Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

18889909294

Comments

  • I am really afraid by this time next year we may see 45 in a straight-jacket--for real.

    mmmmm - I would not be afraid if this was the case, I would be drinking champagne. However, it would be better if he was in that straight-jacket rather sooner before he causes any more damage to the world and his country!
  • It absolutely is blasphemy of the highest order to claim you are the second coming of Jesus Christ. He reckons, again, that he was being sarcastic. He would have been better off claiming it as a metaphor. Sarcasm makes him the son of the Devil, but only if you are a dualist a suppose.

    Sorry Gramps. I was referring to the comments. But it would have been better to post the article. On the phone, the dropdown menu for links doesn't appear.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    When you consider that the Republican party makes up around 30% of the population, 90% would be 27% which was about the total percentage of the total potential voters who voted for 45 in the first place.

    27%. Why does that number sound familiar?
    John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --

    Tyrone: 27%.

    John: . . . you said that immediately, and with some authority.

    Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

    Bear in mind that this was first posted in 2005 when Barack Obama was the newly elected junior senator from Illinois.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Isn't "but I was only joking" the usual defence of a bully when he's been caught out?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    Isn't "but I was only joking" the usual defence of a bully when he's been caught out?

    Exactly.
  • It looks like we no longer have a Federal Election Commission. One of the GOP members resigned and that reduces it to below quorum. It cannot meet. Replacing him would require that Moscow Mitch allow a vote on it. Why should he, when not having a FEC works to the benefit of the GOP? I fear that 40 years from now we will look at this as the moment when Herr Reichsführer Trump's dictatorship was guaranteed.
  • don't say that Mousethief. I've spent too much emotional energy elsewhere to be able to cope with that.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    It looks like we no longer have a Federal Election Commission. One of the GOP members resigned and that reduces it to below quorum. It cannot meet.

    Now you're just being alarmist. That resignation doesn't become effective until the 31st. I'm sure the Senate will come around on this issue in the next . . . [ checks calendar ] . . . three days.
    mousethief wrote: »
    Replacing him would require that Moscow Mitch allow a vote on it.

    BTW, Moscow Mitch really hates being called "Moscow Mitch", so perhaps we should have a discussion about whether calling Moscow Mitch "Moscow Mitch" is okay or if referring to Moscow Mitch as "Moscow Mitch" is going too far in criticizing Moscow Mitch.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Interesting infogram showing 45 is now losing in most key battleground states. Probably a number of reasons behind it.

    Mitch is facing a very strong challenge from the left. Amy McCrath, the Democratic challenger just released a blistering political ad/ claiming Mitch has forgotten the coal miners. Moreover, some of Mitch's largest campaign contributors have been pharma. There are no over 50 law suits against pharma for the opioid crisis. Purdue pharma, in particular is now proposing to go into public receivership. Money drying up, + base being ignored = ?. I hope he will be history this go around.
  • I think the "Moscow Mitch" schtick is a very silly bit of neo-McCarthyist theater that isn't going look good in retrospect. There are many loathsome things about the man that don't require that kind of nonsense to point out.

    As a Lovecraft fan I can't help but notice that he has the Innsmouth Look.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I think the "Moscow Mitch" schtick is a very silly bit of neo-McCarthyist theater that isn't going look good in retrospect. There are many loathsome things about the man that don't require that kind of nonsense to point out.

    If it's meant to imply that the Republican Party is currently being run out of the Kremlin, I agree, there's not much evidence to support that, even just looking at Trump's foreign policy, which has hardly been one big gift-basket to Russia.

    That said, Putin HAS gone on record as saying he wanted Trump to win, so it's not like the connection is being fabricated out of whole cloth. There still doesn't seem to be much hard evidence that Trump actively sought out official Russian assistance, however.

  • Yeah, I would say Putin made a miscalculation there.

    It is of course popular in a lot of countries to accuse one's opponents, rightly or wrongly, of being foreign agents. Putin loves doing that.

    But Russia is a mess and a lot weaker than some people seem to think. They've been able to play a bad hand very smartly but it's still a bad hand and sooner or later I think it will show in a big way. A lot of what looks like crafty dealing has some desperation underlying it. As far as foreign influence goes there are a few powers with established lobbies, think tanks, and pet politicians in DC that Russia couldn't hope to compete with.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC reports that Russian Oligarchs co signed Trump's loans through Deutsche Bank. All I have is a secondary source. Nothing on MSNBC.

    Of course, you have to consider the source. (As conservatives would say).

    However, if true, as the report says, it would be the skeleton key that would unlock a many doors.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC reports that Russian Oligarchs co signed Trump's loans through Deutsche Bank. All I have is a secondary source. Nothing on MSNBC.

    Raw Story has the video clips (in two sections).
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Of course, you have to consider the source. (As conservatives would say).

    In this case the source is allegedly a single anonymous source from within DeutscheBank, so cavet lector.
  • Any perusal of the news will find activities showing that Mitch M., if he doesn't have explicit ties with Moscow, does things that suggest he is sympathetic.
  • I see a lot of supposed evidence that he is a Russian asset, that is much more easily explained as loyalty to Trump and his party. For instance, his unwillingness to support those election-security initiatives- there are plenty of perfectly normal, domestically corrupt reasons why a Republican lawmaker wouldn't want to do that, as such measures could easily be seen as a win for Democrats even if they are ostensibly for everyone's benefit. That a foreign state might benefit from someone's unscrupulousness does not in itself make that person an asset of that state. This is where the "cui bono?" question, while always useful, can devolve into conspiracy theories pretty easily.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited August 28
    That a foreign state might benefit from someone's unscrupulousness does not in itself make that person an asset of that state. This is where the "cui bono?" question, while always useful, can devolve into conspiracy theories pretty easily.

    It's not so much "[t]hat a foreign state might benefit from someone's unscrupulousness" as it is Moscow Mitch's seeming assumption that any future Russian interference in the American electoral system will always be to the benefit of the Republican Party. That seems like a very interesting assumption for him to have made (as is his seeming comfort with receiving such assistance) and it's not as assumption that should not go unexamined, let alone uncommented upon.

    It should also be noted that "foreign asset" is not the same as "foreign agent", at least as the terms are used within the intelligence community.
  • Well, if we're going to speculate about seeming assumptions, I think there is a much more likely and straightforward assumption that measures against Russian interference might score points for the Democrats. He probably thinks the Russian interference narrative is overblown and is not worth pursuing too hard at the political expense of his party. Especially if it is seen to give tacit support to the idea that Russian interference actually made a decisive impact on the 2016 election. That's a route that no GOP loyalist wants to go down no matter what he thinks about Russia.

    If we are using "assets" to include useful idiots then I guess you could argue that in this sense Mitch is a Russian asset, but that gets into some very murky territory, where anyone who is accused of benefiting a foreign power, even unintentionally, gets accused of being an asset. That's how everyone starts pointing fingers and yelling "Pinko!" or some equivalent. This "Moscow Mitch" rhetoric may be fun now for a certain sector of US liberals but it is very, very easy to turn around and the consequences may not always be just bad publicity.
  • Except it's NOT easy to turn around. This is simply false equivalence.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Well, if we're going to speculate about seeming assumptions, I think there is a much more likely and straightforward assumption that measures against Russian interference might score points for the Democrats.

    I'm not sure there's a difference between thinking that reducing or eliminating Russian interference in the American electoral system would be electorally advantageous for Democrats and concluding that permitting further Russian interference with American elections is an aid to Republicans' electoral prospects. These two "different" things seem synonymous statements.
    If we are using "assets" to include useful idiots then I guess you could argue that in this sense Mitch is a Russian asset, but that gets into some very murky territory, where anyone who is accused of benefiting a foreign power, even unintentionally, gets accused of being an asset.

    Is it that murky? There doesn't seem to be a huge difference, from an intelligence point of view, whether you turn over classified information because you want to impress your date versus turning it over because you want to impress a foreign country.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Except it's NOT easy to turn around. This is simply false equivalence.

    It's not. In fact it already is a turn-around. Republicans were accusing Democrats for decades of being "useful idiots" or pinkos. Advocating an end to the Vietnam war, reduction of nuclear stockpiles, or even some mild social democratic reforms at home were all grounds for the accusation. And while Joe McCarthy's persecutions are widely acknowledged to have been reckless and destructive, concerns about Soviet spies and Soviet sympathizers were not unfounded. The Soviets had a much more robust and competent intelligence network than Putin could muster, and an international ideology to boot. There were in fact Soviet sympathizers, some fairly well-placed, in American society at the time. This does not justify McCarthyism.

    So now US liberals have dusted this old rhetoric for a new purpose. And the turn around is conscious. Hence all the memes with McConnell and Trump with hammers and sickles everywhere.

    But fast forward to today and we have the findings from a Republican senate investigation that Obama supposedly made some quiet, not-so-kosher deals with the Iranians as part of negotiations for the nuclear deal. Obviously the fact that it's an investigation by Republican senators raises questions about how fair they are, but the allegations are not incredible and, as a supporter of the Iran deal myself, I would say Obama acted sensibly if they are true. But the same logic being used to make Mitch McConnell a Russian asset can just as easily make Obama an Iranian asset.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 28
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Well, if we're going to speculate about seeming assumptions, I think there is a much more likely and straightforward assumption that measures against Russian interference might score points for the Democrats.

    I'm not sure there's a difference between thinking that reducing or eliminating Russian interference in the American electoral system would be electorally advantageous for Democrats and concluding that permitting further Russian interference with American elections is an aid to Republicans' electoral prospects. These two "different" things seem synonymous statements.

    They're quite different if he thinks that the threat of Russian interference can be addressed effectively without engaging with what he considers legislative grandstanding.
    Is it that murky? There doesn't seem to be a huge difference, from an intelligence point of view, whether you turn over classified information because you want to impress your date versus turning it over because you want to impress a foreign country.

    Well Mitch isn't, in this case, turning over any intelligence. What he's supposedly doing is failing to sufficiently defend against some threat to our security/ sovereignty. In that respect, someone who fails to, say, respond to Russian incursions in Ukraine with sufficient force, or renews an agreement with Russia to deplete nuclear stockpiles, or cautions against further NATO expansion, or questions requiring RT to register as a foreign agent, when so far Al Jazeera is not required to do so- such a person could also be called a Russian agent as he is, objectively, benefiting Russia, and, in the minds of some people, making us less safe from Russia.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm not sure there's a difference between thinking that reducing or eliminating Russian interference in the American electoral system would be electorally advantageous for Democrats and concluding that permitting further Russian interference with American elections is an aid to Republicans' electoral prospects. These two "different" things seem synonymous statements.
    Trump was talking about setting up a commission to investigate fraudulent voting in the Presidential election.
    It seems to me that there's a difference between thinking that this is a bad idea because it attempts to legitimise the idea that there was fraudulent voting, and thinking that this is a bad idea because one expects one's own party to benefit from fraudulent voting.
    (It is of course possible that Republicans oppose investigation into Russian interference for both reasons simultaneously.)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    O'Donnell now admits he should not have reported such a thinly sourced report about Deutsche Bank and Trump, according to CNN.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    O'Donnell now admits he should not have reported such a thinly sourced report about Deutsche Bank and Trump, according to CNN.

    In my experience. anything Russiagate story based on the phrase "Russian oligarchs" should be considered suspect. Leonid Berhsidsky(anti-Putin, anti-Trump) had a column a while back about why the phrase is nebulous at best, but I can't find it on-line.

  • Bershidsky is one of those few sane mainstream writers on the Russia stuff, respected but often ignored.
  • On the subject of foreign meddling, back in 2017 it came out that Michael Flynn was not only openly working on behalf of the Turkish government but allegedly conspired with Turkish intelligence to kidnap Fethullah Gulen from the Poconos. The story was briefly talked about but has since largely fallen by the wayside. My guess is that Turkey is too valuable an ally to raise a big fuss with them over this stuff.
  • The thing about Russian oligarchs is that they are not necessarily lock step with the Kremlin. Putin is much more like Don Corleone than Stalin- yes, he has a lot of respect and power but he is kind of managing a bunch of crime families, trying to contain squabbles, with just enough corruption to keep the big guys filthy rich but not so much the state collapses. He can go after some oligarchs only with the consent of the others. The oligarchs still have their own angles and someone dealing with them is not necessarily dealing with the Kremlin.
  • Putin's not the Kremlin?
  • Not what I said? My point is that ties with Russian oligarchs are not necessarily ties with Putin. Putin’s involved in a lot of sleazy stuff but there’s plenty of sleazy stuff that goes on without him. Russia’s not as chaotic as it was in the 90’s but it’s still very dysfunctional.
  • I don't think the Democrats planned to accuse Trump and his cronies of colluding with the Russians. It just fell into their lap when Trump started making off the wall comments about what nice guys the Russians were. Same with Mitch. The Democrats didn't plan to attack him for his inaction on Russian election meddling until he began actively to not do anything.

    Trump and McConnell have built their own Dachas. Now they must live in them.
  • Not what I said? My point is that ties with Russian oligarchs are not necessarily ties with Putin.

    I think most Russian experts would disagree with that statement.

    AFZ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    They're quite different if he thinks that the threat of Russian interference can be addressed effectively without engaging with what he considers legislative grandstanding.

    I disagree that making sure the FEC has enough members to make a quorum counts as "legislative grandstanding". In fact, I'm not sure there's any sane or honest way to characterize that as "legislative grandstanding".
  • This is interesting.

    I am wary of holding on too strongly to arguments that lead to a conclusion that I like. However there is a lot in here.

    Johnson is certainly using all the power he has but there is one clear pathway to stopping him that I can see.

    If there is a VoNC and the House clearly supports an MP - whoever that is - to take over, then I don't think under the Fixed Term Parliament Act that Mr Johnson has any choice but to so advise Her Majesty. (If not he can control to some extent the timing of an election).

    What Boris has done is gone all in. He is forcing the hand of those opposing Brexit. AFAICS the only pathway is to replace the PM. The anti-No Deal brigade are going to have to be bold but now they have all the cover they need: Johnson fired the first shot (to mix my metaphors...)

    The question is: will they be bold enough?

    We are re-stockpiling in the meantime.

    AFZ
  • Not what I said? My point is that ties with Russian oligarchs are not necessarily ties with Putin.

    I think most Russian experts would disagree with that statement.

    AFZ


    Which Russian experts? Stetson mentioned Leonid Bershidsky and I agree that he is a reliable guide to the way Russia actually functions. Two articles from him:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-09/russian-oligarchs-close-to-putin-aren-t-what-they-seem

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-20/yekaterinburg-cathedral-dispute-shows-how-russia-and-putin-work
  • A pretty good illustration of the limits of Kremlin poweris Putin's relationship with Ramzan Kadyrov. In all likelihood they hate each other's guts but Putin needs Kadyrov almost as much as Kadyrov needs him.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 29
    Palonides's first link at 10:28* is behind a paywall. Here is a reproduction of the complete original.

    As I said before, Bershidsky is very anti-Putin, but also somewhat skeptical on the Russiagate front.

    And as a bonus, I'll throw in this piece from a few years back, mostly because the transcript about Comey's knowledge of Gazprom at the beginning is such a treasure.

    * I’ve turned the time into a link to the post as it won’t show 10.28 in all time zones. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 29
    Another Russian expert and vehement critic of Putin, Masha Gessen, has also been very skeptical about the Russiagate stuff. She's put a bunch of articles out about it, and been interviewed on NPR and a few other places, but people don't want to hear it. I would have thought her anti-Putin credentials were unimpeachable but I made the mistake of reading the comments somewhere (I know, never a good idea) and some people immediately labeled her a Putin stooge.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Another Russian expert and vehement critic of Putin, Masha Gessen, has also been very skeptical about the Russiagate stuff. She's put a bunch of articles out about it, and been interviewed on NPR and a few other places, but people don't want to hear it. I would have thought her anti-Putin credentials were unimpeachable but I made the mistake of reading the comments somewhere (I know, never a good idea) and some people immediately labeled her a Putin stooge.

    Thanks for the heads-up on Gessen.

    And I should say that, in being a Russiagate skeptic, I am NOT being pro-Putin. In fact, I think the "Putin" end of the theory is probably the most solid: Putin did in fact want Trump to win(that is on record), and likely directed that IRA group they've got to spam US sites with political propaganda of various sorts, to help out the GOP. And I think Putin did all this because he was naively taking Trump's original isolationist and anti-NATO rhetoric at face-value.

    Where I disagree with the "hard collusionists" is in taking it further and saying that Trump actively worked with the Russians, and, more implausibly, that his administration's policy is being directed out of Moscow. The evidence for the former view is sketchy, and for the latter, pretty close to non-existent.

  • I mean, he literally asked them on national television to hack Hillary Clinton's emails, but who's counting?

    I doubt there's any grand ongoing scheme where Trump's administration is collaborating with the Russians, but only because I don't think the administration is organized enough to carry out grand schemes or smart enough to hide them. They certainly were happy to accept Russian help during the campaign. Plus let's not forget that all fifty states report that Russian hackers gained access to their voting systems during the 2016 election and the states failed to detect them at the time.

    More worrying is Mitch McConnell's scheming with the aluminum billionaire, what's his name? Derpinsky? Mitch is more dangerous and arguably more powerful than Trump.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I mean, he literally asked them on national television to hack Hillary Clinton's emails, but who's counting?

    Yes, I remember that very well, and it was an extremely irresponsible thing for him to say, and I actually think that if he somehow could have aided Russia in doing that, he would have done so.

    That said, it doesn't prove that he actually colluded.

    And what Russian help did he actually accept during the campaign? The closest I to that I heard about was junior meeting some women in a hotel room, but leaving after it became clear she couldn't deliver the goods. Was it ever proven that she was working for the Kremlin?

    For the record, I am definitely a Democrat-supporter, and if I saw evidence that Trump was on the Kremlin's payroll(or indeed, that of any foreign power), I'd happily do what I could to get that shouted from the roof-tops.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    And what Russian help did he actually accept during the campaign? The closest I to that I heard about was junior meeting some women in a hotel room, but leaving after it became clear she couldn't deliver the goods. Was it ever proven that she was working for the Kremlin?

    Well, substitute "his office in Trump Tower" for "a hotel room" and "Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya" for "some women" and you get closer to an accurate description. Also in attendance were Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and the Trump campaign's head of digital, online, and social media operations Jared Kushner.

    As for whether Veselnitskaya "was working for the Kremlin", it's a little opaque. She's done work for the Russian government in the past and was presented to Trump, Jr. as a "Russian government attorney", though as far as anyone's been able to prove she's more of a government contractor than a government official. Interestingly Trump, Jr. (and every other Trump official in the room) decided that he didn't need to contact the FBI about being approached by a foreign government with the offer of criminally-obtained data.

    What really tweaked interest is that the Trump campaign officials present initially lied about the meeting having taken place, and then lied about the ostensible purpose of the meeting saying it was about "adoptions". Lying twice about something usually raises suspicions. This seems to be a consistent pattern with anyone associated with the Trump campaign. I've lost track of how many depositions to Congress or various security agencies had to be revised because various Trump campaign officials "forgot" about meetings with Russians.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    And what Russian help did he actually accept during the campaign? The closest I to that I heard about was junior meeting some women in a hotel room, but leaving after it became clear she couldn't deliver the goods. Was it ever proven that she was working for the Kremlin?

    Well, substitute "his office in Trump Tower" for "a hotel room" and "Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya" for "some women" and you get closer to an accurate description. Also in attendance were Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and the Trump campaign's head of digital, online, and social media operations Jared Kushner.

    Apparently the reason that Don Jr., Kushner etc haven't been indicted for attending this meeting is that the crime in question is one of those where the prosecution have to prove you knew at the time that your behavior was illegal. The Mueller report basically says he concluded they were too dumb to be guilty - nobody on the campaign understood campaign finance law well enough to know that the Russian offer of information had to be reported.

    "The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ('knowing' and 'willful'), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that 'the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.'" (Mueller Report p. 185)
  • In the Mueller report they say that both Manafort and Bannon's phones had no messages whatsoever on them prior to sometime in March 2017 I think. They both said that they were not aware of this, and couldn't explain it. There is alot of stuff that conservative Mueller was unable to establish because of active obstruction and because, as Stetson says, of the lack of evidence as to people's states of mind.

    In my view, talking about collusion or whatever with Russia is not going to be productive until later in the election cycle. At the right time, it will need to be bought up again in order to metaphorically necklace Trump and his cronies good and proper. That and all the actual criminal stuff Trump did to hobble the inquiry and is set out in the Mueller Report, as I understand things. I haven't yet begun Volume 2.

    I think it is very important to remember that what kicked the whole thing off was Trump's very odd behavior and strange statements around Russia during the campaign and the big-mouth Panadopolous. Then it was all sealed when he sacked Comey. Sure, conspiracy wasn't established on the facts Mueller could gather, but the fact is that Trump obstructed just as hard as a guilty man would. Indeed, Trump at all times acted as if he thought himself guilty. That's how I would play this if I was a Democrat strategist.

    I note in passing that Alex Downer was not just a big party animal when he was young, he partied like a rich boy at his first o-week (or so the ex of one of his mates told me) throughout his 20's and 30's. It's not fair to Panadopolous to say that he couldn't hold his drink. He was up against a master.
  • o-week?
  • orientation week. First week of the university year, when there are organised piss-ups and the like. They are particularly brutal if you are a rich boy away from home for the first time.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    45 is at it again.

    First, his administration announces that some children born abroad to American soldiers will not automatically be granted US citizenship. It is complicated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-clarifies-policy-on-citizenship-of-children-born-abroad-to-american-servicemembers/2019/08/30/1b5d4e22-ca6b-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html

    Then, while everyone is looking at that shiny object, his administration is sending out notices to families of children who are here on humanitarian grounds for needed medical treatment that they have 30 days to leave the country or face deportation https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-low-trump-immigration-policy-seeks-deport-sick-dying-children-n1047901

    This is to say nothing about easing methane restrictions that even the Oil Companies want or allowing the logging of Tongass National Forest in Alaska.

    And then there is his pushing to build his gd wall by stealing money from other funds and telling his people to seize land, he will pardon them.

    Seems like this man is hell bent on doing as much destruction as he can before he is forced out of office in 2021 or before the 25th Amendment is brought to bare.
  • Yeppers.

    I have warned my husband that he'd better prepare himself for the possible attempt to strip him and any number of other folk in our community of their naturalization. After all, they are sadly brown, and we all know that that constitutes an error in the citizenship process now!
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    I worry about my son-in-law, who isn't a citizen yet. Though he is British, and white, which I assume makes him safer. Still, with Trump you never know.
  • I suggested to my husband we buy some white paint and apply it all over whenever he left the house. (This would be in addition to the orange fright wig and dress I've already told him to wear when driving through tiny towns in Illinois with racist police chiefs looking for someone to blame their relative's car accident on)
Sign In or Register to comment.