Master Trump Thread

[SithLord]

@InDefenseOfPOMO I think you and I disagree on quite key features to your comment, so I'm not going to continue on that tangent and rabbit hole debating the fabric of space time and the nature of history. 

[Sally]

15 hours ago, Gentle Giant said:

@daveb Thanks for answering my question earlier. Getting back to that, wouldn’t it be possible that Trump could lose in the primary to Weld or someone else if they should run? Why do Republicans want to stick with Trump when they could have a much better candidate? Trump has shown himself to be a horrible president. Why stick with him? It really makes no sense.

 

That money Trump wasted on on the 4th of July celebration excess could have been used to make things better for the poor migrant detainees. But no he doesn’t think they should be treated humanely. I read somewhere that donations weren’t being allowed either.

 

Trump should go back to where he came from, or better yet go to prison.

If the Republicans were to ditch Trump now, they'd look like fools for letting him do the stupid, harmful things he's done for the last  2.5 years.   (They are indeed fools, but they don't want to look like fools.)   No Republican is really going to run against him, because if he wins again, that Republican would have to hide in a forest somewhere so Trump doesn't put a contract out on him.  Seriously.   Trump is vengeful.   

 

 

[Skycaptain]

Well, a motion has been passed condemning his comments as racist. Does this mean anything, or is it just the parliamentary equivalent of an AVEN nudge? 

[LeChat]

45 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

Well, a motion has been passed condemning his comments as racist. Does this mean anything, or is it just the parliamentary equivalent of an AVEN nudge? 

According to this article, it's the latter.

 

From

https://fortune.com/2019/07/16/house-condemns-trump-racist-tweets/

 

Quote

...The measure carries no legal repercussions for the president...

 

 

 

 

[Sally]

Unfortunately, there are no repercussions for anything this President does.  We are seeing just how much awful crap a President can do without any penalty.  

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

Well, a motion has been passed condemning his comments as racist. Does this mean anything, or is it just the parliamentary equivalent of an AVEN nudge? 

To a highly narcissistic guy like Trump who still is blaming those he targeted, this is a political move to condemn his words. Nothing else. 

 

Remember. He is the least racist person you will ever meet. 

 

Not a racist bone. His heart is another story, but his bones check out. 

 

He said it himself during his campaign. He could literally shoot someone, and face little to no repercussions that would even remotely impede his campaign. 

 

Anyone opposing him know this, and are using this to for political gain. 

 

There is no way anything he says can outrage or disgust anymore. Nudes of him would have to be leaked. 

 

You clearly can't get rid of him. 

 

More energy should be put towards ensuring those he runs against are strong enough to bury him. 

 

The population has spoken. Trump being hired was it stating a good portion if it was sick of things. 

 

I see this as an opportunity. 

 

He has awaken many who likely would never interest themselves in politics. He has sparked a voice for change. 

 

Even global leaders are aware of it, urging patience before getting back to business with the US.  

[Kelly]

On Tuesday, Trump spoke to a group of conservative teens. The presidential seal was broadcast behind him.

 

 

But we have the Imperial Russian eagle grasping golf clubs, and the motto of 45 es un títere, Spanish for "45 is a puppet."

[Nick2]

7 hours ago, Kelly said:

On Tuesday, Trump spoke to a group of conservative teens. The presidential seal was broadcast behind him.

 

 

But we have the Imperial Russian eagle grasping golf clubs, and the motto of 45 es un títere, Spanish for "45 is a puppet."

Also, dollar bills in the other claw, hammers and sickles on the top of the shield.  Someone deserves a prize.

[RoseGoesToYale]

Either I am stupid, or every journalism outfit doesn't really know what's going on either... now that Mueller has spoken, can we impeach the bozo or not???

[Zagadka]

That seal thing is hilarious, and it appears to have been a mistake rather than a troll. I don't know if that makes it more or less funny.

 

Every conservative news outlet's headlines are about how he didn't say anything and the Dems are disappointed and blaming Mueller. I have no idea what disconnect with reality is going on there. There is literally nothing that could happen to convince them of anything. Even if Trump said he did it all, on live national TV, they'd somehow blame the Left and Media for Lying. We are beyond the realm of proof mattering.

[ben8884]

I think the point that everyone seems to be missing is, Mueller said in his opinion the Russians did interfere in the last election. 

[daveb]

8 minutes ago, ben8884 said:

I think the point that everyone seems to be missing is, Mueller said in his opinion the Russians did interfere in the last election. 

And it isn't over.  

[Sally]

2 hours ago, ben8884 said:

I think the point that everyone seems to be missing is, Mueller said in his opinion the Russians did interfere in the last election. 

I'm afraid that it's not  that they're missing it, it just doesn't seem to matter.  We know it's happening, and there's nothing we can do about it, because McConnell won't consider any legislation.  (Because, of course, the Russians/others are working for Trump's reelection and McConnell doesn't want to screw that up.)

 

And no, Mueller didn't say anything that we didn't know before, even if we didn't read the report.

 

And no, there's no point in going for impeachment because the  Senate would not put Trump on trial, and the House voting for impeachment (meaning they ask the Senate to put Trump on trial) would just fire up Trump's base and make the Dems look ineffective.  Pelosi knows this; she's been in this game a long time and isn't going to do something stupid.    

[FindingTheta]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

Pelosi knows this; she's been in this game a long time and isn't going to do something stupid.    

Though by not acting on impeachable offenses out of fear of riling up the base she increases the tolerance of what would be considered impeachable, and builds up the tolerance for corruption that will erode the system even further. That is far more damaging to America in the long term than pissing off the Republican base. She's choosing to set up the condition for a Xanatos Gambit that favors the GOP, and that is immensely stupid on her part especially when a more politically competent person than Trump who has all of his venom can always enter the WH and take advantage of the Democrats' past inaction.

 

Even if the Senate doesn't impeach Trump, you now have a card to play which says something to the effect of: "We are the party that enforces the law, and the GOP has obstructed justice". You can even throw in a congressman such as Duncan Hunter and mention his corruption case that's pending if you want to make a stronger point. The Right will demonize the Dems no matter what (after all, they treat politics like a war, and they aren't pulling punches), so the Dems might as well do their thing while they have the opportunity. Failure to impeach because of a Republican senate doesn't equate to weakness, but failure to act on corruption does, and the Right will use that to their advantage.

 

The Republicans are fighting to win, and the Democrats need to start doing the same ESPECIALLY when they have the high ground. The. Game. Has. Changed. Pelosi and Schumer are being taken for a ride by those they want to compromise with (i.e. the GOP). Inaction only means that this will continue to get worse to the point where you won't be able to do anything at all to correct the course because the courts will be packed with Conservative judges that undo any progress the left has made in terms of civil and human rights, and the mainstream will go along with the horrible new normal in order to preserve their status and livelihood within society.

[Gentle Giant]

I was watching a panel discussing about impeachment and one point that was brought up was statute of limitations running out to charge Trump. That if impeachment does not get started and he’s reelected he won’t be able to be charged with any of it.

[Sally]

29 minutes ago, Gentle Giant said:

I was watching a panel discussing about impeachment and one point that was brought up was statute of limitations running out to charge Trump. That if impeachment does not get started and he’s reelected he won’t be able to be charged with any of it.

There's no  statue of limitations on impeachment.  

 

There's confusion about what impeachment is.  It isn't charging someone with a criminal action; that can't be done to a sitting  President.  And the success of an impeachment proceeding depends upon two things: whether BOTH houses of Congress are willing to get the President out (and in this case they aren't), and the characteristics of what the President has done to warrant impeachment and the personal characteristics of the President.  In the case of Trump, he has definitely committed crimes for which he can be charged when he is no longer President, but his actions as President are so out of the norm, so unable to be boxed in as appropriate or  inappropriate, so without any logical or rational basis that impeachment could go on for a very long time.  The Mueller investigation did not help, as all the report said is that the investigators could not say affirmatively that he did NOT obstruct justice.  

 

Meanwhile, the Dem candidates are running for office.  We are less than a year away from picking a Dem to run against Trump, and that time will -- and SHOULD -- be filled with opportunities to "inspect" those candidates and determine which would best be able to beat Trump at the ballot box.  And that's at a time when the Russians are interfering with that process.  What do you think they would do if the Dems started impeachment?  It would be all over; Trump would  escape impeachment because the Senate would not try him, and no Dem would have a chance to win because of the barrage of "poor Trump" coming from his base and the Russians.  

 

Pelosi knows what she's  doing.  This isn't a case where we should start a national war.  

[daveb]

29 minutes ago, Sally said:

There's no  statue of limitations on impeachment. 

But there is on the crimes he might be charged with after he is no longer president. That's the concern, that he could "run out the clock" by staying in office. Nadler, et al., have introduced a bill that would basically halt "stop the statute of limitations clock" during the time a president is on office. There are some other considerations, too. Such as whether the OLC memo/policy/thing about not being able to indict a sitting president has any legal standing. Or whether a court would rule that the statute of limitations doesn't count because of circumstances that prevent charges from being brought. They can do that, for example, in cases where the potential defendant has engaged in tactics that prevented charges from being brought until after the statute of limitations was reached. When it comes to presidents and indictments this is all pretty much untested, so no one really knows how things would play out in reality.

 

To argue against impeachment people kind of have to pin their hopes on Trump not getting re-elected (I'm hoping for that in any case). Calling it "virtue signaling" goes a bit far, in my opinion. Some would/do argue that if there is just cause then that's the main point, and that not starting impeachment hearings gives some level of tacit acceptance for the actions that would/should justify impeachment. Yeah, there are tactical/political considerations, as well as ethical and legal ones, when it comes to deciding if or when to initiate impeachment proceedings. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions!

[Nick2]

I know the house could impeach but he will not be convicted in the senate.  We all know that.  But I would still like for him to have that millstone around his neck and a notation in history books that this fraud was the 3rd president to be impeached.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Face it, Impeachment of Trump is a forlorn hope and a Constitutional boomerang come back to visit just as much Mucho Poo Poo on the throwers. Compared to Tricky Dick Nixon, Trump is a mere piker-- as arrogant as he is, he wasn't smart enough to be a really Boss Political Kingpin, he was just lucky as hell. And that luck doesn't translate into the same kind of Wrongdoing that Nixon dreamed up. And that's why the same tools won't dismantle House Trump like they did House Nixon.

 

The country is just going to get rid of him the old-fashioned way: vote him out. He's already underwater popularity-wise, all that needs to happen is for the Democratic Party NOT to snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory.

[Sally]

3 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

Face it, Impeachment of Trump is a forlorn hope and a Constitutional boomerang come back to visit just as much Mucho Poo Poo on the throwers. Compared to Tricky Dick Nixon, Trump is a mere piker-- as arrogant as he is, he wasn't smart enough to be a really Boss Political Kingpin, he was just lucky as hell. And that luck doesn't translate into the same kind of Wrongdoing that Nixon dreamed up. And that's why the same tools won't dismantle House Trump like they did House Nixon.

 

The country is just going to get rid of him the old-fashioned way: vote him out. He's already underwater popularity-wise, all that needs to happen is for the Democratic Party NOT to snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory.

Nixon was in no way worse than Trump; what Nixon did palls in comparison.  The situation is different re impeachment because of one thing:  The Republicans back then were asking Nixon to leave, and were successful in that attempt.  The Republicans now in power do not want Trump to leave because it would denigrate their "brand", and they would forestall any conviction by the Senate.  So impeachment by the House would be a vain attempt and a political misstep.  That's why Peloso will hold firm.  

[Calligraphette_Coe]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

Nixon was in no way worse than Trump; what Nixon did palls in comparison.  The situation is different re impeachment because of one thing:  The Republicans back then were asking Nixon to leave, and were successful in that attempt.  The Republicans now in power do not want Trump to leave because it would denigrate their "brand", and they would forestall any conviction by the Senate.  So impeachment by the House would be a vain attempt and a political misstep.  That's why Peloso will hold firm.  

I don't see how-- there is no such group as The Plumbers in the Trump scandal. Nor is there a Spiro Agnew to Trump's Mike Pence. If I recall correctly, the Republicans back then were no different. At least until the stench became so bad and Those Damn Tapes came out.

 

But let's say they do get to the point where Nixon got? Do you not think that Mike Pence will pull a Gerald Ford and pardon Trump? In retrospect, what Trump has done is more like what Teflon Ron did during the Iran-Contra scandal-- Trump has all his patsys lined up to take the fall just like Reagan did. And the Republicans will revere him for it.

[Zagadka]

Trump has no idealistic basis. He's just seeking power for power's sake. I'd respect him more if he actually had a platform or ideology, but he's just in position for his own self interest. At least I believed that Reagan had some basic for his ideology, however misguided. Trump has absolutely nothing.

 

I think people are making a mistake comparing Trump to Nixon. It isn't the same. Trump is much worse, he is far more blatant. He won't order an illegal operation into his opponents, he'll just tweet about them and tell his subordinates to refuse to answer any questions.

 

It is a personality cult, not a political movement.

[Sally]

12 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

I don't see how-- there is no such group as The Plumbers in the Trump scandal.

Every single federal department head that Trump has appointed is committing criminal and/or unconstitutional acts, and also acts that are not criminal but simply extremely hurtful to Americans, especially poor  Americans.  The band of Trump allies includes many who have been sentenced to prison for crimes.  The "Plumbers" were a small group; Trump cronies who did/do his bidding include the whole federal administration, right down to the people at the Southern corder who are responsible for mistreating children.  There is simply no comparison between Trump and Nixon.  

 

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

Yet, I continue to hear people who absolutely love this President.

 

I have never heard of any other U.S. President being so highly thought of.

 

Yet, his haters continue to talk and act like he is an aberration / anomaly.

 

Apparently this President has pushed all of the right buttons for a significant percentage of the U.S. population. Not enough to win the popular vote in the election that put him in office. Not enough to have high approval ratings. But enough for him to apparently be seen by a significant percentage of the population as having no flaws. Is there any precedent for such a phenomenon?

 

People do not want to admit it, but President Donald Trump is not an aberration / anomaly--he is a reflection of who we are in the United States of America.

 

He is a sexist, misogynistic, racist, xenophobe, but that never stopped him from being a success.

 

How many people in the U.S. have made it to the top through honest, hard work, high ethical standards, and a spirit of service to others? Didn't Donald Trump follow the rules that everybody else at the top follows? Isn't the difference between Donald Trump and the rest of the elites the fact that he does not hide--that he is very open and honest about--his morally compromised character and behavior?

 

Could it be that Trump haters are projecting? Could it be that Trump admirers are the most honest about who Americans are and what the United States of America is?

 

Is the disrespect and hate that many people have for this President any more rational than the admiration others have for him? Two sides of the same coin, maybe?

 

Maybe all of this is a blessing in disguise. Maybe it will be known by historians hundreds of years from now as the time when Americans of all persuasions / all points on the political spectrum and all geographic regions were forced to confront reality and do some serious soul searching.

 

What is going to change so that nothing like a President Donald Trump ever happens again?

 

I can already hear it. "The Electoral College". Our soul searching will yield "Abolish the Electoral College"? Seriously? That is THE flaw that gave us President Donald Trump?

 

I think that if we are honest we will see that in reality it all boils down to a population that is out of touch with reality and lives under mass illusion. The biggest part of that illusion is the myth of progress. Probably nothing has been a bigger blow to the myth of progress than the election of Donald Trump to the office of President of the United States of America.

 

It is okay. See through the mass illusion and you will probably find hope.

 

It is tempting to embrace the extreme pessimism of something like the Dark Mountain Project.

 

But a better strategy might be to stop letting the masters of illusion, including those who thrive on feeding your hate for this President, distract you from seeing genuine hope.

 

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Zagadka]

Might have something to do with his whole "yea I'd totally accept Russian electoral intervention" line (before everyone around him told him to shut up). To just name one little treasonous thing.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

28 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

Might have something to do with his whole "yea I'd totally accept Russian electoral intervention" line (before everyone around him told him to shut up). To just name one little treasonous thing.

 

Do enough people in this neoliberal global capitalist order care about things like treason when many have been socialized to narcissistically pursue their own rational self-interest? It is all about the ends, no matter the means.

[Zagadka]

We'll see. I don't feel like I am represented in this country. I know that Bernie or another mild leftist won't get a nomination, and honestly, I'll vote for Not Trump come election time, despite whatever interest I have and however much I dislike whatever clod is selected to run. Even Biden. It is literally the difference between 0 and 1 on a scale of 100.

 

I have no idea how anyone remotely actually interested in small government can support Trump. He is the definition of branch overreach, so I have a very hard time empathizing with anyone. The GOP can find someone far better representing of their interests to run. They're better than this.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

2 hours ago, Zagadka said:

Trump has no idealistic basis. He's just seeking power for power's sake. I'd respect him more if he actually had a platform or ideology, but he's just in position for his own self interest. At least I believed that Reagan had some basic for his ideology, however misguided. Trump has absolutely nothing.

 

I think people are making a mistake comparing Trump to Nixon. It isn't the same. Trump is much worse, he is far more blatant. He won't order an illegal operation into his opponents, he'll just tweet about them and tell his subordinates to refuse to answer any questions.

 

It is a personality cult, not a political movement.

But that's not against any law, and amorality isn't either. And his tweets are covered by the First Amendment, so you can't use that as a basis for impeachment. It's conceivable that you could get him on Election Law about paying off a mistress with campaign funds, but that's a long shot, too.

 

The Constitution gives one solid remedy, and that's the ballot box. 

 

To that end, you can compare what is going on with the Nixon era-- recall that impeachment happened in his second term and he got that second term by completely steamrolling over George McGovern in the 72 election. That was one of the biggest blowouts in US election history. And it coud happen again in 2020 if the Democrats are not careful.

[Zagadka]

7 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

But that's not against any law, and amorality isn't either

I agree. Tell that to people in the abortion and other debates. Why is prostitution illegal? The general answer is that it is immoral. Why is there no birth control availability? Immoral.

 

Why is putting children in cages for any reason on the planet illegal? Good question. That is also a moral question.

 

 

Quote

. And his tweets are covered by the First Amendment,

Technically, they aren't. He is a public servant and head of the military, not a citizen.

 

You are right in that the main recourse is just the ballot box...

 

Unless he breaks a law. In the US, no one, whatever position, is above the law - and if he broke a law of obstruction of justice by, say, firing the head of the FBI during a FBI investigation of him, or ordering members of his cabinet to ignore congressional subpoenas, or anything else, then he's in violation of those laws and should be held accountable. I would have the exact same opinion of Obama or any other leader, but strangely, that question has never come up.

 

If he JAYWALKED he should be tried for that.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

9 minutes ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

The Constitution gives one solid remedy, and that's the ballot box.

 

A competitive third major party would help, in my estimation.

 

But people seem to be too busy hating (or admiring) the current President and his supporters to have the resources to organize and mobilize anything like that.