Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1125126128130131148

Comments

  • But the Left have the best songs...
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Useful when facing a firing squad.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Question: When King George III of England was mad (with porphyria or whatever), did he actually do bad/dangerous things? Or was he simply living at sort of a psychedelic tangent to reality?

    Here's a list of bad/dangerous things attributed to George III, though he did them before there was any sign of mental deterioration.
  • SarasaSarasa Shipmate
    I'm very much an outsider in all this, but what I'm finding hard to get my head round is why everyone in the White House/Republican Party is allowing Donald Trump to have his own way. It seems he's gone way beyond the stage of turning a blind eye to what is going. What am I missing?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Sarasa--

    That the Congressional Republicans (at least publicly and en masse) are power-mad, greedy ________ {fill in the noun of your choice} who don't give a damn about the country, its citizens, or the horribly disturbed old man who's running it.

    Some thought they could (easily) control him...
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Croesos--
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Question: When King George III of England was mad (with porphyria or whatever), did he actually do bad/dangerous things? Or was he simply living at sort of a psychedelic tangent to reality?

    Here's a list of bad/dangerous things attributed to George III, though he did them before there was any sign of mental deterioration.

    Ah, yes. ;)

    I've heard that his parliament was willing to let America go, without a war; but he wasn't for it. (Don't know if that was due to his illness or not.)

  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Sarasa--

    That the Congressional Republicans (at least publicly and en masse) are power-mad, greedy ________ {fill in the noun of your choice} who don't give a damn about the country, its citizens, or the horribly disturbed old man who's running it.

    Some thought they could (easily) control him...

    The thing is, "Oh, they're all just evil, evil people" isn't an explanation. A whole huge party doesn't go evil for no reason. It's not like people woke up, thought, "I'm a bit bored, gonna evil today" and set forth on their voyage of evilling toward Evilsville. Similarly, saying "it's the power" doesn't cut it, because we have not seen a massive shift toward evilism on the part of the Democrats, and is anybody arguing that they were just born innately full of sweetness and light?

    Surely we are all human beings here, and if some of us go Bad with a capital B, there are human motives behind it.

    Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.
  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.

    My brother tells me that the explanation he's heard that makes the most sense is that any Republican contemplating opposition to Trump fears for the physical safety of family and self as targets of Trump's most rabid supporters. I tend to agree about it making the most sense.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Sarasa wrote: »
    why everyone in the White House/Republican Party is allowing Donald Trump to have his own way

    Because they believe that their own political futures are in the hands of the same voters whom the devil has blinded into believing that you-know-who is their twin brother, but only in power whereas they themselves are not.

    They don't realize that if they were to disavow you-know-who en masse, the majority of the party and their voters would breathe a deep sigh of relief and rally around them.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Sarasa--

    That the Congressional Republicans (at least publicly and en masse) are power-mad, greedy ________ {fill in the noun of your choice} who don't give a damn about the country, its citizens, or the horribly disturbed old man who's running it.

    Some thought they could (easily) control him...

    The thing is, "Oh, they're all just evil, evil people" isn't an explanation. A whole huge party doesn't go evil for no reason. It's not like people woke up, thought, "I'm a bit bored, gonna evil today" and set forth on their voyage of evilling toward Evilsville. Similarly, saying "it's the power" doesn't cut it, because we have not seen a massive shift toward evilism on the part of the Democrats, and is anybody arguing that they were just born innately full of sweetness and light?

    Surely we are all human beings here, and if some of us go Bad with a capital B, there are human motives behind it.

    Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.

    I think there's a few possibilities. One is that they don't care enough to oppose him because they're getting the things they want (tax cuts, the courts packed with wingnuts: the two supreme court seats they've bagged for utter shit heels will be worth it for them in the long run). Two is that they've run the numbers and know that, for most of them, turning on Trump will result in them getting primaried faster than they can blink. Three, they're on the tiger and can't figure out a safe way to get off so they're just holding on until the tiger's done. Fourth, they're so partisan that the GOP winning is the only thing that matters because they've actually drunk the kool aid and think that the Democrats winning will lead to Communism.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited June 2
    All of this makes more sense than simply "because they're evil." Thanks.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    W Hyatt wrote: »
    Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.

    My brother tells me that the explanation he's heard that makes the most sense is that any Republican contemplating opposition to Trump fears for the physical safety of family and self as targets of Trump's most rabid supporters. I tend to agree about it making the most sense.

    The ballot in November will be a secret vote, no?

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited June 2

    The thing is, "Oh, they're all just evil, evil people" isn't an explanation. A whole huge party doesn't go evil for no reason. It's not like people woke up
    ...
    Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.

    So on the one hand they aren't uniquely evil but on the other they have bodies buried everywhere?

    I think the reality is much more prosaic and they are about as venal as the average politician, don't want to be primaried out, and that the selection pressures in the Republican Party have moved steadily rightwards - under the influence of right wing media, think tanks funded by the likes of the Kochs and so on - and there are just enough people who continue to be willing to hold their nose as long as they continue to get other things they want (tax cuts, seats on the SC and so on).

  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited June 2
    That too, of course. But as for bodies--maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me that very few people get far in politics without having something questionable in their past (or God forbid, present), even if it's just being stupid like the "her emails" thing. There's also the fact that anybody who goes along with T long enough will DEFINITELY have questionable or downright despicable things in their life, some of which are not entirely public, which is a major, major argument for not taking a job with his administration--because you don't want to be corrupted. And then there's the observable fact that it is entirely possible to be blackmailed about a body that doesn't in fact exist--someone tried that on me and my husband some years ago, threatening to swear to some sexual bullshit that never in fact happened, as she openly admitted and in fact signed her name to. (And then decided to make accusations anyway, unless we paid through the nose.) But as long as there are people who say "no smoke without fire," it will take an unusual amount of courage to say even to those liars, "publish and be damned!"

    You know, I'd love to have a time machine long enough to go fifty years into the future and read the scholarly accounts of this time. But then again, maybe not.
  • As regards the possibility or likelihood of some sort of coup d'état, I stand corrected, and repeat that I was NOT advocating any such thing...

    I just wish (as I'm sure many do) that the Trumpian boil could be lanced.
    :disappointed:
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    LC--

    Please note I made a point of specifying *Congressional* Republicans. :)

    I did not intend to convey that they're "evil, evil, evil". Doing evil things, maybe; or are brainwashed, scared, going along with everyone else, etc.

    Sarasa asked, "as an outsider", why Congress and/or the Republican party aren't fixing this mess. I gave her an angry, short answer. It's a middle sort of answer, I think: not "evil, evil, evil", yet not digging into the real reasons for their behavior.

    And I'm probably a little defensive on this, right now. Sorry, if so. Feeling generally overwhelmed.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    There is a group of conservative Republicans, led by Kellyanne Conway's husband, George Conway, called the Lincoln Project, that is running ads against trump. Here is their latest ad.

    trump really starts a tweetstorm whenever they post a new ad.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The thing is, "Oh, they're all just evil, evil people" isn't an explanation. A whole huge party doesn't go evil for no reason. It's not like people woke up, thought, "I'm a bit bored, gonna evil today" and set forth on their voyage of evilling toward Evilsville.

    No, it's never sudden. The Republican Party has been moving towards Donald Trump (or someone just like him) for the past forty years. It's become the party of white supremacy, corporate impunity, and no longer has any real commitment to democracy. I don't think there's a fancy Latin name for it and it may not be a proper fallacy (formal or informal), but "extending the benefit of the doubt to people who have long ago demonstrated that they don't deserve it" is the source of a lot of preventable error.

    Why don't the Republicans stop Donald Trump? The simplest explanation is that they like what he's doing. The cossacks work for the Czar.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    That too, of course. But as for bodies--maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me that very few people get far in politics without having something questionable in their past (or God forbid, present), even if it's just being stupid like the "her emails" thing.
    ...
    But as long as there are people who say "no smoke without fire," it will take an unusual amount of courage to say even to those liars, "publish and be damned!"

    Again this appears to be equally contradictory - do they all have skeletons in their closet or can one merely be manufactured on demand (and if it's so easy to do why don't we more if it being directed at the opposition).

    A possible alternative is that there was always a strong racial strand running through American politics which post segregation took in things like the drug wars and the war against the 'welfare queen', with politicians on the Democratic side occasionally playing to it (Bill Clinton speaking on top of Stone Mountain with a group of mostly black convicts in uniform behind him), and that post Obama the backlash to constituency that this message plays to produces Trump.

    In many ways the kind of take no prisoners approach to politics epitomized by Trump was also highly characteristic of Republican politicians during the Obama-era, so it's hard not to see the continuities. They were after all threatening pre-2016 to withhold any and all budgets and start impeachment proceedings on day one of a possible Clinton administration.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    As always Croesos has the right of it. The Republican party has been heading this way since Ronald Reagan at least. The party now is nothing like the Eisenhower years, when they might have deserved the name "Grand old party".
  • NicoleMR wrote: »
    As always Croesos has the right of it. The Republican party has been heading this way since Ronald Reagan at least. The party now is nothing like the Eisenhower years, when they might have deserved the name "Grand old party".

    I think you can probably date it from the Civil Rights movement when the Republicans saw that the Democrats had put the racist vote up for grabs and went all-in for it with the southern strategy.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    LC--

    Please note I made a point of specifying *Congressional* Republicans. :)

    I did not intend to convey that they're "evil, evil, evil". Doing evil things, maybe; or are brainwashed, scared, going along with everyone else, etc.

    Sarasa asked, "as an outsider", why Congress and/or the Republican party aren't fixing this mess. I gave her an angry, short answer. It's a middle sort of answer, I think: not "evil, evil, evil", yet not digging into the real reasons for their behavior.

    And I'm probably a little defensive on this, right now. Sorry, if so. Feeling generally overwhelmed.

    I'm not upset with you. But I do think the question is one that needs a straight answer, and I heartily wish I knew what it was! The spectacle of so many prominent people rolling over and playing dead for T, for all the world like a pack of dogs, disturbs me greatly. It goes counter to my understanding of normal human nature, which I would have expected to prompt Senators etc. to jealously protect their rights and territory from the executive branch, no matter which party was in power. This unholy cooperation between the Senate and the White House (and other semi-independent agencies like the DoJ) is really a weird thing. Like watching sworn rivals suddenly have a kissy fest. Yerrrrgghhhhk.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    That too, of course. But as for bodies--maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me that very few people get far in politics without having something questionable in their past (or God forbid, present), even if it's just being stupid like the "her emails" thing.
    ...
    But as long as there are people who say "no smoke without fire," it will take an unusual amount of courage to say even to those liars, "publish and be damned!"

    Again this appears to be equally contradictory - do they all have skeletons in their closet or can one merely be manufactured on demand (and if it's so easy to do why don't we more if it being directed at the opposition).

    But you do! Or did you sleep through the attempts to manufacture a crisis for Biden via his son's company, the flatly ridiculous smears on Warren's character (cougar "breaks" Marine sexually, fear horror), the mysterious "Obamagate" which nobody knows what the fuck it means, not even T, who is promulgating it... And there's that fellow who's being accused of murder by T over Twitter right now, when there isn't a shred of evidence that the woman's death was unnatural in any way. Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with another dozen...

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited June 2
    It goes counter to my understanding of normal human nature, which I would have expected to prompt Senators etc. to jealously protect their rights and territory from the executive branch, no matter which party was in power. This unholy cooperation between the Senate and the White House (and other semi-independent agencies like the DoJ) is really a weird thing. Like watching sworn rivals suddenly have a kissy fest.

    My understanding of normal human nature is that when the president* does things Senators approve of, they support him.

    For an example of these profiles in courage, here's Kasie Hunt's Twitter thread on the comments she got from various Senators she confronted during their lunch break. Most of them were spineless variations on "no comment" or "I haven't paid that much attention", though Steve Daines response was particularly ass-kissy.
    Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont.: “I was grateful for the president’s leadership.” Says George Floyd was murdered but looting is not acceptable.

    It's the "but" that makes it art. Daines is up for re-election and will be facing popular former Democratic Governor Steve Bullock. My guess is that Senator Daines has done the mental calculation that Donald Trump is more popular with Montana Republicans than he is.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    LC--

    Please note I made a point of specifying *Congressional* Republicans. :)

    I did not intend to convey that they're "evil, evil, evil". Doing evil things, maybe; or are brainwashed, scared, going along with everyone else, etc.

    Sarasa asked, "as an outsider", why Congress and/or the Republican party aren't fixing this mess. I gave her an angry, short answer. It's a middle sort of answer, I think: not "evil, evil, evil", yet not digging into the real reasons for their behavior.

    And I'm probably a little defensive on this, right now. Sorry, if so. Feeling generally overwhelmed.

    I'm not upset with you. But I do think the question is one that needs a straight answer, and I heartily wish I knew what it was! The spectacle of so many prominent people rolling over and playing dead for T, for all the world like a pack of dogs, disturbs me greatly. It goes counter to my understanding of normal human nature, which I would have expected to prompt Senators etc. to jealously protect their rights and territory from the executive branch, no matter which party was in power. This unholy cooperation between the Senate and the White House (and other semi-independent agencies like the DoJ) is really a weird thing. Like watching sworn rivals suddenly have a kissy fest. Yerrrrgghhhhk.
    Congressional Republicans' slavish devotion to Trump is hardly a mystery; he has a 92% approval rating among people who identify themselves as Republicans. It's perfectly natural for Republican politicians to go along with what Republican voters so clearly want.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    George Will, who is a conservative commentator, formerly Republican, has released a new opinion piece: Trump must be removed. So must his Congressional enablers
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    OTOH (and I'm NOT advocating this) might some sort of coup d'état be possible, if (say) some sensible military leaders took forcible control?

    Two coups d'état are possible: 1. invoke the 25th amendment and have him removed as being incapacitated. This requires his staff and the Senate to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen. 2. Break the Constitution. That would be (of course) uncharted territory, and certainly the end of the United States as we know it.

    Not quite right. This deals with section four of the 25th Amendment.

    Here is what I found:
    When the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet declare the president unable, power immediately transfers to the vice president. But in this case, the president cannot take power back unilaterally. If and when the president declares that “no inability exists,” the vice president and the Cabinet have four days to respond. In the absence of such a counter-declaration, the president retakes power at the end of the four days. If the Cabinet and the vice president reassert that the president is unable to discharge his duties, however, the dispute goes to Congress to resolve. Unless two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate vote within 21 days that the president is unable, he retakes power. If the president loses the vote in Congress, the vice president remains in charge, but the president can try repeatedly to return.

    For a more detailed explanation, go to https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-25th-amendment-really



    Okay I should have said the Senate AND the House. Other than that, Yeah, I was right.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    I think revolutions tend to happen when everybody has reached their limit of endurance. This is not the case in the US. This excludes velvet revolutions, even more unlikely.

    The US war of independence actually happened when numbers far, far short of "everybody" had reached their limit. It was a vocal and by and large rich minority that drove that particular war.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Washington Post. Inaccessible to those who don't subscribe. It used to be you could stop the page from loading before the nag screen appeared, but their webmaster has figured that one out.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    Get a subscription? Money well spent, meseems. I have one.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    Thank you. Miss Amanda always welcomes advice from strangers on how she should be spending her money.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    George Will, who is a conservative commentator, formerly Republican, has released a new opinion piece: Trump must be removed. So must his Congressional enablers

    Uh-huh. This being the guy whose response to 9/11 was to blame Clinton, because under his presidency "the most frequent visitor to the White House has been Yassir Arafat".

    And now George is shocked shocked shocked that the GOP has become the Stupid Party?


  • What makes the USA immune from a coup/ revolution, or any country?
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited June 3
    I give George Will a semi-pass. Each of us bear responsibility for what we've said in past - some things more onerous than others - but we also get to redeem ourselves. Today's column was a searing piece.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    OTOH (and I'm NOT advocating this) might some sort of coup d'état be possible, if (say) some sensible military leaders took forcible control?

    Two coups d'état are possible: 1. invoke the 25th amendment and have him removed as being incapacitated. This requires his staff and the Senate to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen. 2. Break the Constitution. That would be (of course) uncharted territory, and certainly the end of the United States as we know it.

    Not quite right. This deals with section four of the 25th Amendment.

    Here is what I found:
    When the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet declare the president unable, power immediately transfers to the vice president. But in this case, the president cannot take power back unilaterally. If and when the president declares that “no inability exists,” the vice president and the Cabinet have four days to respond. In the absence of such a counter-declaration, the president retakes power at the end of the four days. If the Cabinet and the vice president reassert that the president is unable to discharge his duties, however, the dispute goes to Congress to resolve. Unless two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate vote within 21 days that the president is unable, he retakes power. If the president loses the vote in Congress, the vice president remains in charge, but the president can try repeatedly to return.

    For a more detailed explanation, go to https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-25th-amendment-really



    Okay I should have said the Senate AND the House. Other than that, Yeah, I was right.

    No, you still do not have it right

    In your original post, you said it would take the Vice President and Trump's Staff along with the acquiescence of the Senate to declare the president incompetent to carry on the functions of the office.

    Trump's staff has nothing to do with it. It takes the Vice President and the CABINET to declare the president is unable to fulfill the duties of the office. Trump can challenge that ruling, and then the Vice President and the Cabinet has four days to answer that challenge. Then it goes to Congress which has 21 days to affirm the VP and Cabinet's decision by 2/3 vote in both chambers. If they cannot, then the president takes over again.

    But, the country will not have trump in charge for at least 25 days.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    What makes the USA immune from a coup/ revolution, or any country?

    The US military takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of all the military branches are all civilians. This has been ingrained in the system for over 200 years.

    I think if the military feels the constitution is being violated--say, if 45 tries to stay in office beyond 12:01 on 20 January, 2021, it will be obliged to step in and remove him from the office. He will no longer be president unless he is re-elected.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Who says we're immune?

    What we are trying to do is prevent any such evil from happening, because once it's happened, it can happen again. And no, fucking NO, the military cannot/should not step in to remove him from the White House. The military is not a house cleaner. Nor are they supposed to get involved in civilian matters.* If he refuses to leave, he becomes a squatter, and the local police may carry out this duty. I would pay good money to see that. Meanwhile, the real center of power will be wherever the new president is--even if that's down the street or in a wholly different city or state. And all the office seekers and suck-ups will be there, too. The moment Trump loses the election, he is a setting sun and the good, the bad and the ugly will be after the president-elect in swarms.

    As for the more important issue of trying to hang on to the authority of the presidency--

    The nuclear football will certainly and automatically go to the new President immediately. I see no way for Trump to retain control of that. The carrier will be obliged by the terms of his duty to ignore any representations of Trump.

    His ability to sign executive orders and throw the world into turmoil also passes to the new president upon inauguration. He can go on signing as many orders as he likes (in crayon? Sharpie?) but nobody is obliged to listen to him anymore. He can buy out OfficeDepot if he wants, it'll do no good.

    As for Twitter, they can do what they want about his accounts, but the POTUS one can be forcibly transferred to the new president (just change the password!), and Trump left with the usual form for retiring presidents (I think they add the number, so POTUS45?) Again, when he pitches his hissy fit, nobody is obliged at all to listen to him--which will doubtless be a great relief.

    He will, in fact, no longer possess the authority to even order his own lunch. The catering staff need pay no attention to him. Nobody at all need pay any attention to him--with the exception, I suppose, of the poor Secret Service agents who are burdened with the duty of protecting his life till he dies. Which will totally suck. But even they are not under his authority.

    * I know, I know, you are imagining his "base" converging on DC to riot and forcibly prevent the new president from moving in. I find this unlikely, but let's imagine for the moment it's so. It would fall to the new president to give direction (as commander-in-chief, and the person most concerned) how to deal with this situation. He is highly, highly unlikely to do something so inflammatory as to call out the military (that's much more Trump's style). If it were me, I would simply move in to the handiest secure location and begin governing, while putting Trump & co. on "ignore" and being as bland (and faintly pitying) as possible in media interviews. Say things like, "Of course we know the poor man has ... issues. We are hoping he will get proper medical care as soon as possible. In the meantime, let's look at my new proposals for healthcare..."

    It's no picnic, hanging around the streets in DC during the winter for an unknown length of time. And Trump's base are on average older people, if I understand correctly. Even if they bring tents, you can simply route traffic around them till they get bored and go home. It's January and damn cold, for gosh sakes. Wait them out. It won't be long.
  • I would worry more about Trump declaring the election rigged and that he clearly won a humongous victory, the biggest ever, no-one ever won so big. And then the Republican establishment nodding along, and encouraging the military to only take orders from the "real" president. It could get very ugly, very fast, particularly if people take to the streets and Trump's redcaps show up armed and demented. If Trump tries to cling to power we're once again reliant on the consciences of Republican politicians (and quite possibly the stacked courts) to get rid of him.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    That too, of course. But as for bodies--maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me that very few people get far in politics without having something questionable in their past (or God forbid, present), even if it's just being stupid like the "her emails" thing.
    ...
    But as long as there are people who say "no smoke without fire," it will take an unusual amount of courage to say even to those liars, "publish and be damned!"

    Again this appears to be equally contradictory - do they all have skeletons in their closet or can one merely be manufactured on demand (and if it's so easy to do why don't we more if it being directed at the opposition).

    But you do! Or did you sleep through the attempts to manufacture a crisis for Biden via his son's company, the flatly ridiculous smears on Warren's character (cougar "breaks" Marine sexually, fear horror), the mysterious "Obamagate" which nobody knows what the fuck it means, not even T, who is promulgating it... And there's that fellow who's being accused of murder by T over Twitter right now, when there isn't a shred of evidence that the woman's death was unnatural in any way. Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with another dozen...

    And yet this isn't enough to stop them running against Trump is it? So why are Republican politicians so silent? Perhaps they see his high approval ratings among traditional Republican voters and realise that that is what Republican voters actually want?
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    I think you're forgetting that this is not ONLY a presidential election. It is a congressional election as well. And there's a very good chance that the Senate will flip this time, which will deprive T of the major defense he has against sensible government.
    I'm fairly sure the new senators get seated before the inauguration, on January 3 if Google has it right. So watch T's backstop erode, erode away...
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    As for the courts, that takes time. They are not a first-line defense. Someone has to file suit over whatever, and then have it work its way through the court system, before T's judges get involved. And whatever you may think of them, I doubt they are utterly mad--what would be the point of attempting to judicially reverse an election without grounds that was done and dusted months ago?

    As for the military (again, again, again): They are NOT supposed to be partisan. They know this, and hold rigidly to it. The Republicans (or any other party) may blandish as they please, but the military leadership isn't going to listen. That's not what they're here for, and they know it.

    Besides--has it occurred to you people that Trump is old? He isn't going to live forever, he'll be lucky to stay un-disabled for four more years. (Yes, the same is true of Biden, which is why his VP choice matters so much.) But seriously, from the way some of you talk, Trump is going to occupy the White House, turn the non-partisan U.S. military (which he has been so good to--NOT) into his personal minions (to fetch him hamberdlars, no doubt), order the Supreme Court to make him permanent God and leader of the country for the next 100 years...

    He's not the boogeyman, much as he'd like to be. He's a very naughty boy. And mortal.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 3
    Lambchopped wrote:

    the flatly ridiculous smears on Warren's character (cougar "breaks" Marine sexually, fear horror)

    Oh, wow. I was not previously aware of this. That's just wild.

    Hilarious that the professed gigolo got called out on stolen valor. Nothing like that Republican reverence for the military!
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    That episode was the best laugh I've had for years.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    That too, of course. But as for bodies--maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me that very few people get far in politics without having something questionable in their past (or God forbid, present), even if it's just being stupid like the "her emails" thing.
    ...
    But as long as there are people who say "no smoke without fire," it will take an unusual amount of courage to say even to those liars, "publish and be damned!"

    Again this appears to be equally contradictory - do they all have skeletons in their closet or can one merely be manufactured on demand (and if it's so easy to do why don't we more if it being directed at the opposition).

    But you do! Or did you sleep through the attempts to manufacture a crisis for Biden via his son's company, the flatly ridiculous smears on Warren's character (cougar "breaks" Marine sexually, fear horror), the mysterious "Obamagate" which nobody knows what the fuck it means, not even T, who is promulgating it... And there's that fellow who's being accused of murder by T over Twitter right now, when there isn't a shred of evidence that the woman's death was unnatural in any way. Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with another dozen...

    And yet this isn't enough to stop them running against Trump is it? So why are Republican politicians so silent? Perhaps they see his high approval ratings among traditional Republican voters and realise that that is what Republican voters actually want?

    Look, I'm not going to try to persuade you (again, again, again) that there actually exist Republicans who loathe that man and what he stands for. Wait till the election and see.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    LC--

    Re where a not-yet-housed successor to T could camp out:

    Maybe Blair House? Right across the street, IIRC. Vice-Presidents tend to live there (one at a time! ;) ), and special guests.

    OTOH, the successor *could* camp out at Trump's hotel, down the street...
    :wicked:
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Lamb Chopped said -
    I would simply move in to the handiest secure location and begin governing, while putting Trump & co. on "ignore" and being as bland (and faintly pitying) as possible in media interviews. Say things like, "Of course we know the poor man has ... issues. We are hoping he will get proper medical care as soon as possible. In the meantime, let's look at my new proposals for healthcare..."

    👏🏼👏🏼

    I’m voting for @Lamb Chopped for president!
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited June 3
    In those hypothetical circumstances, cutting off White House comms (esp Twitter!) cooked food deliveries and withdrawing domestic staff would get him out.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Lambchopped wrote:

    the flatly ridiculous smears on Warren's character (cougar "breaks" Marine sexually, fear horror)

    Oh, wow. I was not previously aware of this. That's just wild.

    For some reason Jacob Wohl (the wannabe ratfucker who made up the tale and who has been described as the Kwisatz Haderach of dumbassery) thought this appall people. As I understand it Warren got a brief positive bump in support from older female voters. Her response was a classic of understatement.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    What makes the USA immune from a coup/ revolution, or any country?

    The US military takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of all the military branches are all civilians. This has been ingrained in the system for over 200 years.

    Civilian control of the military didn't stop a huge faction of it from turning against an elected president in the early 1860s.

    Not that I think anything like that is likely to happen in 2020. Just that, in my experience, statements about some unbroken continuity in American politics going back to the Founding often gloss over that little bit of sectional strife.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 3
    Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Lambchopped wrote:

    the flatly ridiculous smears on Warren's character (cougar "breaks" Marine sexually, fear horror)

    Oh, wow. I was not previously aware of this. That's just wild.

    For some reason Jacob Wohl (the wannabe ratfucker who made up the tale and who has been described as the Kwisatz Haderach of dumbassery) thought this appall people.

    Yeah, given that the whole story was almost certainly a fabrication, the choice of details is rather telling.

    They coulda just said "Elizabeth Warren hires prostitutes", which woulda been sufficient to paint her as a lawbreaker. But, no, they had to go into detail about the alleged ferocity of her libido, just to appeal to all the shame-ridden neurotics who are hung up on female sexuality.



Sign In or Register to comment.