|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I wonder if Republicans sticking with Trump 'because he is our Republican president' will do them more harm in the long term. I myself hold this position. The longer the Republicans back Trump, the more of the despicableness of Trump will rub off on any GOP candidate.
The more this Trump presidency moves on, the more I am amazed by his bigotry and lack of class. But most of all; his utter incompetence. How many self-inflicted wounds did he cause to himself? As morally despicable and corrupt as he is, we should be very glad he is as incompetent as he is.
Imagine someone as nefarious as Trump, but as competent as, let's say, Obama. Then the amount of self-enrichment would know no bounds. If Trump wasn't completely incompetent, the US might really have turned out into a nepotistic dictatorship, where Trump and the clique around him, rob Billions from the American people. Like many dictatorships around the world have been doing.
And let Trump also be a lesson what happens when you vote for bad politicians. When your mainstream bad politicians fail, that causes so much dissatisfaction that complete crooks like Trump can become president. But I guess some people in the UK got that message. After failed right wing politicians, you would think you would get left wing politicians. But in reality, we get criminal crypto-fascist crooks. And I would agree that the word 'fascist' gets thrown out too early, too much. But with Trump, his fascination and admiration of 'strong men' is well known. If given more leeway, he would be even more authoritarian than he tries to be right now. In fact, one of the reasons he fails at everything he tries is because he still believes he can carry out the presidency as a dictatorship (ie, the way he ran his, and almost everyone else, runs the private sector).
|
On June 10 2017 04:02 IyMoon wrote:
So trump is now taking credit for the boycott of Qatar? This pretty much kills our base there right?
It is not good for the base. They do have CNN over there, so it will be picked up. It is not good at all.
|
On June 10 2017 04:02 IyMoon wrote:
So trump is now taking credit for the boycott of Qatar? This pretty much kills our base there right?
well their sending Tillerson over there to mediate now and apparently it's possible that Trump wasn't even aware of the base. but unless he's said something today the administration seemed to be retreating as much from that position as possible
|
On June 10 2017 04:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 04:02 IyMoon wrote:
So trump is now taking credit for the boycott of Qatar? This pretty much kills our base there right? well their sending Tillerson over there to mediate now and apparently it's possible that Trump wasn't even aware of the base. but unless he's said something today the administration seemed to be retreating as much from that position as possible
The remarks I am talking about come from todays press conference with the president of Romania.
Trump pretty much came out and said the idea to isolate Qatar was all his idea and the Arab nations followed suit because he told them to.
|
White House social media director Dan Scavino Jr. violated a federal law that bars public officials from using their positions for political activity when he urged President Trump's supporters to defeat a GOP congressman, the Office of Special Counsel has concluded.
As a result, Scavino was issued a warning letter and advised that additional violations of the law could result in further action, according to a June 5 letter that the office sent to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which filed a complaint about Scavino's tweet.
Scavino's April 1 message called on the "#TrumpTrain" to take out Rep. Justin Amash, of Michigan, in an upcoming primary, referring to him as “a big liability." Amash is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a group that President Trump blamed at the time for derailing legislation that would have repealed parts of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
www.msn.com
|
On June 10 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 22:10 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote:
Here's where I think conservatives are crazy to be celebrating about the hearings: their cause for celebration is that we didn't see smoking gun evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice. That's an insanely low bar. It wasn't even that the accusations were dropped or disproven. We know pretty much the same stuff we knew before, but some stuff we know more certainly (i.e. confirmed directly from Comey rather than anonymous sources), some stuff we know in more detail (e.g. "honest loyalty"), and some more explosive allegations didn't happen (e.g. "Comey sez Trump threatened his wife if he didn't burn the evidence"). If anyone thought this would be resolved after today, they were wrong.
If Trump's guilty, that's very good news for Trump. If he's not, that's bad news for Trump. Because if it was resolved, he could put this behind him, but with the water still murky, this promises to drag on a great deal longer. Liberals and some conservatives will say there's enough evidence of wrongdoing, conservatives will say there's not, and the stalemate will lead to more investigation, which will mean it will return to the foreground again and again and again.
It's like the emails last year. It wasn't just about how bad the scandal was, it was the longevity of the story. That one scandal dominated coverage for basically the entire year, whereas a lot of other big scandals fell out of the news cycle and didn't have such a big impact on the election. The Khan thing, Judge Curiel, even the Access Hollywood tape had a big impact on the polls when they landed, and then faded away, whereas the emails kept coming up again and again (with one last hit in the form of the Comey letter).
That's what this scandal is for Trump - and with Comey's testimony, he can't even deflect to criticizing the media at the moment. His accuser is James Comey, who's got about as good a reputation as anybody can have right now. Trump's advocates aren't even bothering to argue why what he did was good or just or proper. The best they can argue is that based solely on the actions described Trump can't quite be convicted of a felony. Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week. if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals? The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device. certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use  At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment. main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence. also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are.
Nah, it's more just people who see Trump behaving like Trump. I see a continuum of bad behavior and no suggestion of insanity. If Democrats take back the house under Republican scandal, I'm expecting impeachment proceedings.
|
Trump said he wouldn't be against testifying under oath about Comey. Do it pleaseeeee!
|
On June 10 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 04:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 10 2017 04:02 IyMoon wrote:
So trump is now taking credit for the boycott of Qatar? This pretty much kills our base there right? well their sending Tillerson over there to mediate now and apparently it's possible that Trump wasn't even aware of the base. but unless he's said something today the administration seemed to be retreating as much from that position as possible The remarks I am talking about come from todays press conference with the president of Romania. Trump pretty much came out and said the idea to isolate Qatar was all his idea and the Arab nations followed suit because he told them to.
I'm somewhat torn here.
On the one hand, Trump and taking impulsive ill-conceived action with limited forethought go together like peanut butter and bread.
On the other, Trump and taking credit for things he had nothing to do with and calling them all his idea go together like macaroni and cheese.
I can't choose between peanut butter and macaroni and cheese, it's just too difficult.
On June 10 2017 04:33 On_Slaught wrote:
Trump said he wouldn't be against testifying under oath about Comey. Do it pleaseeeee!
At least it'll cut down on the amount of unintelligible gibberish on the Congressional record.
|
On June 10 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 22:10 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote:
Here's where I think conservatives are crazy to be celebrating about the hearings: their cause for celebration is that we didn't see smoking gun evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice. That's an insanely low bar. It wasn't even that the accusations were dropped or disproven. We know pretty much the same stuff we knew before, but some stuff we know more certainly (i.e. confirmed directly from Comey rather than anonymous sources), some stuff we know in more detail (e.g. "honest loyalty"), and some more explosive allegations didn't happen (e.g. "Comey sez Trump threatened his wife if he didn't burn the evidence"). If anyone thought this would be resolved after today, they were wrong.
If Trump's guilty, that's very good news for Trump. If he's not, that's bad news for Trump. Because if it was resolved, he could put this behind him, but with the water still murky, this promises to drag on a great deal longer. Liberals and some conservatives will say there's enough evidence of wrongdoing, conservatives will say there's not, and the stalemate will lead to more investigation, which will mean it will return to the foreground again and again and again.
It's like the emails last year. It wasn't just about how bad the scandal was, it was the longevity of the story. That one scandal dominated coverage for basically the entire year, whereas a lot of other big scandals fell out of the news cycle and didn't have such a big impact on the election. The Khan thing, Judge Curiel, even the Access Hollywood tape had a big impact on the polls when they landed, and then faded away, whereas the emails kept coming up again and again (with one last hit in the form of the Comey letter).
That's what this scandal is for Trump - and with Comey's testimony, he can't even deflect to criticizing the media at the moment. His accuser is James Comey, who's got about as good a reputation as anybody can have right now. Trump's advocates aren't even bothering to argue why what he did was good or just or proper. The best they can argue is that based solely on the actions described Trump can't quite be convicted of a felony. Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week. if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals? The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device. certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment. main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence. also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are. Nah, it's more just people who see Trump behaving like Trump. I see a continuum of bad behavior and no suggestion of insanity. If Democrats take back the house under Republican scandal, I'm expecting impeachment proceedings.
trump behaving like trump does not preclude insanity. Clinical narcissism is indicated of course; and there's numerous times where he asserts things that are blatantly false/directly contradicted by evidence. It's quite mild of course, but it's enough to argue an inability to see reality/mental illness. it doesn't remotely compare to the far more serious cases of mental illness; it's just enough to provide a (weak) cover story for an otherwise political action.
it also depends whether "insanity" includes mild mental illness or not.
|
On June 10 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 04:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 10 2017 04:02 IyMoon wrote:
So trump is now taking credit for the boycott of Qatar? This pretty much kills our base there right? well their sending Tillerson over there to mediate now and apparently it's possible that Trump wasn't even aware of the base. but unless he's said something today the administration seemed to be retreating as much from that position as possible The remarks I am talking about come from todays press conference with the president of Romania. Trump pretty much came out and said the idea to isolate Qatar was all his idea and the Arab nations followed suit because he told them to.
Rex going to have fun
|
On June 10 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 04:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 10 2017 04:02 IyMoon wrote:
So trump is now taking credit for the boycott of Qatar? This pretty much kills our base there right? well their sending Tillerson over there to mediate now and apparently it's possible that Trump wasn't even aware of the base. but unless he's said something today the administration seemed to be retreating as much from that position as possible The remarks I am talking about come from todays press conference with the president of Romania. Trump pretty much came out and said the idea to isolate Qatar was all his idea and the Arab nations followed suit because he told them to.
Jesus, this man is going to start a war. The entire State department is pointless because Trump is just making shit up as he goes.
|
I think that's his plan... At least that's what it feels like everything he talks about "insert country here"...
|
Odds that Trump knew we have a base in Qatar prior to all of this?
|
On June 10 2017 04:50 Doodsmack wrote:
Odds that Trump knew we have a base in Qatar prior to all of this?
Quite literally zero.
|
The better question is who told him Qatar are the ones funding all the terrorists. Someone made him think this and the Qatar-terrorism link was not on Cable and/or FOX. Methinks it was the Saudis who whispered into his ear as they gave him gold, dances, and let him touch the orb.
EDIT: really think about this. Who could have told Trump "Qatar is bad". It couldn't have been Bannon because this crap was never on Breitbart. It couldn't have been the military, McMaster, or Mattis as CENTCOM has a 10000 person base there and most of our heavy bombers in the region. It couldn't have been Israel and Israel used Qatar as a back channel for reaching Hamas. That leaves Saudi Arabia ... and dare I say it the Russians. Note that the Russians were running fake news there just prior to this diplomatic disaster.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-qatar-crisis/index.html
|
On June 10 2017 02:22 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote:
I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself. I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
Quote me celebrating. Contentment at the truth getting out is more like it.
You should pay more attention to people that also criticize the president. We certainly don't need any more denizens that demand hopping aboard the Trump hysteria bandwagon to prove they aren't blind. It's deciding the conclusion of Trump supporters and then seeking only angles that support your conclusion. You'll find yourself caught without terms for people that believe the president in everything he calls fake news, because you are a broad brush criticizer.
|
On June 10 2017 04:40 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:On June 10 2017 04:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On June 10 2017 04:02 IyMoon wrote:
So trump is now taking credit for the boycott of Qatar? This pretty much kills our base there right? well their sending Tillerson over there to mediate now and apparently it's possible that Trump wasn't even aware of the base. but unless he's said something today the administration seemed to be retreating as much from that position as possible The remarks I am talking about come from todays press conference with the president of Romania. Trump pretty much came out and said the idea to isolate Qatar was all his idea and the Arab nations followed suit because he told them to. Rex going to have fun https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/873252212687896577
The grovelling that Tillerson has to go through to try and get countries to ignore what the President is saying has to be spectacular to behold.
|
On June 10 2017 04:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 22:10 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote:
Here's where I think conservatives are crazy to be celebrating about the hearings: their cause for celebration is that we didn't see smoking gun evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice. That's an insanely low bar. It wasn't even that the accusations were dropped or disproven. We know pretty much the same stuff we knew before, but some stuff we know more certainly (i.e. confirmed directly from Comey rather than anonymous sources), some stuff we know in more detail (e.g. "honest loyalty"), and some more explosive allegations didn't happen (e.g. "Comey sez Trump threatened his wife if he didn't burn the evidence"). If anyone thought this would be resolved after today, they were wrong.
If Trump's guilty, that's very good news for Trump. If he's not, that's bad news for Trump. Because if it was resolved, he could put this behind him, but with the water still murky, this promises to drag on a great deal longer. Liberals and some conservatives will say there's enough evidence of wrongdoing, conservatives will say there's not, and the stalemate will lead to more investigation, which will mean it will return to the foreground again and again and again.
It's like the emails last year. It wasn't just about how bad the scandal was, it was the longevity of the story. That one scandal dominated coverage for basically the entire year, whereas a lot of other big scandals fell out of the news cycle and didn't have such a big impact on the election. The Khan thing, Judge Curiel, even the Access Hollywood tape had a big impact on the polls when they landed, and then faded away, whereas the emails kept coming up again and again (with one last hit in the form of the Comey letter).
That's what this scandal is for Trump - and with Comey's testimony, he can't even deflect to criticizing the media at the moment. His accuser is James Comey, who's got about as good a reputation as anybody can have right now. Trump's advocates aren't even bothering to argue why what he did was good or just or proper. The best they can argue is that based solely on the actions described Trump can't quite be convicted of a felony. Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week. if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals? The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device. certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment. main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence. also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are. Nah, it's more just people who see Trump behaving like Trump. I see a continuum of bad behavior and no suggestion of insanity. If Democrats take back the house under Republican scandal, I'm expecting impeachment proceedings. trump behaving like trump does not preclude insanity. Clinical narcissism is indicated of course; and there's numerous times where he asserts things that are blatantly false/directly contradicted by evidence. It's quite mild of course, but it's enough to argue an inability to see reality/mental illness. it doesn't remotely compare to the far more serious cases of mental illness; it's just enough to provide a (weak) cover story for an otherwise political action. it also depends whether "insanity" includes mild mental illness or not.
I'm also against using these pop-psych medical assertions as cover for improper use of the 25th amendment. Pence nor Trump's cabinet is stupid enough to even consider it. But enough of this dreaming to be honest. It's about as distasteful as wishing Trump to suffer a stroke in office.
|
On June 10 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 04:39 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 22:10 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote:
Here's where I think conservatives are crazy to be celebrating about the hearings: their cause for celebration is that we didn't see smoking gun evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice. That's an insanely low bar. It wasn't even that the accusations were dropped or disproven. We know pretty much the same stuff we knew before, but some stuff we know more certainly (i.e. confirmed directly from Comey rather than anonymous sources), some stuff we know in more detail (e.g. "honest loyalty"), and some more explosive allegations didn't happen (e.g. "Comey sez Trump threatened his wife if he didn't burn the evidence"). If anyone thought this would be resolved after today, they were wrong.
If Trump's guilty, that's very good news for Trump. If he's not, that's bad news for Trump. Because if it was resolved, he could put this behind him, but with the water still murky, this promises to drag on a great deal longer. Liberals and some conservatives will say there's enough evidence of wrongdoing, conservatives will say there's not, and the stalemate will lead to more investigation, which will mean it will return to the foreground again and again and again.
It's like the emails last year. It wasn't just about how bad the scandal was, it was the longevity of the story. That one scandal dominated coverage for basically the entire year, whereas a lot of other big scandals fell out of the news cycle and didn't have such a big impact on the election. The Khan thing, Judge Curiel, even the Access Hollywood tape had a big impact on the polls when they landed, and then faded away, whereas the emails kept coming up again and again (with one last hit in the form of the Comey letter).
That's what this scandal is for Trump - and with Comey's testimony, he can't even deflect to criticizing the media at the moment. His accuser is James Comey, who's got about as good a reputation as anybody can have right now. Trump's advocates aren't even bothering to argue why what he did was good or just or proper. The best they can argue is that based solely on the actions described Trump can't quite be convicted of a felony. Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week. if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals? The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device. certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment. main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence. also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are. Nah, it's more just people who see Trump behaving like Trump. I see a continuum of bad behavior and no suggestion of insanity. If Democrats take back the house under Republican scandal, I'm expecting impeachment proceedings. trump behaving like trump does not preclude insanity. Clinical narcissism is indicated of course; and there's numerous times where he asserts things that are blatantly false/directly contradicted by evidence. It's quite mild of course, but it's enough to argue an inability to see reality/mental illness. it doesn't remotely compare to the far more serious cases of mental illness; it's just enough to provide a (weak) cover story for an otherwise political action. it also depends whether "insanity" includes mild mental illness or not. I'm also against using these pop-psych medical assertions as cover for improper use of the 25th amendment. Pence nor Trump's cabinet is stupid enough to even consider it. But enough of this dreaming to be honest. It's about as distasteful as wishing Trump to suffer a stroke in office.
it's not pop-psych, it's actual psych. not my fault if you don't care about actual medical science. calling it pop-psych is your own bias speaking; it's just a word you're using to dismiss a sound point. I know it's a less than proper use for the 25th amendment; I stated as much. It's also not completely out of line; just a major stretch (probably less stretched than the commerce clause is though).
It's too bad there isn't a better system for simply removing a grossly unfit president.
calling it as distasteful as wishing death on someone is ENTIRELY wrong adn unjustified; SHAME on you for making such an unfounded assertion and backhanded insult. It's hoping that someone unfit for office is removed from office so they stop harming the country more than they already have.
Pence's cabinet will consider it; they'd likely only do it in VERY extreme circumstances though; they'd rather he be impeached than take the heat for removing him.
|
On June 10 2017 04:33 On_Slaught wrote:
Trump said he wouldn't be against testifying under oath about Comey. Do it pleaseeeee!
I talked about that happening with someone yesterday, and both of us agreed it would be both hilarious and a complete disaster for Trump. When I heard he said he would today I actually laughed. Putting a pathological liar under oath is political suicide for that person. The probability of Trump NOT perjuring himself during such a hearing would be minuscule. He can't even get basic fact straight, let alone entire narratives relating to meetings with officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
