Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Adam Jensen]

Uh oh. Grandpa's having a bad week and is just yelling random shit on twitter.




Yes Donald. That's what the indictment Mueller handed you says. (only kidding on this for now to be clear)

So what set him off? The NYT op ed? The Woodward Book? His guilty conscience?

I'm kidding, he doesn't have a conscience, or the ability to feel guilt.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So has anyone else mentioned that Trump's cabinet considered invoking the 25th Amendment, but didn't because they didn't want a constitutional crisis?

Yeah...

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...-op-ed-1108159

That happened.

[Bullettime]

So has anyone else mentioned that Trump's cabinet considered invoking the 25th Amendment, but didn't because they didn't want a constitutional crisis?

Yeah...

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...-op-ed-1108159

That happened.

That's the main reason why I stand by that, while not definite, it came from a cabinet member who would be privy to the direct rumblings between cabinet members and involved enough in the day to day or networked enough to stop the stupidity.

[Bullettime]

It's just crazy to me they're content to be a deep state in the white house to maintain power instead of risking it by doing the right thing. Only the best people.

If I had it, I would bet money on Steve Mnuchin or Justin Muzinich based on previous antics, statements, and the wording of the report when praising accomplishments.

People who would be ideologically aligned enough to not want to oust Trump and continue to try to control him, but self preservation and party focused first, realizing Trump himself is a toxic manchild and has to be reined in and outright duped to avoid political, financial, and possibly global catastrophe if allowed to act on his impulses.

- - - Updated - - -

Another note with Mnuchin is that it was previously reported that he had a strong relationship and constant communication with Mattis and Tillerson, despite their drastically separate posts, going as far as to having a bit of a mutual firing pact between them because of how unstable and insane Trump is. And while Mattis and Mnuchin are still around, likely because the alternatives are 10x worse, it sets a precedent for members of his cabinet already sharing these beliefs.

[Fahrenheit]

This NYTimes article is one of the most insane things I’ve ever read regarding US Politics. We’re so far off the rails... this is fucking crazy!

[mvaliz]

This NYTimes article is one of the most insane things I’ve ever read regarding US Politics. We’re so far off the rails... this is fucking crazy!

Am I the only one who almost feels like it was written by, and submitted to the NYT by, @Skroe? It almost reads like one of his posts - albeit Skroe does have a slightly better thesaurus and a better handle on melodrama more, but it is sure fun to think about! ^_^

Of course it's not him, but I'd laugh my ass off if it was! I'd be like "Well played! Well played!" ^_^


EDIT: On a more serious note, I'm kinda wondering about the timing of this article. The idea that it dropped nearly right after all the Woodward stuff hit? Of course, maybe it simply got fast-tracked because of the woodward stuff. but still...

[jakeic]

So has anyone else mentioned that Trump's cabinet considered invoking the 25th Amendment, but didn't because they didn't want a constitutional crisis?

Yeah...

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...-op-ed-1108159

That happened.

I feel like the opposite is true, that by not invoking the 25th amendment they are facing a constitutional crisis.

[mvaliz]

I feel like the opposite is true, that by not invoking the 25th amendment they are facing a constitutional crisis.

I just said the same thing above.

They're a bunch of lying sacks of shit if that was actually true. They weren't trying to prevent no "Constitutional Crisis" - they were trying to manipulate the orange muppet as much as they could to try to save face and not lose power while accomplishing all their deplorable machinations they wanted.

Now they got all the damage they can do out of their pet Frankenstupid monster, but now it's getting so out of control that it's time for them to pull the plug on it and bring in the specialists to finish the job.

[Skroe]

Am I the only one who almost feels like it was written by, and submitted to the NYT by, @Skroe? It almost reads like one of his posts - albeit Skroe does have a slightly better thesaurus and a better handle on melodrama more, but it is sure fun to think about! ^_^

Of course it's not him, but I'd laugh my ass off if it was! I'd be like "Well played! Well played!" ^_^


EDIT: On a more serious note, I'm kinda wondering about the timing of this article. The idea that it dropped nearly right after all the Woodward stuff hit? Of course, maybe it simply got fast-tracked because of the woodward stuff. but still...

Well I mean, I would never try to justify this Administration's policies though. I've even repeatedly said, unlike deeply compromised @Dacien and @PrimaryColor, any policy gain that this administration achieves that I agree with, no matter how big or small, is illegitimate, because Trump is illegitimate.

Case in point, I'm broadly on board with certain elements of the deregulation agenda (let's not get into specifics for now). But the next Democratic President should put them all back. Each and every one.

Same with the NDAA and Defense approporiation bills. Big fans of the content... but ooops! Trump's signature. So anything that doesn't expire with him, should be revoted on and resigned by the next legitimately elected President, even if it is a pro-forma process.


This thing @Dacien and @PrimaryColor say, that this writer say, that they justify what they've done / are doing because the policies are good for America in their view is utter horseshit and it's a fucking joke they're still saying that crap after all we've come to know. None of it counts. Not one thing.

[Poopymonster]

Has anyone noticed the comments on Trump tweets have changed in the past ~2 months?

It used to be all pro-Trump bots/mouthbreathers (it's hard to tell them apart sorry) and it's shifted to being 99% anti-Trump stuff.

I'm trying to figure out if the pro messages are being buried or if there's less of them

There was a purge of bots back in July, which might have something to do with it.

[mvaliz]

Case in point, I'm broadly on board with certain elements of the deregulation agenda (let's not get into specifics for now). But the next Democratic President should put them all back. Each and every one.

Same with the NDAA and Defense approporiation bills. Big fans of the content... but ooops! Trump's signature. So anything that doesn't expire with him, should be revoted on and resigned by the next legitimately elected President, even if it is a pro-forma process.

I'm honestly going to say it - that's big of you to say and will be duly remembered. ^_^

Of course I can argue the semantics easily with you on the deregulations/defense appropriations, but a) That's not what this thread is for, b) as you said... let's not get into specifics for now, and c) You're displaying a willingness to "lose" those things for the sake of fairness and restoring balance. You're demonstrating putting the entire human race before your selfish goals. You're saying here what that suposed article in the NYT SHOULD be saying!

[Dacien]

Well I mean, I would never try to justify this Administration's policies though. I've even repeatedly said, unlike deeply compromised @Dacien and @PrimaryColor, any policy gain that this administration achieves that I agree with, no matter how big or small, is illegitimate, because Trump is illegitimate.

That's why the Mueller investigation is so interesting to me. It's one of the few things that would cause me to agree with you, that Trump is illegitimate. There could be long discussions about a lot of things this administration has done, and how much of it is media bombast or misleading reporting, and how much of it is truly egregious behavior, but the Mueller investigation is above any of that. It is absolutely a final word of sorts. If there was "criminal collusion", as I put it, some criminal action to influence the election in coordination with a foreign government, then that truly renders this president illegitimate.

But the whole lot of everything else is mostly partisan warring.

[mvaliz]

Has anyone noticed the comments on Trump tweets have changed in the past ~2 months?

It used to be all pro-Trump bots/mouthbreathers (it's hard to tell them apart sorry) and it's shifted to being 99% anti-Trump stuff.

I'm trying to figure out if the pro messages are being buried or if there's less of them

Actually I've noticed they haven't changed - they've shifted.

Many posts I've been finding have been now attempting to attach themselves to news stories where the FBI/Criminal Courts were involved and seemingly trying to discredit them, implying they're planting evidence and entrapping the witnesses.

I'm worried they've shifted to praising Dumpfuck McLump to now trying to subvert public opinion on the FBI.

[Edge-]

But the whole lot of everything else is mostly partisan warring.

Sure, if you take the collective silence on some of Trumps most egregious behavior from Republicans, save for a very few, as "partisan". I view that not as partisan, but as the Republican party abandoning their principles, abandoning decency, abandoning civility, abandoning norms all for the sake of defending a potentially seriously compromised president who is engaging in behavior that would have already triggered impeachment hearings under normal circumstances.

It's only "partisan" because Republicans are actively and hypocritically defending, supporting, or remaining silent on this behavior, not because it's actually an ideological difference.

I mean, "Lyin Ted", who had his wife and father insulted repeatedly by Trump, who never apologized that I recall, is begging Trump to come campaign for him.

Republicans are largely silent as Trump continues to attack the Sessions DOJ and specifically the indictment of two GOP officials up for election...because it may hurt their election chances. Under normal circumstances, a president attacking his DOJ for literally doing their jobs in such a blindly partisan manner would draw instant rebukes in the strongest language from all sides. Now? Republicans are fine with it, he's probably trolling or something according to Paul Ryan. Just like Paul Ryan said Trump was "trolling" (which...good lord do we even need to get into how insane it is that this is considered valid behavior/a valid excuse by a Speaker for a sitting president and not a teenage edgelord?) when he threatened to revoke Brennan's security clearance...which he actually did.

[PACOX]

Woodward's book is just truth that Trump's administration is rotten to the core. Everyone lies to each other face then talks shit as soon as the roast subject of the day is out of the room.

I 100% believe Woodward's accounts because the testimonies are those of people who can't stand their boss but put up with them for whatever reason.

Do you honestly think generals as experienced and decorated as Kelly and Mattis wouldn't call Trump an idiot behind closed doors m? That a lawyer like Dowd wouldn't see how pointless it is to defend Trump? That Woodward would suddenly jeopardize his reputation for some Twitter LULs?

None of it matters because a MAGA Hat will always be a MAGA Hat while everyone knows how disfunctional the WH is. You either believe in facts or you believe whatever Trump is pissing down you throat, and it's not lemonade.

[Trifle]

Case in point, I'm broadly on board with certain elements of the deregulation agenda (let's not get into specifics for now). But the next Democratic President should put them all back. Each and every one.

It's probably easier to put them all back and then re-examine which could potentially be removed afterwards than to examine them case by case first while allowing companies to keep dumping toxic sludge into waterways in the meantime.

Cause you know, it turns out companies do outright evil things if regulations aren't there to stop them.

[Louisa Bannon]

Hrm, I am starting to think Mr. Orange gets off the hook if he's declared mentally incompetent or unstable or whatever. Then this unwinds with a lot more sympathy for an older man that is simply past his prime. And no actual wrong doing, just mentally ill. Then they can really hand-wave away all of his character defects and the way "we" were all duped by an undiagnosed problem.

[Shadowferal]

Hrm, I am starting to think Mr. Orange gets off the hook if he's declared mentally incompetent or unstable or whatever. Then this unwinds with a lot more sympathy for an older man that is simply past his prime. And no actual wrong doing, just mentally ill. Then they can really hand-wave away all of his character defects and the way "we" were all duped by an undiagnosed problem.

then everything hi signed during his tenure gets an ugly scrutiny.

[Breccia]

Hrm, I am starting to think Mr. Orange gets off the hook if he's declared mentally incompetent or unstable or whatever.

Trump might.

The Republican Party will have to admit, publicly, that they intentionally put a crazy person in the Oval Office.

That's why the 25th won't happen unless Trump is about to get America nuked, declares martial law over a kneeling NFL player, or anything else mutually destructive.

[Adam Jensen]

What a fascist orange pig:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...85664433070080