Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Nellise]

I can't tell if it's some cosmic justice that every time Skroe gets banned big news breaks, or if it's just because there has been such a constant stream of what would have been career ending scandals for any other president that it doesn't really matter when he gets banned, there's going to be something.

I don't know why people worship Skroe on these boards. Yeah, he hates Trump, but he was also an admitted Republican until mid-2018 so he's supported all their bullshit up until then. He only doesn't like Trump because he doesn't cater to the extreme military buildup that Skroe wants. Skroe is a bully on these boards and deserved every ban he's gotten. Trump just does so much abominable crap that it of course corresponds to every time Skroe gets banned.

[Benggaul]

I don't know why people worship Skroe on these boards. Yeah, he hates Trump, but he was also an admitted Republican until mid-2018 so he's supported all their bullshit up until then. He only doesn't like Trump because he doesn't cater to the extreme military buildup that Skroe wants. Skroe is a bully on these boards and deserved every ban he's gotten. Trump just does so much abominable crap that it of course corresponds to every time Skroe gets banned.

Sheesh, really? You want to trot this out while he's banned?

I don't worship him, but I can respect him as someone I've argued with in the past over politics since he actually backs his position with facts and reason. I may not agree with his conclusions most of the time--particularly when it comes to the military and the US as the "greatest nation on earth" philosophy, but I can usually put our differences in the "agree to disagree" column as opposed to the Trump supporters where it's always "you're batshit insane and have no fucking clue what you're talking about" compost heap. I'm pretty sure Skroe also has PLENTY of gripes about Trump outside of military concerns, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Further, there's nothing wrong with being a Republican and I would argue that still holds true today. The ones in Congress? Absolute spineless fucks trying desperately to hold onto dwindling power. The rank and file, however, I would wager are mostly as embarrassed by Trump as everyone else is...which is why the party is shrinking pretty quickly lately, it seems. I think you're also in danger of lumping "conservative" in with "Republican", which isn't exactly synonymous anymore. Skroe is absolutely a conservative and as far as I can tell has been forever (judging from past interactions). I believe Thekri is as well (correct me if I'm wrong). But both of them saw what was happening to their party and got the fuck out. There are plenty of others out there who would likely do the same if they thought it made any real difference.

[Flarelaine]

Like you suggested, a lot of old, conservative white blue-collar undereducated men backed an old white man who pretended to be a conservative, pretended to be blue-collar, and acted undereducated (speaks like a 5th grader).

I still doubt the last one is an act.

[Flarelaine]

Technically, only the Vice President actually becomes president. Anyone else in the line of succession only holds the office as Acting President.

I think whoever is rooting for President Pelosi will settle for that.

[Nellise]

Sheesh, really? You want to trot this out while he's banned?

Not my fault he gets banned all the time. I don't think I've ever received a single infraction in all the years I've been here (I might be risking it here by offending the god-Skroe). Have you ever read the posts where he goes off the deep end? It's pretty ridiculous stuff. I also don't care to read a 50,000 word rebuttal from him on a gaming forum. I know it's nice to have one from their side supposedly helping, but if he was a Republican until 2018, he's supported their platform until then which is completely anti-science, anti-woman, anti-any number of things that non-Republicans believe are people's rights. He only left because of Trump so he still supports all that crap.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Not my fault he gets banned all the time. I don't think I've ever received a single infraction in all the years I've been here (I might be risking it here by offending the god-Skroe). Have you ever read the posts where he goes off the deep end? It's pretty ridiculous stuff. I also don't care to read a 50,000 word rebuttal from him on a gaming forum. I know it's nice to have one from their side supposedly helping, but if he was a Republican until 2018, he's supported their platform until then which is completely anti-science, anti-woman, anti-any number of things that non-Republicans believe are people's rights. He only left because of Trump so he still supports all that crap.

Sure, he's a Republican...and I've taken issue with a lot of stuff he's said and done in the past...but the reason he gets respect is because, unlike a lot of other spineless pufferfish that call themselves Conservatives, he took a stand against Trump...even though it meant going against his own party.

I don't have to agree with people on every issue in order to respect them. I can respect them for actually having the courage to stand by their convictions...even if they are counter to my own.

[Shalcker]

I'm shocked, simply shocked to hear that Skroe just happens to have done something to have gotten banhammered at the same time as the MAGATs are taking multiple body blows to their morale as the result of seeing their Mango Mussolini's ambitions thwarted once again - it's almost as though someone's tiny little insecure ego is so excessively fragile that he lashes out at his perceived "enemies" by abusing the powers of the office he occupies (in bad faith) against those same "enemies" (who are really only pointing out the truth that's obvious to everyone except him and his cult).

It's really weird that people get so caught up in frenzy of "Finally we're getting him" when nothing materially changed from previous impeachment calculus. If it ever gets approved in House - which will mean "kiss our Republican-dominated seats goodbye" (the reason why they didn't vote on starting impeachment proceedings to not have it on record) - it will still die in Senate.

And, given that Biden is also clearly and obviously corrupt with those deals involving Hunter Biden, there is no way for Democrats to come out ahead in the end after defending him so much.

[nonameelf]

(the reason why they didn't vote on starting impeachment proceedings to not have it on record)

Because that's not actually a requirement by law. The only vote required is on the articles of impeachment, which have yet to be drawn up as we're still in the investigation part.

And, given that Biden is also clearly and obviously corrupt with those deals involving Hunter Biden, there is no way for Democrats to come ahead in the end after defending him so much.

If Biden is so clearly and obviously corrupt then why isn't the DOJ investigating him? Why is Trump having to bribe foreign leaders to do it for him?

[Somewhatconcerned]

Are the House votes for impeachment made public? If so, why the need for an additional vote prior for the inquiry? It will be clear who voted for impeachment or not, if that is the concern.

[Shalcker]

Because that's not actually a requirement by law. The only vote required is on the articles of impeachment, which have yet to be drawn up as we're still in the investigation part.

Yes, but they are avoiding it despite that being customary because their position is weak.

And they cannot avoid voting to approve impeachment in the end of their inquiry.

If they never actually get around to doing it, will mean entire thing is pure posturing.
If they do and fail, it'll spectacularly backfire.
And if they do and succeed in House they'll still threaten those weak seats (which they avoided by not voting now) and impeachment will still fail in Senate.

If Biden is so clearly and obviously corrupt then why isn't the DOJ investigating him? Why is Trump having to bribe foreign leaders to do it for him?

It's just in fact finding phase at the moment.

[nonameelf]

Are the House votes for impeachment made public? If so, why the need for an additional vote prior for the inquiry? It will be clear who voted for impeachment or not, if that is the concern.

McCarthy let the cat out of the bag with the letter he sent to Pelosi. What he wants is clear: the ability to block democrat subpoenas and obstruct the investigation.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but they are avoiding it despite that being customary because their position is weak.

And they cannot avoid voting to approve impeachment in the end of their inquiry.

If they never actually get around to doing it, will mean entire thing is pure posturing.
If they do and fail, it'll spectacularly backfire.
And if they do and succeed in House they'll still threaten those weak seats (which they avoided by not voting now) and impeachment will still fail in Senate.

They'll vote when the articles of impeachment are drawn up. As is required by the constitution.

It's just in fact finding phase at the moment.

No, they aren't. There is no DOJ investigation into Biden or his son.

[Shalcker]

Are the House votes for impeachment made public? If so, why the need for an additional vote prior for the inquiry? It will be clear who voted for impeachment or not, if that is the concern.

It looks like House votes are public, yes.

It is just customary to do it on impeachment inquiry initiation - they don't need to, but explanations of why they aren't doing it this time seem to show their position is weak.

[nonameelf]

It looks like House votes are public, yes.

It is just customary to do it on impeachment inquiry initiation - they don't need to, but explanations of why they aren't doing it this time seem to show their position is weak.

No, it's because Republicans already played their hand and said they wanted to obstruct the investigation.

They have no intention of conducting an investigation.

[Somewhatconcerned]

It looks like House votes are public, yes.

It is just customary to do it on impeachment inquiry initiation - they don't need to, but explanations of why they aren't doing it this time seem to show their position is weak.

Seems redundant to vote twice. If they're going to put their seats on the line, they'll do it for the actual vote which would carry more risk, not a vote to start an inquiry.

Furthermore, it's not required by law. And LOL customary doesn't mean shit in the age of Trump and the current GOP.

So basically we can put this argument about voting for the inquiry to bed.

[Shalcker]

No, it's because Republicans already played their hand and said they wanted to obstruct the investigation.

Sky is also blue, and water is wet.

What this has to do with not voting on impeachment inquiry start? Republicans aren't in control of House either way.

Are Democrats afraid even first step would fail?

[nonameelf]

Sky is also blue, and water is wet.

What this has to do with not voting on impeachment inquiry start? Republicans aren't in control of House either way.

Are Democrats afraid even first step would fail?

If they were afraid they just wouldn't have called it an impeachment inquiry in the first place.

I fail to see any compelling reason why they would do the vote to give Republicans power to obstruct subpoenas.

[Blur4stuff]

Trump got caught. He then committed more crimes live on TV. Pence and dozens of others in the administration are now also guilty as more evidence comes to light.

The GOP is thoroughly rotten. Get ready for a continued damaging stream of information to come out about their crimes. It's not stopping anytime soon now that their ship is sinking.

[Shalcker]

Seems redundant to vote twice. If they're going to put their seats on the line, they'll do it for the actual vote which would carry more risk, not a vote to start an inquiry.

Yes, and that looks like going into it from position of weakness (just like going into it over Biden - not emoluments or anything else).

Nothing to do with "wherever they are allowed to by law".

- - - Updated - - -

If they were afraid they just wouldn't have called it an impeachment inquiry in the first place.

I fail to see any compelling reason why they would do the vote to give Republicans power to obstruct subpoenas.

Maybe i don't understand the mechanics, but how exactly would voting give Republicans such powers, and not voting wouldn't?

[nonameelf]

Maybe i don't understand the mechanics, but how exactly would voting give Republicans such powers, and not voting wouldn't?

Because the vote would include rule changes for how congress normally works. And one of things McCarthy was asking for was for Ranking Members of committees to be granted subpoena power and require that both the Ranking Member and the Chair agree on subpoenas. Meaning the Republican Ranking Members could block the Chair's subpoenas.

[Breccia]

Purdue Pharma has declared bankruptcy as we previously discussed, but plaintiffs in the whopping two thousand, six hundred lawsuits aren't done yet.

Attorneys general from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and other states are expected to object to Purdue’s request that a U.S. bankruptcy judge shield the company from more than 2,600 lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages, according to court filings and three people familiar with the preparations.

Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month after reaching a deal it estimated valued at more than $10 billion that would resolve the bulk of the cases, most of which were brought by states and local governments.

The lawsuits allege Purdue and the Sacklers contributed to a public health crisis that has claimed the lives of nearly 400,000 people since 1999 by aggressively marketing opioids while downplaying their addiction and overdoes risks.

The company said it needed to pause the litigation for about nine months so it could negotiate settlements with the remaining plaintiffs and preserve money that would otherwise be spent fighting the cases.

Purdue also asked the bankruptcy judge overseeing its case to halt litigation against members of the Sackler family, some of whom previously sat on Purdue’s board.

Typically, a bankruptcy filing halts all litigation, but there is an exception for government actions that seek to enforce laws related to public health and safety.

That exception prompted Purdue to seek a formal injunction to halt the litigation.

Attorneys general from Massachusetts and New York have accused Purdue of trying to avoid accountability and trying to protect the Sacklers, who offered at least $3 billion toward the company’s proposed settlement of the widespread opioid litigation.

One group of 16 counties and cities in Nevada have already urged the judge to reject Purdue’s request, saying in a Thursday court filing it would “shield the Sackler families’ assets from the reach of their victims.”

As a reminder, the Sackler family has already been caught trying to move a literal billion dollars overseas.