Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

Okay, I was only off by a little then. Yes, as a doctor in charge of a pandemic she 100% shouldn't have done nothing. We can call it gutless or incompetent.

Yes, we could call her that.
But why does anyone think she should shut up now? Her words help fill in the picture of all the going ons in the big WH.

[Breccia]

But why does anyone think she should shut up now?

I don't think people are saying that so much as "why didn't she speak up before?"

Yes it paints a picture, but if someone says now "Trump did a bunch of bad things while I worked directly for them, but I allowed them to happen and did nothing" there's that obvious question "Why did you allow them to happen?"

As a counter-example, according to both the NYTimes and the WSJ Trump was directly ordering both Barr and Barr's replacement, and his Solicitor General, to take the stolen fraud bigly election case directly to SCOTUS. They all refused, which explains why we got Guiliani and Powell and that lawsuit I just posted about, but not Trump using official WH lawyers to attack democracy in SCOTUS.

By contrast, Birx is admitting she saw Trump hold up charts in front of the country, charts she did not make, and charts she knew were false...and decided that rather than correct the info immediately and publicly, to allow it to come out while she tried to fix what she could quietly. While trying to fix things is admirable, she admitted she knew what Trump was doing was wrong, that it was dangerous, and she just allowed Trump to keep doing it.

She's not directly responsible, and maybe it would have gotten her fired. But "I might get fired by an insane psychopath who is dead-set on ignoring science and murdering people" looks better than "I went along for the ride".

[Shadowferal]

I don't think people are saying that so much as "why didn't she speak up before?" She's not directly responsible, and maybe it would have gotten her fired. But "I might get fired by an insane psychopath who is dead-set on ignoring science and murdering people" looks better than "I went along for the ride".

Could not the same be said of Fauci?
I'm playing devil's advocate here...because..why push her away? I'd want her expertise on my side.

[Breccia]

Once again, it's time for Guess the Speaker! The topic is "why the media is responsible for the murderous insurrection".

They hated him so much, they checked their objectivity. It wasn’t just CNN, all of them did. They just couldn't check their own personal feelings about him.

There has been a complete lack of trust, a destruction of trust in the media, and people don’t know where to turn for true information.

That's Megyn Kelly, in a BBC interview.

"Isn't she a journalist?"

She was, yes. For FOX News, who have, erm, their own objectivity issues.

"Did she mention that Trump's rabid fanbase couldn't turn to Trump for factually true information because Trump lied all the time about everything?"

She used the term "personally controversial" so not really, no.

"Did she point out that, when the media said Biden won, they were being objectively true?"

I think she was referring to the loss of trust when Trump's rabid fanbase just stopped believing the media before that.

"Because they believed Trump. Who lied."

...yes.

"So she's blaming the media, of which she was part, for the loss of public trust, which happened because Trump lied over and over, and therefore the riot, during which the media were telling the objective truth and Trump didn't just lie to their faces, but also told them where to go. Is that about right?"

Yes.

"Wow. That's some pretty deep-rooted hypocrisy with a side of denial."

It sounds that way. But if I helped create a monster, I'd want to avoid responsibility too.

- - - Updated - - -

Could not the same be said of Fauci?

Not nearly as accurately, no. Trump stopped bringing Fauci to meetings because Fauci would just say true things which Trump couldn't have. Here's literally the first example I looked for, dated Oct 6, but there are plenty of others. Fauci directly, publicly contradicted Trump all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

So in yet another one of "these" results, SCOTUS dismisses emoluments case against Trump, on the grounds that Trump lost, get over it.

No really. The case took so long to get to SCOTUS that SCOTUS refused to take it up, on the grounds that Biden was President and not Trump.

Because of this tardiness and, to my non-expert opinion at least, cowardice by SCOTUS, we will never know if the President can just take all the foreign money they want, just by virtue of owning a business from which they refuse to divest. Precedent was not set.

I'm disappointed. I'd honestly have preferred a "Yes this was legal" even if I disagreed with it, than the "The issue is moot" we got. I guess the case should have been brought sooner.

[Paranoid Android]

JUST IN: The Supreme Court dismisses emoluments cases against former President Donald Trump https://t.co/geu110lUFZ

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...387039745?s=19

Basically SCOTUS stated they want don't want to get involved in politically charged cases. They told the lower courts to dismiss cases. So shit!

Do the rubes who worship our Founding Fathers, again the rule was so vague that Trump I believe unwittingly had exploited this.

So now Congress needs a law since this door is wide open. I believe they won't and just forget about it. Most thinking another President won't, the others want another Trump to run.

@Breccia. Oh yeah! Effin classic that SCOTUS reason was; 'Well he got away with it' since he is out of office. Unbelievable.

So another point Congress must address. No 'Get out of jail, Free' cards.

[Breccia]

Effin classic that SCOTUS reason was; 'Well he got away with it' since he is out of office.

I don't know what the penalties for the emoluments clause is. If it is only "you have to stop" then, while yeah fucking classic, it would actually make sense. Other courts did this for the election, and if you comb through my old posts, you'd see I wasn't 100% sold on that reason either, even when I agreed with the end result.

But yes, Trump didn't divest and Trump took in large amounts of foreign money while in office. Bunch of his campaign funds too. Luckily there are state laws against that last one, also DC.

[Nellise]

So in yet another one of "these" results, SCOTUS dismisses emoluments case against Trump, on the grounds that Trump lost, get over it.

No really. The case took so long to get to SCOTUS that SCOTUS refused to take it up, on the grounds that Biden was President and not Trump.

Because of this tardiness and, to my non-expert opinion at least, cowardice by SCOTUS, we will never know if the President can just take all the foreign money they want, just by virtue of owning a business from which they refuse to divest. Precedent was not set.

The people who brought the cases asked that they be dismissed.

[Breccia]

The people who brought the cases asked that they be dismissed.

They did?

A second case was brought by various members of the hospitality industry who own or work in hotels or restaurants in New York and Washington, who also argued they were put at a competitive disadvantage.

Deepak Gupta, one of the attorneys challenging Trump in the disputes, said on Twitter following the court's decision that he wasn't surprised the case was dismissed as moot after Trump left office, adding it's "disappointing that Trump ran out the clock."

That doesn't sound right.

[Nellise]

They did?



That doesn't sound right.

"Following Biden’s election, the state and D.C. governments and CREW urged the court not to take the cases."

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/emol...conflicts.html

They reworded part of Gupta's comments from his twitter post about it: "SCOTUS just dismissed our Emoluments Clause litigation against Trump as moot. (We agreed it was now moot so that's no surprise.) It's disappointing that Trump ran out the clock. But I'm proud of the work we did to ensure the Constitution's anti-corruption norms weren't forgotten."

[Xeones]

That is weird... the emoluments cases should have been rock solid.

[Breccia]

(cites second source)

Um...doesn't asking SCOTUS not to hear the matter, means the lower court ruling would have stood? Your second source does not mention asking for dismissal, only not to hear the cases. Both of which Trump was losing up till that point.

Why would you say you're not surprised if you asked for dismissal? At the bare minimum that's misleading phrasing by Gupta.

[Paranoid Android]

That is weird... the emoluments cases should have been rock solid.

Well it actually isn't. Cause our Founding Fathers were vague in its description and actually assumed that no piece of crap like Trump would blatantly take this advantage of the situation. The emoluments does not really state that hey you can become President then have a bunch of businesses that profit off taxpayer money. I can't believe how stupid really the Founders were not including this, unless we are going with they are politicians and thus support blatant corruption.

Strict Constitutionalist? Oh sure when its the 2nd Amendment but as far as Emoluments basically saying "receive emoluments". My research says financial compensation. So I would believe this covers the point.

Talk about precedent and all we need is another piece of crap President and you can really exploit this. Shoot open a small cafe and eat there every day and charge $10k for cup of coffee. Nice little business to have.

[Breccia]

open a small cafe and eat there every day and charge $10k for cup of coffee. Nice little business to have.

You're describing the DC case against Trump overcharging for the inauguration. SCOTUS didn't and can't say shit about that.

[Gorsameth]

Well it actually isn't. Cause our Founding Fathers were vague in its description and actually assumed that no piece of crap like Trump would blatantly take this advantage of the situation. The emoluments does not really state that hey you can become President then have a bunch of businesses that profit off taxpayer money. I can't believe how stupid really the Founders were not including this, unless we are going with they are politicians and thus support blatant corruption.

Strict Constitutionalist? Oh sure when its the 2nd Amendment but as far as Emoluments basically saying "receive emoluments". My research says financial compensation. So I would believe this covers the point.

Talk about precedent and all we need is another piece of crap President and you can really exploit this. Shoot open a small cafe and eat there every day and charge $10k for cup of coffee. Nice little business to have.

Remember that at the time of the Founding Fathers only land owners were allowed to vote and they tended to be the more educated.

They would likely look at Trump's election and tell you that this is why you don't allow the peasants to vote.

[Breccia]

As the effects of Trump continue to take their toll on the Republican Party...
(sip)
aaah

We see more evidence in this feud :

As another Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump looms on the horizon, House Republicans stepped up their pressure campaign against GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney to resign from her leadership post.

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz plans to rally with local Republicans in Cheyenne on Thursday to urge the Wyoming Republican congresswoman to step down as a result of her voting in favor of Trump’s second impeachment and accusing him of “betrayal” to the office of the presidency.

In a tweet promoting the event, Gaetz said, “I do not want her job. I unequivocally am not seeking a position in House Leadership. I also know Wyoming can do better.”

A Cheney spokesperson shot back at Gaetz, telling the Washington Examiner, "Rep. Gaetz can leave his beauty bag at home. In Wyoming, the men don’t wear make-up.”

Oh by the way:



Apparently yes they do.

[Drutt]

ngl brix and fauci giving it the charlie biggun now is suspect. Not what they are saying I completely believe it, but nodding along and waiting till the orange man fucked off instead of when he was in power.

if you havent read this : https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/

you should. Brix and Fauci...mr g?

That's a good read. Very thought provoking.

Uncanny how much Mr. D resembles a certain former president.

[PhaelixWW]

That's a good read. Very thought provoking.

Uncanny how much Mr. D resembles a certain former president.

Except for the "very good-looking" bit...

I think young D over there is the only born Nazi in the room. Young D is the spoiled only son of a doting mother. He has never been crossed in his life. He spends his time at the game of seeing what he can get away with. He is constantly arrested for speeding and his mother pays the fines. He has been ruthless toward two wives and his mother pays the alimony. His life is spent in sensation-seeking and theatricality. He is utterly inconsiderate of everybody. He is very good-looking, in a vacuous, cavalier way, and inordinately vain. He would certainly fancy himself in a uniform that gave him a chance to swagger and lord it over others.

[Drutt]

Except for the "very good-looking" bit...

He was more than passable in his younger days, before age caught up with him.

Ironically, it's his vanity that makes him look so utterly ridiculous.

[Breccia]

Trade wars are good, and easy to win!

China starts spreading the conspiracy theory that the US invented COVID and Pfizer is executing the elderly.

"Okay, but why post that here?"

CHINA VIRUS CHINA VIRUS CHINA VIRUS.

Because that. Trump was desperate to paint his poor response to the lethal outbreak as anyone's fault but his own. It makes perfect sense that China would do the same as a direct response to Trump and the rabid fanbase. I mean, it would be hypocritical for a Trump supporter to blame China, or say what they're doing is wrong, would't it?

I, of course, am free to condemn China's misinformation without regret.

[Polyxo]

I don't know what the penalties for the emoluments clause is. If it is only "you have to stop" then, while yeah fucking classic, it would actually make sense. Other courts did this for the election, and if you comb through my old posts, you'd see I wasn't 100% sold on that reason either, even when I agreed with the end result.

But yes, Trump didn't divest and Trump took in large amounts of foreign money while in office. Bunch of his campaign funds too. Luckily there are state laws against that last one, also DC.

I'm pretty sure that's the issue. The only result of the case would be the courts saying "well, you can't do that". It's actually one of the things that I'm really hoping Congress and the Biden administration does: fixing a lot of rules/norms that don't actually have any mechanism of enforcement.