (formerly the Wexit Party).

Everyone in politics can be counted on to be wilfully blind to their own hypocrisy when it suits their ends.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on December 20, 2020, 06:59:10 am
So Trump is apparently thinking about declaring martial law in swing states and have the military redo the election. As being suggested by Worm tongue. I mean Sydney Powell. You know basically committing what might be treason against state governments.

That particular brand of insanity is coming from Flynn.  Powell is being touted as being named Special Council to investigate the Dominion Voting Machines that somehow switched Trump votes for Biden votes in deep red states.

Ironbite-Gulianni has awoken from his nap to say these are VERY bad ideas.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on December 20, 2020, 09:56:08 am
Remember the Jade Helm controversy?

Weird how the same people who were freaking out in fear of Obama declarin martial law and taking over the country (from himself?) are now really, really quiet at the prospect of Trump using the military to stay in power.

Oh they're not quiet at all. Going over to parler if you can stomach it. His crazed supporters are all for this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on December 23, 2020, 09:27:59 pm
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/

I only saw this now, but this is an interesting analysis by the Brookings Institute about how economic activity lines up with partisan voting patterns in the US.

EDIT: Meanwhile, Hawley, Cruz, and a host of other Republican Senators have said that they'll vote against certifying the electoral votes from certain states which Biden won.

Both McConnell and Thune have acknowledged Biden as President-elect, however, Thune going so far as to say that their plan will "go down like a shot dog" in the Senate (never mind that it will die in the House due to the Democratic majority in that chamber).

EDIT #2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-call-defence-state-1.5861147

Could Trump face criminal charges for his phone call to Raffensperger?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 06, 2021, 03:43:06 am
it's incredible how much of the conspiracies about Clinton/Obama/current democrat supporting x, y, or z treasonous evil nefarious plot was just projection, constantly.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 06, 2021, 11:00:35 am
Hey, Mitch you asshole!  Enjoy being the Senate MINORITY Leader!

Of course, knowing that asshole, now that it's known he won't be in charge, he'll start whining about the lack of bipartisanship in the Senate.  Any minute now...
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 06, 2021, 12:15:36 pm
NYT still has Perdue vs Ossoff as too close to call.

Also I wouldn't put it past Manchin to switch parties.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/washington-protesters-1.5863486

Meanwhile, protesters have breached the US Capitol.

Hope anyone who lives in the DC area is safe.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 06, 2021, 05:22:40 pm
I was afraid of something like this. This is a natural consequence of normalizing the use of mass violence to achieve political ends.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 06, 2021, 05:24:41 pm
Well good news is that the democrats took the senate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 06, 2021, 05:37:16 pm
Well good news is that the democrats took the senate.

It looks that way, but one thing I've learned from watching elections over the last few months is never to be sure about a race until all the votes are in.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 06, 2021, 06:31:58 pm
Today.... wow. I am at a loss for words.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 06, 2021, 09:46:23 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.5863334/dark-day-in-american-history-cbc-s-katie-simpson-on-the-chaotic-scene-at-u-s-capitol-1.5863661

The CBC's senior Washington correspondent talking about what it was like to be there.

(I don't know if you can listen to the audio if you're not in Canada.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 06, 2021, 10:22:55 pm
A woman who helped storm the capitol was killed (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/woman-shot-capitol-dead.html).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 06, 2021, 10:39:39 pm
A woman who helped storm the capitol was killed (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/woman-shot-capitol-dead.html).

I'm waiting on further details to come out about the shooting, but whatever her role in events, that it happened is a horrific tragedy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 06, 2021, 11:01:02 pm
Who shot and killed her because the police weren't doing anything to stop them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 07, 2021, 01:42:10 am
Police warning shot hit in just the right spot.

Ironbite-and I have no sympathy.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 07, 2021, 07:03:07 am
Wonder if anyone's still on the fence about whether or not the cult of Trump is fascist?

What a shitshow!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 07, 2021, 12:22:53 pm
At least it got the Senators to take it seriously enough that there were no more valid objections other than to Pennsylvania, and Hawley only objected there so that come 2024 (or 2028) Cruz wouldn't be the only person on stage who could say that he tried to "stop the steal". By the time they got to Wisconsin, whichever Senator had planned to sign on to the objection got cold feet, and even Hawley didn't try to defend his objection to Pennsylvania's votes.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 07, 2021, 12:52:33 pm
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90fb5fc26486d9abdfb1ca0ec1d259c4d1f480a55eadf0a26ace7386ed043fcd.png)


(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49049eefa1fb44819e196f2cbe51b354382e3fc928d93832385d5e2417e366c4.jpg?w=600&h=392)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 07, 2021, 03:15:06 pm
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90fb5fc26486d9abdfb1ca0ec1d259c4d1f480a55eadf0a26ace7386ed043fcd.png)


(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49049eefa1fb44819e196f2cbe51b354382e3fc928d93832385d5e2417e366c4.jpg?w=600&h=392)

Didn't you know?  That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad!  Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 07, 2021, 06:08:50 pm
Didn't you know?  That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad!  Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s

It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?

This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.

Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 07, 2021, 07:45:58 pm
Quote
It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?

Except there has been evidence and charges brought to right wing extremists and accelerationists who instigated some of the violence to undermine the protests. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/

Quote
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process.

What the fuck are you talking about? The only person I see normalizing violence and undermining the confidence in the electoral process is Trump, and it's been Trump since the beginning.

Quote
You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it.

So you're comparing the riots spurred on by the police against peaceful protestors who want police to stop being violent to rioters committing sedition against their own government and trying to stop the electoral process and the peaceful transfer of power?

Quote
You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement.

They are bastards. I don't know why the right is surprised when they turn against them as well.

Quote
And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.

It's true people were saying that yet the peaceful transfer of power happened and liberals accepted Trumps legitimate win in 2016 even with or without foreign interference. What I would have liked to have seen is the right do the fucking same instead of being sore loser cry babies.

Quote
What I'm trying to do

What I would like you to try and do is kindly fuck off.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 07, 2021, 07:49:20 pm
Didn't you know?  That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad!  Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s

It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?

This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.

Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.

Leave it to Vanto the Barely Concealed Alt-Right Shitbag to carry water for literal terrorists and act like this is AKSHUALLY THE LEFT'S FAULT. It's always the Left's fault with shitheads like you. You turn things around every single time when the right misbehaves to try and turn it around "well, if the left hadn't been JUST AS BAD things like this wouldn't be happening."

Fuck you and fuck your just as bad waffling.

Nobody here is gonna take your shit, especially after what happened in DC. Nobody here accepts what garbage you spew out of your second anus you call a mouth.

So get lost, leave, go, never come back you literal sleazebag.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 07, 2021, 08:46:52 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concedes-1.5865609

Trump has finally conceded the election, and called the attack on the US Capitol--an attack he encouraged--"heinous" and claimed it left him "outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem".

Also, the riot has now claimed five lives, including one member of the Capitol Police.

Over/under on how many days until Trump flips on this?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 07, 2021, 08:57:41 pm

This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process.

I love how right wingers are all about personal responsibility right up until the moment someone catches them with their hand in the cookie jar, or in this case the seat of American government then it's all "the left made me do it."

It's gonna be briefly confusing for them to settle on a new shared delusion while some are saying antifa inspired it, others are saying they literally are antifa, bussed in by George Soros and still others that they wouldn't act "like antifa" if you hadn't hurt their feelings by calling them racists and sexists in the first place.

I guess Vanto's on task, top equivocating and bullshitting there chap. There could get you a job on OANN with an "Ashli Babbit martyr" pin, "Q" cufflinks and an "all lives matter" T shirt.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concedes-1.5865609

Trump has finally conceded the election, and called the attack on the US Capitol--an attack he encouraged--"heinous" and claimed it left him "outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem".

Also, the riot has now claimed five lives, including one member of the Capitol Police.

Over/under on how many days until Trump flips on this?

I'm not always the biggest fan of the US in foreign policy terms but you mob would be nuts if you didn't impeach the bastard and charge him with crimes that'd prevent him from legally holding office again. He may be out of his tiny little mind but he is not fucking playing, this was a beer hall putsch moment. You don't want follow up Kristallnacht's or Reichstag fires.

Yes it was an INCOMPETENT coup d'état. Trump made as much of a dogs breakfast of it as he's made of everything else he's touched but Trump's Mens Rea shouldn't be a matter of debate, regardless of U turn calls for calm and promises of a peaceful transition made only after the 'gravy seal coup' failed as hard as his stupid lawsuits. There's enough of the US public backing him and enough opportunistic shitheels like Ted Cruz who share his antipathy to democracy to mean he's still fucking dangerous, and he is still dangerous.

Impeach, throw the book at him - knock him out of the game.

Anything less is inviting a repeat performance.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 07, 2021, 09:10:59 pm
He's a Dave Rubinoid.

"I am the only true, HONEST Left or Centrist and everyone else is a terrible evil double plus bad WOKE cultist!! It just so happens I always invite conservatives on my show and never once call them out on their bullshit!"

He's full of just as much repugnant bullshit as Dave Rubin.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 07, 2021, 10:08:20 pm
I think Trump made his U-turn as a last-gasp effort to try to keep 34 Republicans onside if the House passes articles of impeachment.

You don't mess around when votes went 93-6 and 92-7 against you.

But I put the over/under at 13.5 days: even money on whether Trump flips before he leaves office, or after.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 07, 2021, 11:26:05 pm
Didn't you know?  That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad!  Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s

It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?

This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.

Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.

Hey I just...I just wanna know.  When you pressed "post" did you think this would fly on this board?  Did you think you were gonna be applauded for this?  That we'd agree with this screeching and go "yeah man you're totally right"?  I really wanna know.  After I declare you a feckless fucktard who needs to find a very short pier to take a long walk off of into shark infested waters.

Ironbite-you feckless fucktard, go take a long walk off a short pier into shark infested waters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 07, 2021, 11:38:08 pm
Quote
It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?

Except there has been evidence and charges brought to right wing extremists and accelerationists who instigated some of the violence to undermine the protests. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/

Quote
This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process.

What the fuck are you talking about? The only person I see normalizing violence and undermining the confidence in the electoral process is Trump, and it's been Trump since the beginning.

Quote
You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it.

So you're comparing the riots spurred on by the police against peaceful protestors who want police to stop being violent to rioters committing sedition against their own government and trying to stop the electoral process and the peaceful transfer of power?

Quote
You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement.

They are bastards. I don't know why the right is surprised when they turn against them as well.

Quote
And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.

It's true people were saying that yet the peaceful transfer of power happened and liberals accepted Trumps legitimate win in 2016 even with or without foreign interference. What I would have liked to have seen is the right do the fucking same instead of being sore loser cry babies.

Quote
What I'm trying to do

What I would like you to try and do is kindly fuck off.

1. I know. The problem is the idea that they were the only ones doing it.

2. Don't gaslight me. I have articles saying 2016 was stolen and defending the riots. You gonna call or fold?

3. No, I'm comparing rioters storming into Congress to rioters trying to burn down the Portland mayor's condo (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/portland-protests-police-riot-mayors-home-black-lives-matter-ted-wheeler-a9698246.html).

4. A lot of people on the right don't trust the cops, especially not ones in areas they consider

5. Have you forgotten the refrains of "not my president" already?


This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process.

I love how right wingers are all about personal responsibility right up until the moment someone catches them with their hand in the cookie jar, or in this case the seat of American government then it's all "the left made me do it."

It's gonna be briefly confusing for them to settle on a new shared delusion while some are saying antifa inspired it, others are saying they literally are antifa, bussed in by George Soros and still others that they wouldn't act "like antifa" if you hadn't hurt their feelings by calling them racists and sexists in the first place.

I guess Vanto's on task, top equivocating and bullshitting there chap. There could get you a job on OANN with an "Ashli Babbit martyr" pin, "Q" cufflinks and an "all lives matter" T shirt.

Question about personal responsibility. You'd condemn these people even if those tinfoilers are correct and agent provocateurs really did get the ball rolling, right? That's what I'd do. After all, even if antifa started it, they could've chosen not to do the same.

He's a Dave Rubinoid.

"I am the only true, HONEST Left or Centrist and everyone else is a terrible evil double plus bad WOKE cultist!! It just so happens I always invite conservatives on my show and never once call them out on their bullshit!"

He's full of just as much repugnant bullshit as Dave Rubin.

I know you use the main site, so you know the only one full of shit is you. Hell, I've called out people who've said that Biden only won because of voter fraud.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concedes-1.5865609

Trump has finally conceded the election, and called the attack on the US Capitol--an attack he encouraged--"heinous" and claimed it left him "outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem".

Also, the riot has now claimed five lives, including one member of the Capitol Police.

Over/under on how many days until Trump flips on this?


Even if he doesn't, I don't think his stans will accept it. Honestly, I wouldn't put it past them to literally drag him back into the Oval Office if it came to that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Eiki-mun on January 08, 2021, 12:38:48 am
Ah yes. The right wing did something heinous so it's time for someone to come out of the woodwork screeching "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LEEEEFT!!?!?!"

Fuck off. This is the fault of the Trump terrorists and Trump, and them alone. Your whataboutisms have no power here.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 08, 2021, 01:02:39 am
I'm sorry what part of fuck off and never come back don't you understand Vanto?

Ironbite-or are you that much of a Trumper you can't take a hint?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 08, 2021, 01:05:20 am
Ah yes. The right wing did something heinous so it's time for someone to come out of the woodwork screeching "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LEEEEFT!!?!?!"

Fuck off. This is the fault of the Trump terrorists and Trump, and them alone. Your whataboutisms have no power here.

Oh please. "The right" didn't do this, anymore than "the left" did the rioting last year. Some right-wingers did this, and some left-wingers did that. And if I wanted to play whataboutism, I would've pointed to specific events rather than general trends.

Is it really that hard for you people to disagree without being hostile about it? Say what you will about dpareja, at least he can read my posts without flying off the handle.

I think Trump made his U-turn as a last-gasp effort to try to keep 34 Republicans onside if the House passes articles of impeachment.

You don't mess around when votes went 93-6 and 92-7 against you.

But I put the over/under at 13.5 days: even money on whether Trump flips before he leaves office, or after.


Actually, looking at the speech, does he even use the word "concession" once? Does he ever refer to the administration by name instead of just saying "new administration"? And he concludes the speech by saying "our incredible journey is only just beginning". I have a feeling this isn't actually a concession speech, this is a promise to continue trying to overturn the results DISGUISED as a concession speech.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 08, 2021, 01:09:54 am
BTW here's a really good piece about how the gamergate movement led to the rise of trumpian fascism (it wasn't the only factor but it was a major one) And what lessons we need to learn from it.

Give it a read Vanto
https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/1/20/20808875/gamergate-lessons-cultural-impact-changes-harassment-laws
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 08, 2021, 01:16:49 am
BTW here's a really good piece about how the gamergate movement led to the rise of trumpian fascism (it wasn't the only factor but it was a major one) And what lessons we need to learn from it.

Give it a read Vanto
https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/1/20/20808875/gamergate-lessons-cultural-impact-changes-harassment-laws

Maybe tomorrow. It's getting late.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 08, 2021, 01:45:58 am
Fuck off and don't come back.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 08, 2021, 02:09:52 am
BLM protests were mainly peaceful and remind me how many people were killed or if these people were chanting for death to their enemies?

This "protest" at the capitol happened after ages of right-wing talking heads promoting it and telling people to take grab their guns and riot if Trump loses. Before it happened Trump was at a rally telling people to march to capitol and that he would be right there with them. Heck, there was at least one elected and newly sworn in politician proudly taking part in the charge. There is a world of difference in the rhetorics of BLM protests and this latest protest. These people were screaming for a civil war.

That they now try to both claim it was an ANTIFA false flag operation and meant to be peaceful AND at the same time claiming the dead are martyrs to the cause is hypocritical. Heck, the dude in the buffalo costume was branded an ANTIFA member but he himself came out saying that he's a Qanon believer (which actually has been well documented. He was a known figure, not some random person who just popped up for this riot.)

And the people who accused Trump of collusion with Russia were holding peaceful protests, no deaths there. Heck, the Russia investigation did uncover a bunch of crimes and the only reason the precident wasn't charged with crimes was because he is the president and he would have had to be removed from office first. Mueller said so himself. Meanwhile none of the 50+ court cases from the latest election led to anything. The usual proceeding was "lawyers rant about evidence of wrongdoings at press meetings, but when in court and under oath, they admit that they have no evidence and are not suggesting that anything illegal happened." If you are going to accuse someone of the violence that happened at DC, it would have to be the Republican politicians like Trump or Ted Cruz who have been pouring gasoline all over the country for years and handing out matches to anyone who looked unstable. And note how there was no national guard keeping the peace at DC. Trump refused to let them be called in. That's like taking out all the fire extinguishers and then acting surprised that your firebomb was so devastating.


As it is, Vanto's "but whatabout the leeeeft" rant is pitiful last attempt to save face after their own buddies shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. Just another example of people who can not live knowing that not only is something their own damn fault, but that other people can also see it clearly.


EDIT: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/republican-lawmakers-rioters-capitol-photos-b1784170.html?fbclid=IwAR2QDAiRZSNdIrPzf6FUWp2eV-pdnnKmHrs4UmYw5tyaIJfYiZHq9WLFPkQ
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2021, 06:40:26 am
Question about personal responsibility. You'd condemn these people even if those tinfoilers are correct and agent provocateurs really did get the ball rolling, right? That's what I'd do. After all, even if antifa started it, they could've chosen not to do the same.

Honestly mate if the tinfoilers were correct I wouldn't worry at all about personal responsibility at all because, y'know-tinfoil. It'd be obvious that any happening involving "people" would be due to adrenochrome-powered mind control rays aimed by the space lizard/Democrat/Jew/antifa/commie/free space here.

That's what the foil is for. Obviously!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2021, 06:44:53 am
Is it really that hard for you people to disagree without being hostile about it? Say what you will about dpareja, at least he can read my posts without flying off the handle.

I just don't bother to respond to the parts that are obvious bullshit.

I think Trump made his U-turn as a last-gasp effort to try to keep 34 Republicans onside if the House passes articles of impeachment.

You don't mess around when votes went 93-6 and 92-7 against you.

But I put the over/under at 13.5 days: even money on whether Trump flips before he leaves office, or after.


Actually, looking at the speech, does he even use the word "concession" once? Does he ever refer to the administration by name instead of just saying "new administration"? And he concludes the speech by saying "our incredible journey is only just beginning". I have a feeling this isn't actually a concession speech, this is a promise to continue trying to overturn the results DISGUISED as a concession speech.

Even if that is so, having observed Trump for the last half-decade, he won't be able to maintain the façade for long.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 08, 2021, 07:33:31 am
Quote
1. I know. The problem is the idea that they were the only ones doing it.

No one's fucking saying they weren't the only ones doing it. You seem to be equating rioting and protests over police brutality with insurrection and sedition over a grand delusion. This is not the fucking same.

Quote
2. Don't gaslight me. I have articles saying 2016 was stolen and defending the riots. You gonna call or fold?

Sigh, nobodies saying people weren't angry about 2016. Nobody tried to overthrow the government and the peaceful transfer of power happened. This isn't the fucking same.

Quote
3. No, I'm comparing rioters storming into Congress to rioters trying to burn down the Portland mayor's condo (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/portland-protests-police-riot-mayors-home-black-lives-matter-ted-wheeler-a9698246.html).

So you're comparing burning a picnic table outside a mayor's house in anger to sedition against the United states government by terrorizing the US Capital because of lies and conspiracy? Knock it off with this "enlightened centrism" bullshit. You're clearly not putting any thought into what just happened, and just want to say both sides are evil. You know what? I'm fucking done with you, don't bother responding to this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2021, 08:03:46 am
If anyone's up for some light entertainment, here's some Trumpkins crying after their God Emperor tossed them under the bus.

Quote
Trump, claiming he was “outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem” of the Capitol siege that he incited, said those who “broke the law will pay” in a move perhaps designed more to protect himself from mounting legal and political hazard than reflecting a newfound sense of contrition and integrity.

This promoted an outpouring of anger and grief and denial from his hardline acolytes. “A punch in the gut,” said one. “A stab in the back” another railed. From a third: “I feel like puking.” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/trump-incites-anger-among-acolytes-let-down-by-lack-of-support)

As I'm unable to find a picture of the actual supporters in distress on short notice, I'll substitute with a weeping pepe.

(https://a.scpr.org/i/d0bbbb3ec1a6cf86090c6fe2d9128082/141881-full.jpg)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 08, 2021, 08:13:28 am
Yeah some are coming out and saying Trump was being held at gunpoint or that it was a deep fake. They're going to be in denial for a while.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2021, 08:57:14 am
In some sense he is being held at metaphorical gunpoint: if he persists in insisting that the election was stolen and refuses to acknowledge that there will be a different administration come January 20, he might well see the House impeach and Senate convict, which can, if the Senate chooses, carry with it the penalty of being disqualified from holding office in future, which would kill any aspirations Trump might have of running again in 2024. And given that Trump just incited a mob that put Senators' lives in danger, they might well be inclined to do just that.

Also:

(https://i1.wp.com/leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/09/both-sides-are-equally-bad.png)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 08, 2021, 10:31:31 am
Didn't you know?  That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad!  Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s

It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?

This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.

Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.

https://youtu.be/ICZ06gYpu6w?t=16
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Vanto on January 08, 2021, 11:39:26 am
BLM protests were mainly peaceful and remind me how many people were killed or if these people were chanting for death to their enemies?

This "protest" at the capitol happened after ages of right-wing talking heads promoting it and telling people to take grab their guns and riot if Trump loses. Before it happened Trump was at a rally telling people to march to capitol and that he would be right there with them. Heck, there was at least one elected and newly sworn in politician proudly taking part in the charge. There is a world of difference in the rhetorics of BLM protests and this latest protest. These people were screaming for a civil war.

That they now try to both claim it was an ANTIFA false flag operation and meant to be peaceful AND at the same time claiming the dead are martyrs to the cause is hypocritical. Heck, the dude in the buffalo costume was branded an ANTIFA member but he himself came out saying that he's a Qanon believer (which actually has been well documented. He was a known figure, not some random person who just popped up for this riot.)

And the people who accused Trump of collusion with Russia were holding peaceful protests, no deaths there. Heck, the Russia investigation did uncover a bunch of crimes and the only reason the precident wasn't charged with crimes was because he is the president and he would have had to be removed from office first. Mueller said so himself. Meanwhile none of the 50+ court cases from the latest election led to anything. The usual proceeding was "lawyers rant about evidence of wrongdoings at press meetings, but when in court and under oath, they admit that they have no evidence and are not suggesting that anything illegal happened." If you are going to accuse someone of the violence that happened at DC, it would have to be the Republican politicians like Trump or Ted Cruz who have been pouring gasoline all over the country for years and handing out matches to anyone who looked unstable. And note how there was no national guard keeping the peace at DC. Trump refused to let them be called in. That's like taking out all the fire extinguishers and then acting surprised that your firebomb was so devastating.


As it is, Vanto's "but whatabout the leeeeft" rant is pitiful last attempt to save face after their own buddies shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. Just another example of people who can not live knowing that not only is something their own damn fault, but that other people can also see it clearly.


EDIT: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/republican-lawmakers-rioters-capitol-photos-b1784170.html?fbclid=IwAR2QDAiRZSNdIrPzf6FUWp2eV-pdnnKmHrs4UmYw5tyaIJfYiZHq9WLFPkQ

You can call them "mostly peaceful" all you want, but at least 19 people died in them and over $1 billion in property damage was incurred. And if you think BLM has never spouted violent rhetoric.. well, I have evidence showing that's very much not the case.

Why don't you stop making assumptions about what I believe and actually engage with me like a rational human being? You're a mod, you're supposed to be above this petty mudslinging.

Question about personal responsibility. You'd condemn these people even if those tinfoilers are correct and agent provocateurs really did get the ball rolling, right? That's what I'd do. After all, even if antifa started it, they could've chosen not to do the same.

Honestly mate if the tinfoilers were correct I wouldn't worry at all about personal responsibility at all because, y'know-tinfoil. It'd be obvious that any happening involving "people" would be due to adrenochrome-powered mind control rays aimed by the space lizard/Democrat/Jew/antifa/commie/free space here.

That's what the foil is for. Obviously!

Why don't you stop the non sequitur and answer the question? It's a simple yes or no question.

You know what? I'm fucking done with you, don't bother responding to this.

How about no? You can't be bothered to not like an asshole to me, so why should I grant you anything you ask of me?

Also:

(https://i1.wp.com/leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/09/both-sides-are-equally-bad.png)

There's a lot to unpack with this one.

1. You know what's ironic? I've seen that exact same strawman of centrists come from people on the right, just in the opposite direction. See, criticizing two different factions doesn't automatically mean you consider them "equally bad".

2. American left-wingers have done far worse than just punch people. Remember that Bernie supporter who shot up a practice for the 2017 congressional ball game? The inhumane detention camps existed under Obama too, and child separation happened under the Obama administration as well. They may very well continue under the Biden administration.

3. You can make an argument that "the right" in America is worse than "the left", but that wouldn't suddenly make everything "the left" does okay. I personally think Hitler was worse than Stalin since even if we go with the 20 million estimate for Stalin's excess morality compared to the Holocaust's ~11 million death toll, Hitler had 12 years in power compared to Stalin having almost 3 decades. But that doesn't mean I'm going to defend Stalin.

Didn't you know?  That was ANTIFA storming the Capitol Building yesterday, to make Donald Trump and his supporters look really bad!  Ignore that a bunch of them have been identified (and yep, tons of white supremacists), Fox News and Matt "Florida Man" Gaetz says it was ANTIFA dammit, so it was! /s

It's no less stupid than claiming the antifa and BLM rioters last year were "actually" alt-right. Remember that?

This happened partly because of establishment and leftist types normalizing violence and undermining confidence in the electoral process. You wanna crow about how your rioting is getting positive results? Don't be surprised if other people try it. You wanna scream "all cops are bastards"? Don't be surprised if other people turn on law enforcement. And if you want to insist Trump couldn't have won without foreign interference... well, don't be surprised if people insist Biden couldn't have won without fraud.

Like it or not, actions have consequences. This is the chickens coming home to roost. Am I trying to justify what happened? No. What I'm trying to do is explain that when you try to normalize a tactic or an idea, it will inevitably be used against you. Pro-slavery politicians justified their stances based on states' rights, then started whining when Northern states passed personal liberty laws to prevent the return of runaway slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. Trotsky endorsed violence and terror against political dissidents, then bitched and moaned when Stalin persecuted his followers. Nazi Germany committed terror bombing against Polish and British cities, then cried foul when the Allies did the same thing to Germany in retaliation. Things like this have happened over and over again. And they'll probably keep happening for as long as humanity exists.

https://youtu.be/ICZ06gYpu6w?t=16

Oh, real mature. What are you, five?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2021, 03:59:30 pm

Question about personal responsibility. You'd condemn these people even if those tinfoilers are correct and agent provocateurs really did get the ball rolling, right? That's what I'd do. After all, even if antifa started it, they could've chosen not to do the same.

Honestly mate if the tinfoilers were correct I wouldn't worry at all about personal responsibility at all because, y'know-tinfoil. It'd be obvious that any happening involving "people" would be due to adrenochrome-powered mind control rays aimed by the space lizard/Democrat/Jew/antifa/commie/free space here.

That's what the foil is for. Obviously!

Why don't you stop the non sequitur and answer the question? It's a simple yes or no question.

I did answer it, sarcastically, but I still answered it.

Your hypothetical "if" is based on a scenario that's implausible and fictional, I responded in the same  implausible and fictional tone. That's a sequitur, a non sequitur does not follow.

I treated your question based on a hypothetical with all the seriousness it deserves because you aren't being serious either. This isn't a debate, all I see is are the tired old sideshow tactics of fake outrage and contrarianism. You don't debate bad faith arguments, you mock them, scorn is all they deserve. It's not a simple 'yes or no' question because bad faith questions aren't really closed questions. 'Fuck off, idiot' is an entirely valid third option.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2021, 05:05:01 pm
Let's also consider the police response to BLM/Antifa protests vs the police response to Wednesday's protests. Just go look up what the police presence was on Capitol Hill when there was a BLM protest there some time ago.

And then look at the cops taking selfies with the protesters this time around.

And speaking of them...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-democrats-trump-impeachment-1.5865921

Speaker Pelosi has talked with Gen. Mark Milley, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about ensuring that Trump cannot access the nuclear launch codes during his last days in office.

Sen. Sasse (R-NE) has said he is open to removing the President from office upon impeachment due to Trump's breaking his oath of office.

And Trump has said that his supporters "will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!" (He will also not be attending Biden's inauguration, the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)

I'm sure your supporters will be treated with all the respect and fairness due seditious traitors, Donald.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: KingOfRhye on January 08, 2021, 06:45:08 pm
(He will also not be attending Biden's inauguration, the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)

Wait, is this his first admission that there will be a Biden inauguration?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: KingOfRhye on January 08, 2021, 06:48:28 pm
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

Quote
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Not too surprising, really.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2021, 06:53:26 pm
(He will also not be attending Biden's inauguration, the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)

Wait, is this his first admission that there will be a Biden inauguration?

I don't know his exact words, so I don't know if he specifically said Biden or if he just talked about his successor's inauguration. (Which could, going by his delusional "logic", technically be Pence, if Trump somehow found a way to stay in office after January 20, and then got impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 08, 2021, 07:02:37 pm
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

Quote
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Not too surprising, really.

I wonder if he'll go to Parler?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2021, 07:07:55 pm
As a brief note on my last post, according to Twitter's blog, the Tweet in which Trump said he would not be attending the inauguration on January 20 only said "the inauguration" on that day. Which is a concession at least that he won't be the one being inaugurated.

(As Twitter noted, though, it's also a signal that he won't be there, so if I were the Biden inaugural committee, I'd be hiring as much security as I possibly could, and arranging with Mayor Bowser, the Capitol Police, Govs. Hogan and Northam, and possibly also Govs. Cuomo, Murphy and Cooper about getting a heavy police and National Guard presence there.)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 08, 2021, 08:39:05 pm
Just fuck off and never come back, Vanto.

It's amazing how in your defense of yourself you use the exact same arguments employed by the far right. It's almost like that's where your real allegiances lie.

By the way I'm blocking you and I just assume whenever I see your post you're saying something along the lines of "BUT WHATABOUT!? BUT WHATABOUT!?", and whining about the right wing getting any degree of punishment or their FREEZE PEACH being violated.

Nobody here is going to agree with you. Nobody here is gonna hear you out. Just fuck off.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 08, 2021, 10:14:44 pm
Now, now, Niam. It's not fair to say that all of Vanto/Paragon/Reverse/etc's posts are whataboutism. Sometimes, when you back him into a corner, he'll either concede the point only to make the same argument later or will claim he has evidence to disprove you without ever presenting the evidence.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 08, 2021, 10:24:38 pm
Yeah you're right Cloud.

And he's never going to take the hint he's not wanted until he's banned. And even that's a crapshoot.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 08, 2021, 10:39:51 pm
So he's just like T....wait.  Could Vanto/Paragon/Reverse be Trump?  Could we have been fighting the President of the United States all this time?

Ironbite-my god...*whips glasses off*
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 08, 2021, 11:02:24 pm
Yeah, I think you may be right, Ironbite.

Let's ban Trump from here too!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2021, 11:20:06 pm
Nah, insufficiently many words in all capitals and too few exclamation points.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 08, 2021, 11:30:08 pm
So he's just like T....wait.  Could Vanto/Paragon/Reverse be Trump?  Could we have been fighting the President of the United States all this time?

Ironbite-my god...*whips glasses off*
I like it but there's not enough adjectives, y'know, huge, beautiful, bigly. Also Trump repeats himself every few seconds due to cognitive decline.

Could be one of his spawn though.

Hey, now that Trump's on the way out should we turn the conversation to what'll come next? There's a bunch of yuge garbage fires that are still smouldering!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 08, 2021, 11:42:21 pm
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/capitol-riot-senior-trump-official-calls-him-a-fascist.html

From a senior Trump administration official:

Quote
The legacy of the Trump administration is going to be that the president sparked an insurrection and people died because he tried his best to not abide by the Constitution and the tradition of a peaceful transition of power that’s been the norm since our founding. Nothing else is even going to be a side note.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 09, 2021, 12:03:25 am
Looks like his fanboys want a sequel (https://twitter.com/BeTrueVoteBlue1/status/1347390865296207872).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 09, 2021, 12:08:20 am
Looks like his fanboys want a sequel (https://twitter.com/BeTrueVoteBlue1/status/1347390865296207872).

That's what Trump fanatics were reading into his statement that he wouldn't be at the inauguration: it's safe to attack, you won't kill me.

EDIT: https://twitter.com/insidernews/status/1347666277142306817

Cops letting pro-Trump protesters walk into the US Capitol.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on January 09, 2021, 12:19:24 am
Good thing then the rest of this won't be in the hands of the police. National Guard is gonna be handling things. And they're not gonna be giving an easy ride to Trumpsters.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: DarkPhoenix on January 09, 2021, 02:40:27 am
Oh, real mature. What are you, five?

I could give you a much more mature response, but you've neither earned nor deserve it.  Take your alt-right defending Both-Siderist ass and get the fuck out.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 09, 2021, 06:20:45 am
Good thing then the rest of this won't be in the hands of the police. National Guard is gonna be handling things. And they're not gonna be giving an easy ride to Trumpsters.

Has anyone checked to see how many National Guard members are sympathetic to Trump supporters and might be taking selfies with them?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 09, 2021, 06:57:48 am
19 deaths in BLM protests.

The first article I could find was the shooting of a black man by a guy with a history of racist behaviour. The shooter did not turn himself in when the case went to court and he committed suicide before the manslaughter case reached completion.

The second article talks about a black man who was shot and killed by soldiers and police officers who had turned off their body cams and their chief was fired in disgrace afterwards. The dead man had his arms in the air at the time he was shot and although it is believed he himself had shot at the police, this would still mean they killed a suspect who had already surrendered.

Sean Monterosa was on his knees and with his hands up when the police shot him to death, with the police on video shouting confused over whether or not Mr. Monterosa had a gun or if he had been pointing anything at them. (He didn't have a gun.)

I saw one case of looters killing an elderly man who tried to stop them robbing a pawn shop. But many of these deaths appear to be people shot by police in suspicious circumstances ...when there were protests against police shooting people in suspicious circumstances.

Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: RavynousHunter on January 09, 2021, 12:08:36 pm
Good thing then the rest of this won't be in the hands of the police. National Guard is gonna be handling things. And they're not gonna be giving an easy ride to Trumpsters.

Has anyone checked to see how many National Guard members are sympathetic to Trump supporters and might be taking selfies with them?


While I won't say we don't have to worry about that, one must consider that the command structures of an actual military are a lot more rigid and a lot less tolerant of bullshit than those of the worthless pigs police.  That is to say that, even if they tried, their COs would probably smack the shit out of 'em and tell them to get the fuck back in formation and to act like a god damned professional.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 09, 2021, 04:31:20 pm
Looks like his fanboys want a sequel (https://twitter.com/BeTrueVoteBlue1/status/1347390865296207872).

I'm worried about what they might do. Biden and Harris will be in the capital that day. I think the inauguration will be virtual due to covid. The police just let protesters storm into the capital building before. I can see it happening again. Or will they storm the white house?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 09, 2021, 04:35:55 pm
Looks like his fanboys want a sequel (https://twitter.com/BeTrueVoteBlue1/status/1347390865296207872).

I'm worried about what they might do. Biden and Harris will be in the capital that day. I think the inauguration will be virtual due to covid. The police just let protesters storm into the capital building before. I can see it happening again. Or will they storm the white house?

If I were arranging Biden's inauguration, not only would I have as much security as I could get (keeping in mind that there are also threats against state capitols), I'd also try to have as few people there as possible--ideally only Biden, Harris, and Roberts (to administer both oaths of office; I imagine Harris wants Sotomayor or Kagan but I'd do my damnedest to talk her out of it).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: chad sexington on January 10, 2021, 12:27:58 am
( [...] the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)

Technically, you could argue that the most recent inauguration without the previous president was that of Johnson.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 10, 2021, 12:53:42 am
( [...] the first President not to attend his successor's inauguration since Andrew Johnson did not attend that of Ulysses S. Grant.)

Technically, you could argue that the most recent inauguration without the previous president was that of Johnson.

Sure, but I think the writer of the article was going for "when power changed hands due to an election".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 11, 2021, 02:34:42 am
Trump is reportedly dealing with the fallout from the beer gut putsch by going on tour again to Texas to talk about his...achievements.

Quote
...aides hope he will spend his last days trying to trumpet his policy accomplishments, beginning with a trip to Alamo, Texas, on Tuesday to highlight his administration's efforts to curb illegal immigration and border wall construction (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-remains-defiant-amid-calls-to-resign-trump-presidency-party-mission-capitol-b1785249.html)

After last weeks clusterfuck he wants to talk about his "policy achievements"? Including the "wall" that's mostly in Arizona, mostly not a wall and not paid for by Mexico.

Meanwhile Trump aides are fretting that moves to impeach Trump could be bad for the Democrat's popularity.

Quote
Jason Miller, a close adviser, noted that Trump's popularity rose after his first impeachment trial. And he argued that, if they moved forward, Democrats risk turning public sentiment against them and impeding Biden's agenda by continuing to focus on Trump even after he has left the White House.

“As I said to the president this morning, never discount national Democrats' ability to galvanize the Republican base behind you," said Miller, arguing that, if “national Democrats were to go down that path, I think it would boomerang on them very severely.” “Joe Biden doesn't want to spend the first 100 days of his presidency having to own a vindictive and overreaching impeachment trial," he added. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-remains-defiant-amid-calls-to-resign-trump-presidency-party-mission-capitol-b1785249.html)

Now that is concern trolling with some extra spicy chutzpah on top!
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 11, 2021, 03:09:11 am
From what I've seen, the idea is to have the House impeach Trump, but then not hold a Senate trial for a few months.

EDIT: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-inauguration-fbi-protests-guns-1.5868685

The FBI has reports that armed protests are planned for at least the half-week before Biden's inauguration, including the day itself, at every state capitol and the US Capitol.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-house-democrats-session-trump-1.5868379

Also, the House of Representatives has moved an article of impeachment against Trump for "incitement of insurrection".
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 12, 2021, 08:50:09 am
The interesting thing to see is, will Trump hand out blanket pardons to everyone involved in the coup attempt, or will he abandon them since they failed and he doesn't really care about anyone apart from himself?

Because I could see it go either way. The first one will leave traitors unpunished and thus make this the precendent that this behaviour is acceptable and can happen again. The latter option will also cause a huge mess and the legal disaster of deciding whether to imprison the elected politicians who took part in what was a very disorganized coup attempt. Heck, it could be that the Democrats lack the will to throw the book at these terrorists as they try to "heal the wounds"even as the GOP clutches pearls and screams about how "impolite" the Democrats have been to them these last years.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 12, 2021, 09:29:04 am
Question.  Can any of the insurrectionists pay Trump $20,000?

Ironbite-he'll let 'em hang.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 13, 2021, 07:27:48 pm
So here's a thought:

The swing from Obama's victory over McCain in Massachusetts in 2008, to Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley in the 2010 special Senate election (to fill the vacancy left by the death of Edward Kennedy) was 30.57 percentage points.

A similar swing in California to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Kamala Harris to assume the vice-presidency would see the Republican candidate (if one makes it to the general in California's top-two jungle primary system) win by around 1.4 percentage points.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on January 13, 2021, 08:09:05 pm
Re the Pardons, Trump has been told he can't pardon himself and now he's not interested in pardoning anyone if he can't get one. Nor after what happened (despite Pence not agreeing to trigger the 25th Amendment) is he confident that Pence will come through with a pardon if he resigns and Pence takes over.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 13, 2021, 11:45:44 pm
So here's a thought:

The swing from Obama's victory over McCain in Massachusetts in 2008, to Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley in the 2010 special Senate election (to fill the vacancy left by the death of Edward Kennedy) was 30.57 percentage points.

A similar swing in California to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Kamala Harris to assume the vice-presidency would see the Republican candidate (if one makes it to the general in California's top-two jungle primary system) win by around 1.4 percentage points.

You're making the mistaking of thinking that the voting demographics in California follow those of Maine and Mass.

Ironbnite-they don't.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 14, 2021, 12:26:21 am
So here's a thought:

The swing from Obama's victory over McCain in Massachusetts in 2008, to Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley in the 2010 special Senate election (to fill the vacancy left by the death of Edward Kennedy) was 30.57 percentage points.

A similar swing in California to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Kamala Harris to assume the vice-presidency would see the Republican candidate (if one makes it to the general in California's top-two jungle primary system) win by around 1.4 percentage points.

You're making the mistaking of thinking that the voting demographics in California follow those of Maine and Mass.

Ironbnite-they don't.

I agree. They don't. (Though California elected a Republican as Governor as late as 2006.)

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm saying that it has happened, and it's not a seat the Democratic Party should take for granted.

EDIT: For a more recent example, the swing in Alabama from 2016 for Trump to 2017 for Jones would still be enough (by about 0.2 percentage points). Of course, Roy Moore was his own special kind of despicable, but there's another example.

EDIT #2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/republicans-impeachment-two-1.5872561

One reason more Republicans in the House didn't vote to convictimpeach (EDIT #3: Thanks for the catch, ironbite) Trump? They were afraid for their physical safety.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 14, 2021, 10:01:16 am
Vote to impeach.  Conviction happens in the Senate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 14, 2021, 01:27:06 pm
Vote to impeach.  Conviction happens in the Senate.

Yeah, I brain-farted on that one. Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 15, 2021, 01:51:07 am
(https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FEMJ8I8mUYAA50r_.jpg&key=Ooc9TRzaYJJga89jnJyQTQ&w=600&h=509)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 15, 2021, 02:27:07 am
Yes but Bill Clinton was impeached for good and honest and pure reasons by Republicans who just wanted to save the country from the horror of a President getting a blowjob.

Donald Trump was impeached by evil Democrats for nakedly partisan reasons because they couldn't accept that The People preferred him to their beloved Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (because, as we all know, Trump won the popular vote by millions of votes).
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on January 15, 2021, 05:52:52 am
beer gut putsch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxPK8HkHa2k
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 15, 2021, 03:59:18 pm
(https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FEmQShFnVgAApFri.jpg&key=gKZ1zQkWwmQKR2SLIofChw&w=600&h=463)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 16, 2021, 10:51:20 am
Trump never said that.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 16, 2021, 11:45:32 pm
Not that you can prove that.

Ironbite-seeing as how his twitter's been suspended.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 17, 2021, 12:54:23 am
No it's too articulate and intelligent sounding.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 17, 2021, 08:58:59 am
Well that was 5 years ago.  Before he declined into whatever mental state he's in now.

Ironbite-he did have a lot of lucid moments not 4 years ago.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Sigmaleph on January 17, 2021, 10:22:14 am
It's real (https://web.archive.org/web/20201106013119/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/550046337547665409), thank you people archiving Trump tweets for future reference.

(can't help but appreciate how many of the Internet Archive snapshots of that tweet are from November 2020)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 17, 2021, 07:49:53 pm
Also as a general rule, not every Trump tweet was an unhinged brainfart stream of consciousness download, some even looked like they were penned by people who'd passed grade 10 English because Trump had aides and advisors.

Are there any still there or have they all fled while the getting's good?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Askold on January 18, 2021, 01:35:34 am
I think all those "Biden has dementia" posts were more projection because Trump certainly shows clear signs of old age getting to him. You can see it from the tweets. In the early days he certainly didn't have a PR team sending out any tweets but even though his vocabulary has always been limited, he was way more coherent earlier. Recently if you looked at the tweets sent in the off hour rage binges he had, dude had way more problems. And no autocorrect.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 18, 2021, 09:40:42 am
I think all those "Biden has dementia" posts were more projection

Of course it was projection. Everything is projection with him.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 19, 2021, 10:52:32 pm
I admit I have no idea if these are real posts or not but it's funny.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsJAkMeXUAA-fiW?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 19, 2021, 11:28:31 pm
The denial is so strong.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 20, 2021, 12:55:11 am
There are people who think he's going to declare martial law tomorrow. They really can't just let it go.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 20, 2021, 01:00:32 am
Trump is probably going to spend most of the next year dealing with his many, many legal problems but in his absence the myth of Trump amongst right wingers is probably only going to get more surreal.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Id82 on January 20, 2021, 04:00:49 pm
Wow I can't believe we're coming to the end of this thread. It's been a wild four years, but Mr. Trump has finally left Washington.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 20, 2021, 04:07:15 pm
Until he comes back because once he's out of office, he can be hit with a subpoena by the Senate for his second impeachment trial.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 21, 2021, 02:08:06 am
Really, we're going to be seeing the repercussions of Trump's presidency for years. This was an unprecedentedly corrupt administration that didn't just ignore white supremacist conspiracy theories, but functionally encouraged them because Trump WANTED his supporters to be rabid. Qanon isn't going away. It may fade from the spotlight, but we will be dealing with it for a very long time.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 24, 2021, 12:24:33 am
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/arizona-republicans-censure-cindy-mccain-gop-governor-n1255446

It's still the party of Trump: the Arizona Republican Party has censured Cindy McCain, Jeff Flake and Doug Ducey.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 24, 2021, 01:37:33 am
It should also be noted that the Texas GOP posted this on Twitter: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Esc4PCyUUAAw20T?format=jpg&name=large

Reminder that "the storm" is literally code for the day of the rope. Because they're fascists.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 26, 2021, 06:20:13 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/senate-impeachment-trump-republicans-1.5888682
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/rand-paul-impeachment-462655

Sen. Paul (R-KY) moved that the Senate declare Trump's second impeachment trial unconstitutional on account of his being out of office.

The motion was defeated 45-55, with all Democratic and Independent Senators voting against the motion, along with Sens. Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), Romney (UT), Sasse (NE) and Toomey (PA).

Senators have been sworn in as jurors, with President pro tempore Sen. Leahy (D-VT) presiding, instead of Vice-President Harris or Chief Justice Roberts.

Looks like conviction is DOA.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 26, 2021, 10:02:25 pm
Which is not a surprise. Trump could have murdered someone in cold blood in front of their faces and they would have still refused to convict him. As far as they're concerned, Republicans are above the law.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 26, 2021, 10:08:54 pm
They're terrified of Trump starting a third party, which if they convicted him he would do. (He might not be eligible to run himself, but he would still be a powerful figurehead as a martyr.)

I ran the numbers, and if there's a candidate running in each Senate race in 2020 that takes away 30% of the votes the Republican candidate received, the Senate is 57-43 Democratic right now. (Apply that to 2018 as well and it's 63-37. Add in 2016--say if Trump had been shoved out of the Republican primaries early and started a third party then, and recruited enough candidates--and it's 70-30 Democratic.)

And if you think Mitch McConnell doesn't know that and isn't pants-shittingly terrified of the prospect of the Democratic Party getting a large enough majority to impeach and convict any federal judge, I have oceanfront property in Alberta to sell you.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Cloud3514 on January 26, 2021, 10:24:27 pm
Agreed. There's a reason I said we'll be dealing with the fallout of Trump's presidency for years to come. The Republican party is likely dying at this point and Trump is the reason why. Either they cling to power and die slowly through waning relevance or they piss off the cult leader who radicalized so much of their base and die significantly faster. And Republicans, being fascists, only care about clinging to power, regardless of ethics and morals. Hence why Republicans are above the law in their eyes because the rules are for those who threaten their power.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on January 26, 2021, 11:27:09 pm
It doesn't matter what they do.  They pissed off the Cult Leader and he siced his followers on them.  They really don't realize that Trump will do it again.  When it matters.  The Primaries.

Ironbite-they can't lick his boots hard enough to please him and he will slit their throats for them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: Skybison on January 28, 2021, 02:55:50 am
So what do you predict will end up killing more Americans: Trump's pro-cornivirus policy or Reagan's pro-HIV policy?
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on January 28, 2021, 03:11:46 am
Reagan's, if only because HIV is going to be around a lot longer.

EDIT: Found this a bit late, but this is technically correct. A good deal of the rioting was not in the streets.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErGGzzIXcAsh91e?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 13, 2021, 07:16:45 pm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-impeachment-vote-capitol-riot-1.5913471

And impeachment's done; Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Toomey voted to convict, but it's still only 57-43.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 14, 2021, 08:00:39 pm
It is still the most bipartisan impeachment in history.

And the perfect albatross to hang on the Republicans' necks. We knew going in that it would probably not work. But rather than fixating on doom, we need to strategize and see ways to use this.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 14, 2021, 08:20:12 pm
I find it amusing when people say "most bipartisan impeachment in history" and forget how often federal judges have been investigated for impeachment, and sometimes actually impeached and then removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges). Some of those were nearly unanimous.

(Thomas Porteous, for instance, was impeached unanimously on four articles, and on the first article, convicted unanimously; the vote to disqualify him from holding office in future had only two dissenters. It should be noted that he was appointed by Clinton, and impeached and convicted by Congress in 2010, when that body had its largest majorities, for either party, in this case the Democratic Party, in both Houses, in the last quarter-century at least.)

As for hanging it around the Republicans' necks, sure, but by acquitting Trump they lessened the threat of a third party attacking their base. As an acquaintance of mine noted, Roy Moore was utterly despicable, but a large part of why he came so close to winning a Senate seat is because the Democratic Party nominated someone who is staunchly pro-choice in a state that is staunchly pro-life. Like it or not, those issues carry weight, especially in the Senate.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: ironbite on February 14, 2021, 08:43:35 pm
Keep in mind that this is Trump and the Cult of Trump will still try and punish anyone who Hair Furher says needs to be punished.  And they're not exactly smart people so if he says punish the GOP and purge them of anyone even remotely moderate, to the point where Democrats can easily win general elections in even the most gerrymandered districts.....

Ironbite-the Cult will obey.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 16, 2021, 12:57:22 am
The thing is, the technicality on which the Republicans acquitted Trump was that since the trial was unconstitutional in the first place (Trump being out of office once it was held; here's Ben Sasse calling bullshit on that (https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/2/sasse-statement-on-impeachment-trial)) was exposed as the nonsense it was by Burr's voting to convict.

Burr voted to declare the trial unconstitutional twice, when Paul moved that it was, and when the Senate voted on it after the first day of arguments.

But he voted to convict, because at that point it didn't matter whether he thought the trial was constitutional or not; the Senate, which serves as trier of both fact and law (incidentally, this is another reason why Roberts, and not Leahy or even Harris, should have presided) had declared that it was, and therefore it was constitutional. So the only question before him was whether Trump did it.

Every single US Senator knows Trump did it, and knows that it's an impeachable offence for which he should have been removed from office (had he still been in office at the time of the trial) and barred from holding office again. But 43 of them were too worried about their re-election chances (not even 43; Portman voted to acquit and he's retiring) to be willing to say, yes, he did it and he can't hold office again.

As I saw it noted, two votes for conviction were from people who are retiring (Burr and Toomey), three are from people who just won in 2020 (Cassidy, Collins and Sasse), one is from someone who has won despite losing the Republican nomination (Murkowski*) and one is from a state that, while it is solidly Republican, doesn't really like Trump (Romney).

*Alaska recently changed its electoral system to have a jungle primary from which the top four advance, followed by an instant-runoff vote among those four. So Murkowski probably figures she has an even better chance of winning than before.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 16, 2021, 07:41:11 pm
Holy fuckballs, Adam Kinzinger's family have written a letter disowning him for voting to impeach Trump.

It's fucking lit. The poor bastard - these people are seriously crazy https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/15/us/kinzinger-family-letter.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/15/us/kinzinger-family-letter.html)

The highlight for me was 'How dare you judge' -....'We are not judging you, this is our opinion'

I dare say being disowned by these people would be a relief
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 16, 2021, 08:41:25 pm
It's a fucking cult.

They're willing to cast out anyone and everyone for failing to love Trump as much as them.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: dpareja on February 17, 2021, 10:43:37 pm
https://twitter.com/GoAngelo/status/1362107736650108931

Let's remember: Donald Trump gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a fuckwad who not only did the stuff listed in that thread, but would also read out the names of gay men who died from AIDS.

Joe Biden should give that award to Colin Kaepernick just to trigger conservatives.
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: davedan on February 18, 2021, 01:59:35 am
Colin Kaepernick is much more brave than Rush and loves freedom more.

Ding dong Rush
Title: Re: Mr. Trump Goes to Washington
Post by: niam2023 on February 18, 2021, 02:19:09 am
I know some people who are gonna fire off some fireworks tonight just to celebrate Limbaugh's death.