Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Togashii]

Not losing any sleep over his loss.

You don’t lose sleep over kids getting killed, and love sexual predators- so color us shocked.

[Dontrike]

One thing I'll say is that Acosta has been beclowning himself at these events for some time now. The North Korea meeting was a particular low point. He's made himself the news.

The only one that beclowned himself with North Korea was Trump, and he wants to do it again. We'll call it NK Talks: The Re-Beclownening

[Machismo]

One thing I'll say is that Acosta has been beclowning himself at these events for some time now. The North Korea meeting was a particular low point. He's made himself the news.

Not losing any sleep over his loss.

- - - Updated - - -



I meant that in regards to who is to blame, in general, for the constant drama show that takes place at these events, the media or Trump.

Nobody expects you to lose sleep over Trump trying to stifle the free press.

We have been saying you would cheer Trump on, no matter what, and you are proving proving us all to be correct about you.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, will stop you from supporting Trump. You are too far invested into his corruption.

[Skroe]

One thing I'll say is that Acosta has been beclowning himself at these events for some time now. The North Korea meeting was a particular low point. He's made himself the news.

Not losing any sleep over his loss.

Of course you don't. Because your commitment to American principles - such as the free press - is as imaginary as Donald Trump's "victory" on Tuesday.

Acosta is being accused of doing something.
He did not do it.
That accusation is a pretext for the President of the United States to retaliate against a percieved opponent, who is doing his job as a journalist.

You'd be right at home in Putin's Russia, Dacien. You remind me more and more of Shalcker by the week.

"He may be a wannabe autocrat, but he's *my* autocrat".

As I said, I'm glad you took this step. It further exposes you and your side for what you are.

[Benggaul]

"There is no case for obstruction of justice because the president has all the power of the executive and delegates that to people like the FBI director and the attorney general,” Whitaker said on a radio show. “…The president could and has in our nation’s history said stop investigating this person or please investigate this other person.”

-Whitaker, acting AG

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...tion-he-wants/

There are SO many crowds of people gathering now demanding that he recuse himself. In the end it probably won't accomplish anything because Trump, his people and his supporters are all a bunch of infected assholes, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one all of those people are focusing on.

[Flarelaine]

Please make a blog, @Skroe , because sooner or later you'll be perma banned and I'll really miss your walls of text.

Seconded. Please include RSS feed while you're there.

[CostinR]

I see Trump couldn't help himself and had to fire Sessions and replace him with crony, instead of you know naming the Deputy AG as the acting AG. Of course some people would melt down over Rosenstein on the right, but it's the norm for a deputy to take over no?

Anyway I don't understand this blind fanaticism towards political figures, if you voted for someone or shown them support does that mean you've joined some cult that you must owe your eternal obedience to them? That they can do no wrong. Fuck that this ain't North Korea and Trump isn't dear leader Kim.

I'll admit I find myself thoroughly disappointed with Trump as someone who badly wanted him to win, not just against Hillary but against the Republican party. It was thoroughly enjoyable to watch him destroy the Bush dynasty, Cruz, Rubio and others. Still he's embraced the idea of base pandering, of political trench warfare, of doing things merely because they solidify his support among the hardcore fanatics.

This runs counter to how he won: Sure he appealed to his base, but also worked very damned hard to win over suburban voters, new voters, undecided voters. Fuck he campaigned for the black vote in black heavy areas.

Regardless of policy the way Trump has been handling campaigning has been complete and utter dogshite.

Make no mistake on ONE thing however: After the election the GOP is his, no dissenting figures remain, no Flake or Corker, no House Republican. You're either on the Trump train or you're out, but building a party purely around yourself can and will blow up in your face.

[Skroe]

I see Trump couldn't help himself and had to fire Sessions and replace him with crony, instead of you know naming the Deputy AG as the acting AG. Of course some people would melt down over Rosenstein on the right, but it's the norm for a deputy to take over no?

Yes, the deputy taking over is the norm, as what happened when Rex Tillerson "resigned" (was fired) or Comey. This is clearly a move to obstruct the Russia investigation.

Anyway I don't understand this blind fanaticism towards political figures, if you voted for someone or shown them support does that mean you've joined some cult that you must owe your eternal obedience to them? That they can do no wrong. Fuck that this ain't North Korea and Trump isn't dear leader Kim.

In 21st century America, admiting you were wrong about something (anything) is akin to cutting off your balls and throwing them in a fire. We're an entirely shameless society that has devolved from a dedication for the truth to living in constructed narratives to make ourselves feel better.

Case in point, Republicans lost the midterms badly. If Democrats manage to hold Florida and win Arizona after all, Republicans will have... what... a 51 seat majority in the Senate still? Great they tread water in a year they wanted a lot of pick ups. But the House going to Democrats with probably around +37 is an enormous game changer for the Republican/Trump agenda. And what are the Trumpkins doing? Well you've seen these threads. They're lying. Straight up lying.

I'll admit I find myself thoroughly disappointed with Trump as someone who badly wanted him to win, not just against Hillary but against the Republican party. It was thoroughly enjoyable to watch him destroy the Bush dynasty, Cruz, Rubio and others. Still he's embraced the idea of base pandering, of political trench warfare, of doing things merely because they solidify his support among the hardcore fanatics.

This runs counter to how he won: Sure he appealed to his base, but also worked very damned hard to win over suburban voters, new voters, undecided voters. Fuck he campaigned for the black vote in black heavy areas.

You were warned. Maybe it's because Romania's experience with Democracy is comparatively newer, but the kind of thing you were going for is politically immature and doesn't actually work, least of all in the United States.

Put aside the actions and the optics and the morality of Trump's illegitimate behavior as President... as illustrated in the election, he's lost the suburbs and he lost states THAT HE CANNOT LOSE in order to win re-election.

You should have known better. Many of us did. Demagoguery doesn't work in the long term here. The Trump show is old.

Regardless of policy the way Trump has been handling campaigning has been complete and utter dogshite.

You were warned. Also much of the policy has been trash too.

Make no mistake on ONE thing however: After the election the GOP is his, no dissenting figures remain, no Flake or Corker, no House Republican. You're either on the Trump train or you're out, but building a party purely around yourself can and will blow up in your face.

I've heard this lament, and you know what I have to say about it? Who cares. Flake and Corker had two years to do something about Trump. To take decisive action, if even only to force oversight. Flake did it at the absolute last minute on Kavanaugh, and no other issues, and then said he only did it because he wasn't running for re-election.

These jokers talked a good game, but never delivered. So what really are we losing? A furrowed brow? Statements of concern? Big fucking deal. A dissenting republican that doesn't actually take action is as worthwhile as an airplane with no engines.

It's as simple as this and has ALWAYS been as simple as this. If Trump is going to be removed from office via impeachment or resignation (and I believe he will), it will be because the Mueller report is so damning that NO MATTER THE COMPOSITION of Congress and the Senate, it would force that outcome. This is why Pelosi is smart to downplay impeachment talk. Because if and when it comes, she'll only hold the hearings and the vote on the articles if the evidence is strong enough that there is a realistic chance of it passing the House with bipartisan support and the Senate (via some backroom deal between Schumer and McConnell).

Under that scenario, you don't need the dissenting figures, because the evidence would be so bad it is undeniable that Trump has to go one way or another. The dissenting figures are only useful if the goal is to eek out 67 votes to remove Trump... but if that's the number we're aiming for, then the Mueller report will necessarily have been indecisive, which means Pelosi and co likely will have gotten it through the House with substantial Republican resistance (as opposed to just the Freedom Caucus). Which means she probably shouldnt (and wouldn't) hold the vote in the first place.

Short version: if impeachment and removal can't get 3/4ths the House and like 80-85 votes in the Senate, it shouldn't be held. It will only get those votes if the Mueller report is that damning. If it isn't and we're scrounging for votes to somehow assembly 67, then impeachment should not proceed. So under any scenario, the "Jeff Flakes" of the world are still worthless.

[Breccia]

Great they tread water in a year they wanted a lot of pick ups.

As you, me, dozens on this forum and thousands round the world have pointed out, the sheer disparity between D and R running for Senate re-election means even picking up a couple R seats is proportionally a loss. "Treading water" would be humiliating, A flip was nearly impossible, but had it happened, would have been the death knell.

[Skroe]

As you, me, dozens on this forum and thousands round the world have pointed out, the sheer disparity between D and R running for Senate re-election means even picking up a couple R seats is proportionally a loss. "Treading water" would be humiliating, A flip was nearly impossible, but had it happened, would have been the death knell.

Yep. I've been saying all year that if Democrats keep their NET losses to 2 (so 53-47), that'd still be a win. Because it happened an age of the Earth ago, we must remind ourselves, until Doug Jones won about a year ago, the Senate was 52-48, not 51-49. Losing net two seats would mean a net one seat gain from 2016. Big whoop.

This is the fundamental truth about Florida and Arizona: If Republicans take them both, Democrats would have to have a very good 2020 to take the Senate, but will almost certainly reclaim it in 2022 regardless (seriously, look at those maps). Winning the Senate in 2020 will be a challenge, but easier than 2018, without Florida and Arizona. Conversely, if Democrats can hold Florida and Arizona, then winning the Senate in 2020 requires a "better than average" showing, and lines the Democrats up for getting close (but probably still short) of 60 seats in in 2022.

But Republicans winning those seats now would get them nothing they didn't already have for the next two years. What it does get them is perhaps a Senate Majority held after 2020, and that would be a plus to them. But in the near term, there is nothing new here for them.

[Adam Jensen]

Yes, the deputy taking over is the norm, as what happened when Rex Tillerson "resigned" (was fired) or Comey. This is clearly a move to obstruct the Russia investigation.

And if it is illegal, isn't that more obstruction of justice?

I guess Mueller's gonna have to add an appendix to his final report.

[Kujako]

I guess Mueller's gonna have to add an appendix to his final report.

Unfortunately his paper budget has been removed. For unrelated reasons...

- - - Updated - - -

The latest "official poll" from Trump & Co....

Have to do SOMETHING to make the aggregate approval rate look not horrible I guess.

[Acidbaron]

Can't even select a negative option, does show how insecure he is

[Skroe]

And if it is illegal, isn't that more obstruction of justice?

I guess Mueller's gonna have to add an appendix to his final report.

Like anything else, a prosecutor would have to believe there are grounds for that to be the case, and a jury would have to agree. But yes, on it's face, misusing the powers of any office - such as appointments - with malign intent is against the law.

We like to say in everyday conversation the powers of the President is vast. It is and it isn't. The President can do a lot, but he has to justify it and then defend it in court. That is why the Keystone Pipeline verdict is important. Under the US system Congress writes the laws and the President impliments the law via regulations. Sometimes Presidents regulate certain things aggressively or unaggressively because of objections to the law, but there are firm lines that the executive branch is bound to. Under US law, arbitrary changes to regulations are illegal and illegitimate. This is why the Obama Administration produced so many studies on Keystone, which it opposed. It created a mountain of expert data that justified a change in regulation.

Conversely the Trump administration, which has been at most a modest deregulator, produces so few of these, it keeps losing in court because the current President wanting something some way is simply not enough. He can get his way, if he can produce credible data arguing that the regulation should be changed.

When Steve Bannon and those knuckledraggers are raging against the "Administrative State", a big part of what they are wailing against is this. The US government since World War II, despite the many political problems actually is an extraordinary data-production machine, and how aspects of government are executed is tightly bound to that data. Trump's supporters, who lets' be clear, know basically nothing about how government work, cheer him as some great deregulator. It's been modest. Very modest. And this has been why: an understaffed administration can't produce what Obama made a mountain of, and the law requires.

This is related to Mueller in the sense that, yes, the President can do things to interfere with the investigation, but it has to be justified within a legal framework that already exists, or it is illegitimate. The hearings in 2017 about giving the Special Counsel an avenue to challenge his removal via formal legal process was an extension of this concept. That idea was put on ice (he can still challenge it in court, under a less formal process).

[Breccia]

The latest "official poll" from Trump & Co

You know what to do, Internet!

"But Breccia! Why would you, a professional educator, encourage the intentional gathering of bad evidence? Isn't that poor science?"

This is self-defense, motherfuckers. I'm against violence too, but I will shoot someone trying to murder my family. This is basically the same.

[Endus]

You know what to do, Internet!

"But Breccia! Why would you, a professional educator, encourage the intentional gathering of bad evidence? Isn't that poor science?"

This is self-defense, motherfuckers. I'm against violence too, but I will shoot someone trying to murder my family. This is basically the same.

Technically, you're not encouraging the gathering of bad evidence. You're providing a practical demonstration of why their methodology is flawed.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately his paper budget has been removed. For unrelated reasons...

- - - Updated - - -

The latest "official poll" from Trump & Co....

Have to do SOMETHING to make the aggregate approval rate look not horrible I guess.

"Access forbidden". Huh, they CAN learn.

Unfortunately, I has a VPN. They aren't THAT smart.

[Dontrike]

Can't even select a negative option, does show how insecure he is

That's been the case for the last two years. I did one of those "How am I doing polls" and I am constantly being sent shit from the Republicans to help Trump and each time it asks for money. If Trump is a billionaire why does he keep asking for extra funds?

[Kujako]

Can't even select a negative option, does show how insecure he is

Remember when Colberts bit about Bush, "great president, or GREATEST president?" was a joke?

[Pannonian]

Yes, the deputy taking over is the norm, as what happened when Rex Tillerson "resigned" (was fired) or Comey. This is clearly a move to obstruct the Russia investigation.



In 21st century America, admiting you were wrong about something (anything) is akin to cutting off your balls and throwing them in a fire. We're an entirely shameless society that has devolved from a dedication for the truth to living in constructed narratives to make ourselves feel better.

Case in point, Republicans lost the midterms badly. If Democrats manage to hold Florida and win Arizona after all, Republicans will have... what... a 51 seat majority in the Senate still? Great they tread water in a year they wanted a lot of pick ups. But the House going to Democrats with probably around +37 is an enormous game changer for the Republican/Trump agenda. And what are the Trumpkins doing? Well you've seen these threads. They're lying. Straight up lying.




You were warned. Maybe it's because Romania's experience with Democracy is comparatively newer, but the kind of thing you were going for is politically immature and doesn't actually work, least of all in the United States.

Put aside the actions and the optics and the morality of Trump's illegitimate behavior as President... as illustrated in the election, he's lost the suburbs and he lost states THAT HE CANNOT LOSE in order to win re-election.

You should have known better. Many of us did. Demagoguery doesn't work in the long term here. The Trump show is old.




You were warned. Also much of the policy has been trash too.


I've heard this lament, and you know what I have to say about it? Who cares. Flake and Corker had two years to do something about Trump. To take decisive action, if even only to force oversight. Flake did it at the absolute last minute on Kavanaugh, and no other issues, and then said he only did it because he wasn't running for re-election.

These jokers talked a good game, but never delivered. So what really are we losing? A furrowed brow? Statements of concern? Big fucking deal. A dissenting republican that doesn't actually take action is as worthwhile as an airplane with no engines.

It's as simple as this and has ALWAYS been as simple as this. If Trump is going to be removed from office via impeachment or resignation (and I believe he will), it will be because the Mueller report is so damning that NO MATTER THE COMPOSITION of Congress and the Senate, it would force that outcome. This is why Pelosi is smart to downplay impeachment talk. Because if and when it comes, she'll only hold the hearings and the vote on the articles if the evidence is strong enough that there is a realistic chance of it passing the House with bipartisan support and the Senate (via some backroom deal between Schumer and McConnell).

Under that scenario, you don't need the dissenting figures, because the evidence would be so bad it is undeniable that Trump has to go one way or another. The dissenting figures are only useful if the goal is to eek out 67 votes to remove Trump... but if that's the number we're aiming for, then the Mueller report will necessarily have been indecisive, which means Pelosi and co likely will have gotten it through the House with substantial Republican resistance (as opposed to just the Freedom Caucus). Which means she probably shouldnt (and wouldn't) hold the vote in the first place.

Short version: if impeachment and removal can't get 3/4ths the House and like 80-85 votes in the Senate, it shouldn't be held. It will only get those votes if the Mueller report is that damning. If it isn't and we're scrounging for votes to somehow assembly 67, then impeachment should not proceed. So under any scenario, the "Jeff Flakes" of the world are still worthless.

Not so sure that the dissenting voices gone are a big deal for anyone. These people were the chance for the GOP to redeem themselves. Corker and Flake could have saved the GoP. Without them (and probably also with them, as long as they do nothing of consequence) the party is doomed. So having no "internal enemies" for Trump isn't so much a loss for everyone as for the Republicans itself.

[Edge-]

Corker and Flake could have saved the GoP. Without them (and probably also with them, as long as they do nothing of consequence) the party is doomed.

Corker and Flake are both frauds who have done nothing but periodically spout off some good sounding rhetoric. They deserve nothing. No praise. No celebration. They're worse than their spineless colleagues, because they hypocritically pretend to be reasonable while refusing to match their rhetoric with actions.