Master Trump Thread

[SithLord]

Pretty sure just a visa is needed to cross the borders touching America. I didn't have a passport until I was 18 and I had been to both Mexico and Canada. But all the same, more strict borders wouldn't be a good thing for people used to going back and forth all the time.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

Pretty sure just a visa is needed to cross the borders touching America. I didn't have a passport until I was 18 and I had been to both Mexico and Canada. But all the same, more strict borders wouldn't be a good thing for people used to going back and forth all the time.

I would stop going to the US, if it became more painful to go there. I travel a lot. It was already painful last time. Definitely never flying to Newark airport again. Mind you this was more airport issues than political. That place is a dive, and I have been to dive airports in third world countries o_O

 

I mean, a lot of my family is in NY, Virginia and California. 

 

Last time I checked, every time I went to the US, I spent tons of money while there.  Anywhere I travel to. 

 

Every week is at least a grand or two spent.

 

The unintended consequences would cripple the industries reliant on the traffic people like me bring to your country. Boggles the mind why you would want to restrict that, or the potential for foreign investment. 

 

I already know am buying real estate and businesses in SE Asia. Always felt it was destiny. 

 

I want to create jobs. Barring this from happening, with people with deep pockets is just crazy. 

[SithLord]

9 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I would stop going to the US, if it became more painful to go there. I travel a lot. It was already painful last time. Definitely never flying to Newark airport again. Mind you this was more airport issues than political. That place is a dive, and I have been to dive airports in third world countries o_O

 

I mean, a lot of my family is in NY, Virginia and California. 

 

Last time I checked, every time I went to the US, I spent tons of money while there.  Anywhere I travel to. 

 

Every week is at least a grand or two spent.

 

The unintended consequences would cripple the industries reliant on the traffic people like me bring to your country. Boggles the mind why you would want to restrict that, or the potential for foreign investment. 

 

I already know am buying real estate and businesses in SE Asia. Always felt it was destiny. 

 

I want to create jobs. Barring this from happening, with people with deep pockets is just crazy. 

Well you're in Canada, and only insane idiots I know want to strengthen the border between the US and Canada. Not that it wouldn't also likely help with illegal immigration (not that a tighter border on the ground alone would help anything, but that's complex and I'm an idiot so don't want to get into that atm). But people can justify a harsher boarder when it's up against those we profile as lesser, poorer, criminally inclined, etc. Most Americans don't look at Canadians and go "Those dirty immigrants stealing our jobs." They also don't generally look at those from Mexico or Central or South America and go "We need to keep borders open to allow for a great tourist economy or to allow for more investors to come to us." 

Pretty racist, but that's been my experience. 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

Well you're in Canada, and only insane idiots I know want to strengthen the border between the US and Canada

Not including the one in the white house?

 

15 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

They also don't generally look at those from Mexico or Central or South America and go "We need to keep borders open to allow for a great tourist economy or to allow for more investors to come to us." 

That's not racist. It's the truth. 

 

Barring them entry because they are from South America to me would be racist.  

[SithLord]

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

That's not racist. It's the truth. 

 

Barring them entry because they are from South America to me would be racist.  

So assuming no one from south of the border could be an investor or otherwise good for our economy isn't racist?

[Calligraphette_Coe]

On 4/6/2019 at 8:48 PM, Kisa the Kit Kat said:

Bullshit might work in business but when you have a country and you're bullshitting...suddenly you are backing out of trade agreements and dismantling systems that have been put in place that should not be dismantled.

 

Also why is it a good thing to have a president who talks bullshit?  I don't see that as a positive.  Why is it okay for him to not be honest about his policies and cause mass panic?

There's a saying about the usual ulitmate goal of business, which is often to get rich quick. To form a business that grows explosively and then to sell it and cash out. If you look at politics through much the same lens, would it be to get powerful quick and then cash out? Doesn't that sound pretty dreadful? And that saying is 'Everyone has a get rich quick scheme that _won't_ work.' Doesnt' that same thing often apply to getting power? 

 

George W. Bush was heralded as 'America's CEO'. And in hindsight, how did THAT work out? And if Trump gets a second term, I think he'll beat even W's dismal record.

 

Now look at a business and model which I'd bet hardly anyone here has heard of. I'm talking about W.L. Gore and Associates. Here are some principles its founder laid down about a business culture that was built to last. From Wikipdia:

 

Quote

Bill Gore articulated four culture principles that he called freedom, fairness, commitment and waterline:

 

-Associates have the freedom to encourage, help, and allow other associates to grow in knowledge, skill, and scope of responsibility

-Associates should demonstrate fairness to each other and everyone with whom they come in contact

-Associates are provided the ability to make one's own commitments and are expected to keep them

-A waterline situation involves consultation with other associates before undertaking actions that could impact the reputation or profitability of the company and otherwise "sink the ship."

 

In the lattice organization, associates are encouraged to communicate directly with each other and are accountable to fellow members of their teams. Hands-on product innovation and prototyping are encouraged. Teams typically organize around opportunities, new product concepts, or businesses. As teams evolve, leaders frequently emerge as they gain followership. This unusual organizational structure and culture has been shown to be a significant contributor to associate satisfaction and retention

Isn't THIS how a 'government by and FOR a people should work? Not government by the slippery, not government by an imperious liar skilled in the art of deception and equivocation. Not a government born of pandering or demagoguery. 

 

Otherwise, why don't you just declare the military just another business and put IT in charge of We The People.

[LeChat]

On 4/4/2019 at 11:00 PM, Kisa the Kit Kat said:

...Also if he closes the border to Mexico, as a Texan and as a millenial I NEED my avocados.  This is unacceptable.  This is a great way to fuck up my state's economy and my goddamn breakfast.

 

I'm mad guys.  I want my avocados  

Yeah. Plus, there have been recent recalls of avocados from California (and other vegetables grown in the U.S.), due to e-coli and other possible contaminations (with several people becoming ill), so I wouldn't be happy at having produce limited only from the U.S., either.

 

http://fortune.com/2019/03/25/avocado-recall-six-states-listeria/

 

https://qz.com/quartzy/1579941/the-california-avocado-recall-is-a-reminder-to-wash-your-avocados/

 

 

[Clumsy Fairy]

So hows about the God Emperor's idea to take illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities rather than deporting them? Anyone want to explain what's wrong with that?

 

<rubs hands together in anticipation>

[Kelly]

What the redacted Mueller Report may look like:

 

[Calligraphette_Coe]

8 hours ago, G0D said:

So hows about the God Emperor's idea to take illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities rather than deporting them? Anyone want to explain what's wrong with that?

 

<rubs hands together in anticipation>

It's a political stunt not really intended to solve a problem. So, even if some place like Seattle, whiose former mayor is running for president, said Seattle would take them, the hardliners that now run DHS will make sure mostly the criminals and gangs get shipped there and that the honest asylum seekers won't get green cards. It looks to me that this just another Trump ploy to politically extort US taxpayer money for his monument called The Wall. 

 

Too, I don't think anyone would be surprised it it came out that the Russians are working behind the scenes with the governments of the countries where these 'caravans' come from. Is it the Mariel Boat Lift, Act 2? Who knows, but in the long run so many of the Cubans that came to Miami proved to be hard working people who were an asset to their new country.

[RoseGoesToYale]

So... are we headed for impeach cobbler? The evidence for Trump obstructing justice is pretty darn strong. Technically, Trump couldn't be found guilty of collusion because "collusion" doesn't exist as a legal term, as I've just found out.

 

(Incidentally, I also found out that Reince Priebus' real name is Reinhold Richard. Why does everyone go around calling him Reince? Reinhold Richard is pronounceable, Reince is not. Rince? Reens? Rines? Reigns? Rants? This has nothing to do with anything, never mind)

[Kelly]

6 hours ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

(Incidentally, I also found out that Reince Priebus' real name is Reinhold Richard. Why does everyone go around calling him Reince? Reinhold Richard is pronounceable, Reince is not. Rince? Reens? Rines? Reigns? Rants? This has nothing to do with anything, never mind)

I cal him Prince Riebus.

[LeChat]

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Won't happen because it needs a two thirds majority in the Senate (Or is it the House... I'm a Brit, I get confused)

It appears the vote for impeachment would be up to the House, and then, the Senate hears the evidence during an impeachment trial.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

 

Quote

...Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments of officers of the U.S. federal government...

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

 

 

3 hours ago, Kelly said:

I cal him Prince Riebus.

Speaking of titles like "Prince," has anyone else already mentioned or thought that the title of this thread could also mistakenly be read in a positive light, with "Master," being read as something like "Lord/Prince Trump Thread"?

I thought that was ironic.

 

[Urishir]

3 hours ago, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

Speaking of titles like "Prince," has anyone else already mentioned or thought that the title of this thread could also mistakenly be read in a positive light, with "Master," being read as something like "Lord/Prince Trump Thread"?

I thought that was ironic.

 

I think there were several trump threads which were combined to create this and thus the master trump thread name, which did cause some debate somewhere in the thread.

 

[RoseGoesToYale]

6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Won't happen because it needs a two thirds majority in the Senate (Or is it the House... I'm a Brit, I get confused)

It's the House. The House Committee on the Judiciary needs a majority vote to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment. If yes, the allegations are sent to the full House, where a simple majority vote is needed on each article to pass (so could be less than two thirds, but all voting need to agree on all charges made). If the House votes to impeach, the House then takes it to the Senate, wherein the trial would take place. The House would present the prosecution, and Trump could mount a defense with his own attorneys. The Senate would then deliberate.

 

If I missed anything, someone please correct me. I barely passed AmGov in high school, I had to google it. 

[Nevyn]

Nope, you got it right. It would go to trial in the Senate. There's little chance an impeachment would be successful. It's only happened to Nixon. Clinton was impeached by the House but the Senate acquitted him.

[Guest]

I think the only way the US is getting rid of the guy is through the 2020 election. Sadly. 

 

If they reelect the guy however, I will be speechless. 

[Nevyn]

16 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Oh so he could essentially face trial, but with almost no chance it would 'convict'? I thought (from Slate podcasts, basically) that it the case would be effectively thrown out by the House without being heard by anyone.

It can be tossed by the House if they don't feel the evidence is strong enough, but basically the House would function as prosecutor by collecting evidence and laying out their case. If the House decided (by majority vote) that it was enough to press forward, the trial would take place in the Senate.

[Gentle Giant]

Trump so deserves to be impeached! I can’t believe the blindness people have to how unethical he is. By not holding him accountable it will embolden him. Russia will most likely try to interfere again and he will take advantage of whatever they do.

 

Why is it that a sitting president can’t be indicted? What a stupid rule. Presidents should not be above the law.

 

I’m worried for our country. If he gets reelected it will embolden him to do much worse things.

 

 

[Calligraphette_Coe]

2 hours ago, Gentle Giant said:

Trump so deserves to be impeached! I can’t believe the blindness people have to how unethical he is. By not holding him accountable it will embolden him. Russia will most likely try to interfere again and he will take advantage of whatever they do.

 

Why is it that a sitting president can’t be indicted? What a stupid rule. Presidents should not be above the law.

 

I’m worried for our country. If he gets reelected it will embolden him to do much worse things.

 

 

I think it was only a matter of time before a candidate like Trump took advantage of The Perfect Storm of Constitutional backstops that were written into it with the best of intentions, such as the Electoral College and the rule that a sitting president is granted limited immunity from criminal prosecutions. I think the Founders wrote them with _exactly_ the intention to prevent people like Trump getting control of the levers of power.

 

And it backfired, like sooo many things humans do.

 

In fact, you can read about something called The Backfire Effect, which is a piece of philosophy that predicts that people often become so entrenched in bad reasoning that facts, when presented, make them even MORE instransigent against the very things the facts expose.

 

But before everyone sinks too far into despair, consider what just happened in the recent election. Trump & Co, as GWB said, got ' a thumpin' in the House elections. And even if he were to win a second term, that majority might get even stronger, and would prevent him from doing all the bad and stupid things his little heart desires. 

 

Like the Wall. What happened to that discussion? You hear nothing about it now, and it's going to probably get strangled in the courts if he uses too much defense money to do an end run around the House.

 

And how did this happen? Well, most likely because the House is more of a 'One person, One Vote' check and balance against a charismatic maniac. One he can't move out of his way with bluster. The Electoral College was set up as a check against more populous areas from running roughshod over the more rural areas. It just so happens that this time, it spawned a Frankenstein. And like all Frankenkind, it usually comes back to haunt its enablers.

 

And all of this is why impeachment won't work on this Frankenstein. The Senate, having each state being given 2 votes no matter it's size and population, give it aid and comfort, but the House is the Immovable Object bulwarking the Irresistable Force.

 

i don't think he can pull it off again. Consider that it was less than 70 thousand votes in three states that made his unlikely ascension possible. And this time, if the Democrats are smart, they'll be ready for it.

 

Try not worry. Save your money, improve your mind, and know that even nightmares have to face mornings. And maybe 2020 will be that Morning in America.

 

Oh, and check out this book:

 

https://www.amazon.com/You-are-Now-Less-Dumb/dp/1592408796

 

 

[Sally]

5 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Oh so he could essentially face trial, but with almost no chance it would 'convict'? I thought (from Slate podcasts, basically) that it the case would be effectively thrown out by the House without being heard by anyone.

The House wouldn't throw the case out; it would simply fail to indict/charge him.  Thus there would be no case to send to the Senate.   

[LeChat]

Personally, I don't expect an impeachment to happen, as it seems that politics are focusing ahead on the 2020 Election (i.e. who will run, etc.)

[Sally]

There won't be move toward an impeachment.  The Dems understand that would waste time when they should be concentrating on the election in 2020.  

[iff]

Maybe Barr should be questioned by congress or his very misleading letter telling congress "yeah, there was nothing in the Mueller report. You guys don't need to see it, trust me"

[daveb]

I suspect there will be plenty of hearings to keep Trump's actions as detailed in Mueller's report from fading away, but unless lots of Republicans get on board with impeachment (which I don't see happening) I don't think the Democrats will push for impeachment. It probably wouldn't be a wise move politically. But that's just my opinion. I'm no politician or political scientist or anything.

[Sally]

1 hour ago, iff said:

Maybe Barr should be questioned by congress or his very misleading letter telling congress "yeah, there was nothing in the Mueller report. You guys don't need to see it, trust me"

He will be.  Mueller also will be questioned.

[Guest]

I think Joe Biden can do some serious damage to Trump. 

 

I don't know him politically well enough to know whether he has the intestinal fortitude to go against Trump head on.

[daveb]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

I think Joe Biden can do some serious damage to Trump. 

 

I don't know him politically well enough to know whether he has the intestinal fortitude to go against Trump head on.

I'd say he does.

 

I'd still prefer to see some of the "new blood" in the next election. Feels like we're still getting a lot of people who have been active since the Clinton administration or longer.

[Nick2]

10 minutes ago, daveb said:

I'd say he does.

 

I'd still prefer to see some of the "new blood" in the next election. Feels like we're still getting a lot of people who have been active since the Clinton administration or longer.

Bottom line is whomever it is we all have to vote to get Deranged Donald out and out for good.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Nick2 said:

Bottom line is whomever it is we all have to vote to get Deranged Donald out and out for good.

I thought it was dotard Donald..