Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[beanman12345]

He's extremely influential. I know lots and lots of people who swear by every word of his.

It's the timeslot on Fox that's influential, not the person giving the message, since the message is basically the same from whoever gives it. O'Reilly was extremely influential, till he lost that time slot.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mypill...ncel-lou-dobbs

Fukin kek, Pillow Man slunk back to Fox to pay them to advertise his shitty pillows again, guess he does need them more than they need him after all.

But don't worry, now he's pushing a conspiracy that Fox partnered up with Dominion to have Dominion sue Fox as an excuse to fire Lou Dobbs. Seriously, if the the victim complexes of these nutters had a physical footprint I think the state of Texas would be one giant building at this point.

[PhaelixWW]

Not exactly new information, but it adds a lot of context...

CNN: Senate Judiciary Committee issues sweeping report detailing how Trump and a top DOJ lawyer attempted to overturn 2020 election

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday released a sweeping report about how former President Donald Trump and a top lawyer in the Justice Department attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Trump directly asked the Justice Department nine times to undermine the election result, and his chief of staff Mark Meadows broke administration policy by pressuring a Justice Department lawyer to investigate claims of election fraud, according to the report, which is based on witness interviews of top former Justice Department officials.

The Democratic-led committee also revealed that White House counsel Pat Cipollone threatened to quit in early January as Trump considered replacing then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, a DOJ lawyer who supported election fraud conspiracies.

After the eight-month investigation, the findings highlight the relentlessness of Trump and some of his top advisers as they fixated on using the Justice Department to prop up false conspiracies of election fraud. The committee report, the most comprehensive account so far of Trump's efforts to overturn the election, described his conduct as an abuse of presidential power.

Soon after the release of the report Thursday morning, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley's office issued a GOP version, which pushes back on the Democrats' findings and defends Trump, saying he "listened to his senior advisors and followed their advice and recommendations."

Appearing on CNN's "New Day" Thursday morning, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said the US was a "half a step away from a constitutional crisis, a full-blown constitutional crisis" and explained the events unfolded in three phases.

"First phase, Trump goes to court. Loses every lawsuit, which claims there was voter fraud in the election. Next, he decides he has to take over the Department of Justice and the attorney general, and have the attorney general push this narrative on to the states to tell them to stop from sending in their Electoral College vote totals. When that failed -- and our report goes into graphic detail of the efforts that were made -- the third step was to turn the mob loose on the Capitol the day we were counting the ballots," Durbin said, referring to the January 6 riot.

The 400-page report by Senate Democrats, entitled "Subverting Justice," slams the actions of Clark, who they say became a crucial player in Trump's attempt to use the Justice Department for his political gain.

The Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Thursday they were referring him to the DC Bar for a review of his professional conduct, citing rules that bar attorneys from assisting in fraud and interfering with the administration of justice.

The committee said it has not yet made findings of possible criminality, since their investigation is not complete. Clark has not been charged with any crime, and an attorney for Clark didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clark was not interviewed by the committee. Instead, top Justice Department officials described in interviews his and Trump's plans to overturn the election.

Clark had pushed Rosen and Richard Donoghue, then the second-in-command at the Justice Department, to use the Justice Department to announce election fraud investigations and ask state leaders in Georgia to appoint electors, potentially disregarding the certified popular vote. Clark began making the pitch in late December after speaking with Trump directly, the committee found.

The Senate committee wrote he may have had assistance from "lower-level allies" within the Justice Department and even attempted to bargain with Rosen on his plan, saying he would turn down a chance at taking Rosen's place if Rosen would agree to support his Georgia elector initiative.

"Clark's proposal to wield DOJ's power to override the already-certified popular vote reflected a stunning distortion of DOJ's authority: DOJ protects ballot access and ballot integrity, but has no role in determining which candidate won a particular election," the committee wrote.

Donoghue and Rosen both testified to the committee.

The series of interactions between the President and Rosen and Donoghue began in mid-December with an Oval Office meeting, included several phone calls and continued through January 3.

In multiple calls, Trump claimed there was election fraud in Pennsylvania and Arizona -- both states he lost -- telling Rosen "people are saying" and asking the Justice Department to look into the rumors, according to the committee.

Trump also told the DOJ leadership, "You guys aren't following the internet the way I do," according to both Donoghue and Rosen.

Rosen told the President the department "can't and won't just flip a switch and change the election." That prompted Trump to simply ask for an official Justice announcement that the election was corrupt and then "leave the rest to me and the [Republican] Congressmen," the committee report noted.

The department hadn't found any widespread fraud in the election, and simultaneously Trump's campaign was filing lawsuits to throw out millions of votes in the swing states.

Trump had Rosen and Clark vie for the attorney general's job during the nearly three-hour meeting on January 3 before deciding not to replace Rosen with Clark, the report found. It also details how discussions about Clark's plan in Georgia became inextricably linked to talks about him replacing Rosen.

"According to Rosen, Trump opened the meeting by saying, 'One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren't going to do anything to overturn the election,'" the report says.

"Over the course of the next three hours, the group had what Donoghue called 'a wide-ranging conversation' focused on whether Trump should replace DOJ's leadership, install Clark in Rosen's place, and send Clark's proposed letter—and whether Clark was even qualified to assume the Acting Attorney General position. Rosen and Donoghue told us that by this point, Clark's proposed letter and his potential role as Acting Attorney General were intertwined," it adds.

The report goes on to note that at some point during the meeting, Donoghue and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steve Engel made clear that there would be mass resignations at DOJ if Trump moved forward with replacing Rosen with Clark -- something he told the committee was "important context" for the then-president as he weighed his decision.

Donoghue and Rosen also recalled White House lawyers Cipollone and Patrick Philbin pushing back on the plan to replace Rosen with Clark, with Cipollone calling Clark's letter a "murder-suicide pact" and the two White House lawyers indicating that they would also resign, according to the report.

Despite the threat of mass resignations, Trump "continued for some time to entertain the idea of installing Clark in Rosen's place," the report notes. It also says that Donoghue told the panel that Trump did not reject Clark's course of action until "'very deep into the conversation,' within the final 15 minutes of the two- to three-hour meeting."

CNN previously reported that Rosen, during his closed-door interview with the committee, spoke of numerous interactions with Clark, but much of the focus of his testimony was on five episodes where Clark went out of the chain of command to push the fraud claims -- including the January 3 White House meeting.

[Breccia]

Wednesday's report:

We have reached a grim milestone: more people died from COVID in 2021 so far, than 2020. We just passed the 50/50 split.

Now of course a lot of that is the big chunk happeneing at the holiday season getting 2021 off to a running death start while deaths in 2020 too four months to really take off.



As you can see, things were the worst they've ever been under Trump. I probably don't need to qualify that, but I meant with COVID.

So let's do what I said I would do, find out the before/after Jan 20th breakdown of COVID deaths by blue/red states.

Using the CDC tracker because that has cumulative deaths by date, I found
1) every state's deaths by Jan 20th
2) every state's deaths since
3) if that state voted for Trump (by simple majority)
4) if that state has a GOP-controlled state house
I had to do #4 because Trump was such a horrible WH resident that states that voted for their own red politicians, still didn't vote for Trump. He lost, because he was the worse option.

Because I changed the date to Jan 20th, it is no longer a 50/50 split. The US as a whole had passed the biggest peak it has ever had by then.

My findings:
Of states that voted for Trump, 42.30% of all deaths were since Jan 20th. In states that did not vote for Trump, it was 33.54% This is a clear, substantial significant difference. Trump states have an extra 25% of deaths compared to Biden states.

Of states that have Republican-controlled state governing houses, I didn't do just governor by the way, 41.5% of all COVID deaths were after Jan 6th. In others, 31.5%. So the gap is still there, it's even wider.

Some other findings:
A) More total deaths happened in blue states. Duh. Blue states tend to be larger, including early-hard-hit NY, NJ, and CA.
B) But since Jan 20th, that changed. 50.04% of all deaths, a slim majority, came from Trump-voting states. However, an alarming 66.37% of all COVID deaths since Jan 20th have come from states with GOP-led state governing houses. Yeah, that's two to one. Ouch. Fuck Florida.
C) If I ranked all states by %deaths since Jan 20th, we get some interesting results in the top ten. Hawaii is #1, they got screwed. But of the ten top states by that metric, four voted for Trump, and five have GOP houses, Georiga was #6 that's why.
D) But the bottom ten, those with the lowest percent of deaths since Jan 20th, are also odd. There are some big names there, such as Illinois and Massachusets. Man, Illinois and Massachusets have done really well handling COVID! Can you imagine if a disingenuous falsehood-posting troll tried to say they didn't? They'd have nothing to back that up except Some Guy On Twitter. Oh also New York and New Jersey, because fuck me if that first hit didn't get them worried. Of these bottom ten states, only two voted for Trump. They are both Dakotas. Yes, SD is low on the list, they had a pretty safe summer.
D2) Oddly enough, Texas is #22, despite their best efforts to kill themselves recently, they weren't doing it long enough. Florida is #8.
E) If I change "voted for Trump" to "voted for Trump or sued to vote for Trump" we...get nothing useful, because those were pretty much states with GOP houses and we already did that. So all it does is widen the gap a bit.

- - - Updated - - -

it adds a lot of context

It does, yes. Trump was so far gone, even the people he hired to throw the election, would not throw the election. I love the threat of mass resignations. I know it'll be painted as Deep State by the Derp State, but it just shows the checks and balances we have. Even people willing to work for Trump had lies they would not tell and lines they would not cross. Not all of them, but enough.

[Hollycakes]

Not exactly new information, but it adds a lot of context...

CNN: Senate Judiciary Committee issues sweeping report detailing how Trump and a top DOJ lawyer attempted to overturn 2020 election

I was just reading this.
With so much proof from his calls to GA to this to Jan. 6 itself, it's fucking crazy how much info is staring us all in the face.
Call me naive, but I'm still dumbfounded that people can think otherwise at this point.
I try and be the chimp but can't sometimes!

Edit:
Also, deep state by the derp state is great lol
Annnd I said that very thing about checks and balances on the 6th.
I was proud of our democrazy for not letting him do this when I kinda thought it was going to happen there for a min.

[Breccia]

deep state by the derp state is great lol

It is, I wish I could remember who said it first. I know it wasn't me.

EDIT: It was @Felya as shown here. Well, in this subforum, at least.

On topic: One of the largest abortion providers in Texas to resume shortly after the latest judge ruling. Remember, this vigilante justice is aimed at people who provide or help the women, so this group of health professionals saying "we think we'll be okay" is signalling they either can take the hit, or more likely, that they think they won't be hit in the first place. It might have something to do with Garland cheering the decision.

I guess to put this garbage in perspective: imagine if Texas had said "Okay, well, the Constitution says we can't allow slavery. But, we can order Texas cops not to investigate or prosecute slavery cases. Also we'll allow Texas businesses to claim employees even if those employees aren't being paid. And, we allow Texas gun owners to shoot, kill and hide the body of anyone who comes to investigate their slave farms -- and none of that will be prosecuted by us. We didn't legalize slavery, see? It's all fine!" Obviously, this would fail, the US would just fucking send 500 FBI officers with the firepower to turn Bubba Jo Bob Bubba and his double-barrel into a fine red mist. But that's the same kind of work-around Texas is trying. They're not fooling anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

We've mentioned the SCRI survey that ranks Presidents, and Trump, in order from worst to best by a poll of professional experts.

Trump is third to last. Only Buchanan and Johnson were worse. He was ranked the lowest in intelligence, lowest in integrity, and lowest in ability. Dead last in each of those. There were 20 categories, he was 40th or worse (out of 44) in all but two of them. He was ranked 10th best in luck, but bear in mind, this is a 2018 survey so COVID hadn't happened yet/wasn't graded yet. And he "only" got 39th in the economy.

People who know what they're talking about, say Trump is about the worst thing to happen to this country. He failed at basically everything he did.

"Clearly all these objectively certified experts are just librul commies!"

They put Reagan at 13 ahead of Clinton at 15. So, not much evidence there. EDIT: Obama was 17th, even less evidence there.

In case it matters, It was Washington-FDR-Lincoln at the top three. That's a decent mix of political affiliation.

Trump came in behind William Henry Harrison.

[Rasulis]

We have reached a grim milestone: more people died from COVID in 2021 so far, than 2020. We just passed the 50/50 split.

Now of course a lot of that is the big chunk happeneing at the holiday season getting 2021 off to a running death start while deaths in 2020 too four months to really take off.



As you can see, things were the worst they've ever been under Trump. I probably don't need to qualify that, but I meant with COVID.

So let's do what I said I would do, find out the before/after Jan 20th breakdown of COVID deaths by blue/red states.

Using the CDC tracker because that has cumulative deaths by date, I found
1) every state's deaths by Jan 20th
2) every state's deaths since
3) if that state voted for Trump (by simple majority)
4) if that state has a GOP-controlled state house
I had to do #4 because Trump was such a horrible WH resident that states that voted for their own red politicians, still didn't vote for Trump. He lost, because he was the worse option.

Because I changed the date to Jan 20th, it is no longer a 50/50 split. The US as a whole had passed the biggest peak it has ever had by then.

My findings:
Of states that voted for Trump, 42.30% of all deaths were since Jan 20th. In states that did not vote for Trump, it was 33.54% This is a clear, substantial significant difference. Trump states have an extra 25% of deaths compared to Biden states.

Of states that have Republican-controlled state governing houses, I didn't do just governor by the way, 41.5% of all COVID deaths were after Jan 6th. In others, 31.5%. So the gap is still there, it's even wider.

Some other findings:
A) More total deaths happened in blue states. Duh. Blue states tend to be larger, including early-hard-hit NY, NJ, and CA.
B) But since Jan 20th, that changed. 50.04% of all deaths, a slim majority, came from Trump-voting states. However, an alarming 66.37% of all COVID deaths since Jan 20th have come from states with GOP-led state governing houses. Yeah, that's two to one. Ouch. Fuck Florida.
C) If I ranked all states by %deaths since Jan 20th, we get some interesting results in the top ten. Hawaii is #1, they got screwed. But of the ten top states by that metric, four voted for Trump, and five have GOP houses, Georiga was #6 that's why.
D) But the bottom ten, those with the lowest percent of deaths since Jan 20th, are also odd. There are some big names there, such as Illinois and Massachusets. Man, Illinois and Massachusets have done really well handling COVID! Can you imagine if a disingenuous falsehood-posting troll tried to say they didn't? They'd have nothing to back that up except Some Guy On Twitter. Oh also New York and New Jersey, because fuck me if that first hit didn't get them worried. Of these bottom ten states, only two voted for Trump. They are both Dakotas. Yes, SD is low on the list, they had a pretty safe summer.
D2) Oddly enough, Texas is #22, despite their best efforts to kill themselves recently, they weren't doing it long enough. Florida is #8.
E) If I change "voted for Trump" to "voted for Trump or sued to vote for Trump" we...get nothing useful, because those were pretty much states with GOP houses and we already did that. So all it does is widen the gap a bit.

- - - Updated - - -



It does, yes. Trump was so far gone, even the people he hired to throw the election, would not throw the election. I love the threat of mass resignations. I know it'll be painted as Deep State by the Derp State, but it just shows the checks and balances we have. Even people willing to work for Trump had lies they would not tell and lines they would not cross. Not all of them, but enough.

If you use June 2021, instead of January 2021, as the cut off date, the numbers get really ugly.

[Breccia]

If you use June 2021, instead of January 2021, as the cut off date, the numbers get really ugly.

I'm sure they are. But that 50/50 benchpoint we passed today, Jan 20th seemed more on point.

I still have the file, I can always come back to it.

[Ursus]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/us/ma...rge/index.html

Add one more to the long list of the GOP's stochastic terrorists. Maryland man kills 3 people (including his pharamacist brother) over his brother administering vaccine shots. The man looks pretty much exactly like you'd expect:

[Benggaul]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/07/us/ma...rge/index.html

Add one more to the long list of the GOP's stochastic terrorists. Maryland man kills 3 people (including his pharamacist brother) over his brother administering vaccine shots. The man looks pretty much exactly like you'd expect:

Without even looking I'm going to guess he's on the Appalachian side of Maryland (Western Maryland).

EDIT: Yyyyyyyyyup.

[PhaelixWW]

Add one more to the long list of the GOP's stochastic terrorists. Maryland man kills 3 people (including his pharamacist brother) over his brother administering vaccine shots.

History is going to judge this era... harshly.

Not so much for this one incident by itself, of course. It certainly sounds like he was "mentally unstable", just as his mother claimed when she called the police on him.

But it's inescapable that there's one single ideology that's acting like a lodestone for all the crazy, destructive behavior; unsurprisingly, it's the one with the crazy, destructive rhetoric.

[Hollycakes]

Only in Qwonderland would Alice here kill people for thinking they were killing people, but were actually saving them.
If Q is the beginning of a broader more evolved form of whatever this is, what does the future hold for the Q 2.0.

[Benggaul]

History is going to judge this era... harshly.

But will there be anyone around to read/study it?

[solinari6]

But will there be anyone around to read/study it?

This whole thing kind of reminds me of this Netflix docudrama on Ancient Rome I was just watching ... Julius Caesar tried to kill of the roman republic and become emperor, and only failed when the senate killed him. But because he got so close, his nephew was able to come to power a while later and declare himself emperor.

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/idaho-gop-o...m-bill-1636670

"We actually will be totaling up the expenses that were incurred in the [review] process, and we will be sending him [Lindell] a bill," Houck told CNN on Thursday. He said there was "no validity" to any of the claims made by the My Pillow CEO and that the recent review in Idaho had demonstrated that.

Houck later wrote Newsweek on Thursday that the secretary of state's office is "considering" legal action against Lindell. "Regarding your question on potential legal action, we have discussed this with our counsel and are considering options—no specific actions have been taken," the wrote.

Eyyy, good news! The poor folks of Idaho won't be saddled with the financial burdens of their pointless recounts, hopefully. They're sending the bill to sentient pillow Mike Lindell who pushed the bullshit narrative that triggered these recounts. Thankfully for him it's a pretty cheap bill, likely around $6,500.

[beanman12345]

If you believe this you honestly must not have been paying attention. Tucker Carlos is one of the most influential people in America (unfortunately).

Tucker get's all his influence from his timeslot and that's it. Bill O'Reilly proved this. It doesn't matter who the talking head is in that timeslot on Fox, They're all replaceable, cause they are all interchangeable.

[Breccia]

Tucker get's all his influence from his timeslot and that's it. Bill O'Reilly proved this.

Hey, did you hear he's written a book the he says contains classified information and he'll get arrested for publishing it?

I just finished writing a book ... full of classified information that nobody has seen. I was lucky enough to be able to get it. I'll probably wind up in prison for printing it.

But I think Americans need to know that we are safer, and the reason is technology

"Why would the publisher agree to publish something containing classified information if it would get them in jail?"

They wouldn't. Bill O'Reilly is lying.

"Well it could be classified information at the time, that's no longer valuable?"

Then he's lying when he says he'll get arrested.

"Why would have have it? How did he get it?"

There's no clear picture and O'Reilly didn't say. Probably because he was lying.

O'Reilly has published before. This book is the next in a series. But I'm calling bullshit on any publisher being told "this book contains classified information that will get you arrested for sharing it", and then deciding "Yes, but we're going to publish it anyhow, because we're going to risk our employees and our company for your bottom line".

[beanman12345]

Hey, did you hear he's written a book the he says contains classified information and he'll get arrested for publishing it?



"Why would the publisher agree to publish something containing classified information if it would get them in jail?"

They wouldn't. Bill O'Reilly is lying.

"Well it could be classified information at the time, that's no longer valuable?"

Then he's lying when he says he'll get arrested.

"Why would have have it? How did he get it?"

There's no clear picture and O'Reilly didn't say. Probably because he was lying.

O'Reilly has published before. This book is the next in a series. But I'm calling bullshit on any publisher being told "this book contains classified information that will get you arrested for sharing it", and then deciding "Yes, but we're going to publish it anyhow, because we're going to risk our employees and our company for your bottom line".

He can't sell tickets with Trump headlining, no way he is selling any books without complete bullshit false advertisement.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-op...el-they-belong

A Republican campaign manager for school board candidates in a Connecticut town has sparked controversy by telling participants of a virtual education forum that “helping kids of color to feel they belong has a negative effect on white, Christian, or conservative kids.”

In which a Republican operative, again, may have accidentally said the quiet part out loud that yes, they are racist as fuck and view people of color as lesser than white folk.

[Breccia]

"helping kids of color to feel they belong has a negative effect on white, Christian, or conservative kids.”.

I've dropped in on a few school board meetings, even though I'm not K-12. Sad I missed that. I would have immediately stood up and said "My God! Someone has to tell those poor white children that kids of color are humans too! Does anyone have any critical race theory?"

And then I would have been thrown out.