Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1137138140142143168

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Dave W wrote: »
    It's not necessarily that incoherent. "Look at how bad the leftist thugs have made things, even with the police - imagine how much worse they would get if Biden's puppetmasters were allowed to defund the police."

    Yes. Trump is portyraying the protests as a Democrat-led insurgency, a narrative which is not inconsistent with Trump being in power.

    In fact, it makes the most sense that way, since the goal of an insurgency is usually to topple the people who are currently in charge.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    It's not necessarily that incoherent. "Look at how bad the leftist thugs have made things, even with the police - imagine how much worse they would get if Biden's puppetmasters were allowed to defund the police."
    Sorry just had to giggle at Biden being leftish. Very ish.
    Fear worked before for him. Why would he not try it again.
    The claim isn't that Biden is far-left - it's that his puppetmasters are. (Biden's the puppet.)
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    It's not necessarily that incoherent. "Look at how bad the leftist thugs have made things, even with the police - imagine how much worse they would get if Biden's puppetmasters were allowed to defund the police."
    Sorry just had to giggle at Biden being leftish. Very ish.

    I think you have to factor in people's cognitive dissonance, right now on my facebook feed there are a number of very nice boomer age Christians who are freaking out because Dennis Prager told them that Marxism was around the corner.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Dave W wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    It's not necessarily that incoherent. "Look at how bad the leftist thugs have made things, even with the police - imagine how much worse they would get if Biden's puppetmasters were allowed to defund the police."
    Sorry just had to giggle at Biden being leftish. Very ish.
    Fear worked before for him. Why would he not try it again.
    The claim isn't that Biden is far-left - it's that his puppetmasters are. (Biden's the puppet.)

    Well, most of the MAGA crowd would probably regard Biden as far-left, whether due to his own views or those of his alleged puppetmasters.

    It's an old truism that all mainstream politicians in Canada are to the left of even the most liberal US Democrat. But when Obama was POTUS, the Canadian equivalent of Tea Partiers were talking about him as if he were Fidel Castro. Somone on-line even suggested that when Obama met Hugo Chavez at some int'l summit somewhere, Chavez was giving him orders.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Possibly useful as a news source and reference:

    Alternet.org

    It's a progressive/liberal news site. Oriented towards telling the (awful) truth, then brainstorming about what's to be done.

    Right now, the front page includes stories on the following:

    --‘Trump is showing us his playbook’: The president tips his hand on the plan to exploit the ‘red mirage’

    --Bill Barr shows his true face in a startlingly arrogant and partisan interview on CNN

    --This ex-Trump official is exposing the president’s complicity in far-right terrorism

    --Trump is corrupting the entire federal government to help his reelection

    Plus African-American civil rights and police misconduct against them; the pandemic; Jerry Falwell, Jr.; the economy; culture; etc.

    Worth a read.

    Plus Common Dreams.

    And...believe it or not...The Drudge Report. Not a liberal bastion, at least it didn't used to be. I'm primarily including it for the extensive list of news sites at the bottom of the front page. But it's collected lots of stories from elsewhere, with a whole lot of anti-Trump goodies.

    Have fun! ;)
  • So Donald has suggested that people break the law. He suggested people vote twice. Once by post and once in person. He is President. Surely he knows the rules... oh hold on.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    So Donald has suggested that people break the law. He suggested people vote twice. Once by post and once in person. He is President. Surely he knows the rules... oh hold on.
    He has gone on and on and on about voter fraud using mail-in ballots, only to be faced again and again with the problem that there is no evidence of any such widespread fraud. Solution: create the evidence! Tell people to engage in voter fraud. Then, after the election, he can claim that there has been voter fraud and point to the people he instructed to engage in the fraud as proof that he was right! In Trump's mind, that qualifies as a brilliant stratagem.

  • My great fear is that the very stable genius might hit on a winning formula, method irrelevant to him...
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    In Trump's mind, that qualifies as a brilliant stratagem.

    Er, sorry, but in Trump's . . . what?
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    So Donald has suggested that people break the law. He suggested people vote twice. Once by post and once in person. He is President. Surely he knows the rules... oh hold on.
    He has gone on and on and on about voter fraud using mail-in ballots, only to be faced again and again with the problem that there is no evidence of any such widespread fraud. Solution: create the evidence! Tell people to engage in voter fraud. Then, after the election, he can claim that there has been voter fraud and point to the people he instructed to engage in the fraud as proof that he was right! In Trump's mind, that qualifies as a brilliant stratagem.

    When called out on it he’ll say he was joking.

  • Ohher wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    In Trump's mind, that qualifies as a brilliant stratagem.

    Er, sorry, but in Trump's . . . what?
    Typo! I meant "view." My apologies!
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    So Donald has suggested that people break the law. He suggested people vote twice. Once by post and once in person. He is President. Surely he knows the rules... oh hold on.
    He has gone on and on and on about voter fraud using mail-in ballots, only to be faced again and again with the problem that there is no evidence of any such widespread fraud. Solution: create the evidence! Tell people to engage in voter fraud. Then, after the election, he can claim that there has been voter fraud and point to the people he instructed to engage in the fraud as proof that he was right! In Trump's mind, that qualifies as a brilliant stratagem.

    When called out on it he’ll say he was joking.

    If I squint at what he actually said I kind of see the point - that if you vote by post then the system should then pick up if you also vote in person so one vote (presumably the postal vote) would be excluded or you would be barred from voting in person.
  • It's a set up. He's hoping that if the system is imperfect he can point to an example from one of his supporters to call the election result into question when he loses.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    So Donald has suggested that people break the law. He suggested people vote twice. Once by post and once in person. He is President. Surely he knows the rules... oh hold on.
    He has gone on and on and on about voter fraud using mail-in ballots, only to be faced again and again with the problem that there is no evidence of any such widespread fraud. Solution: create the evidence! Tell people to engage in voter fraud. Then, after the election, he can claim that there has been voter fraud and point to the people he instructed to engage in the fraud as proof that he was right! In Trump's mind, that qualifies as a brilliant stratagem.

    When called out on it he’ll say he was joking.

    If I squint at what he actually said I kind of see the point - that if you vote by post then the system should then pick up if you also vote in person so one vote (presumably the postal vote) would be excluded or you would be barred from voting in person.

    That does seem to be what he meant. But still, voting twice is illegal, regardless of whether you're trying to stuff ballots, or test the system.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    edited September 2020
    The "system" (such as it is) might catch the double voting, but it would take a long time to resolve. Would make the 2000 election and Bush v. Gore look like a minor tiff over who gets the last piece of pie.


    ETA: I did, though, just have a delicious thought: if T's followers were, in order to set up the Democrats, vote for Biden on their extra ballots...and, somewhere down the line, it was decided that those were the right ballots to count...
    :)
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    So Donald has suggested that people break the law. He suggested people vote twice. Once by post and once in person. He is President. Surely he knows the rules... oh hold on.
    He has gone on and on and on about voter fraud using mail-in ballots, only to be faced again and again with the problem that there is no evidence of any such widespread fraud. Solution: create the evidence! Tell people to engage in voter fraud. Then, after the election, he can claim that there has been voter fraud and point to the people he instructed to engage in the fraud as proof that he was right! In Trump's mind, that qualifies as a brilliant stratagem.

    When called out on it he’ll say he was joking.

    If I squint at what he actually said I kind of see the point - that if you vote by post then the system should then pick up if you also vote in person so one vote (presumably the postal vote) would be excluded or you would be barred from voting in person.
    That's a little like saying that, if poor people need money, they should take guns, go into banks (which have money) and take it from there...and if the system works, they won't be able to get it.

    You don't "test" a system by encouraging intentional, deliberate criminal activity. Unless you are a deranged egomaniac.
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    You don't "test" a system by encouraging intentional, deliberate criminal activity. Unless you are a deranged egomaniac.

    And it's a crime that people go to jail for. So yes, trying to get his followers to risk jail time for his own advantage seems both deranged and egomaniacal.
  • Question...

    If I try to vote twice, and am caught, can I be charged with a crime?

    Or do they consider that, since my vote was never counted, no crime has taken place?
  • I should think that it would be the same as treason: My act might be unsuccessful, but it's no less treasonous; unlike murder, where there are gradations of first degree, second degree, attempted, etc. (according to jurisdiction).
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    stetson wrote: »
    Question...

    If I try to vote twice, and am caught, can I be charged with a crime?

    Or do they consider that, since my vote was never counted, no crime has taken place?

    In most jurisdictions it's still a crime even if you get caught and stopped. For example, the woman in the link in my previous post is serving five years despite her vote never being counted.
    I should think that it would be the same as treason: My act might be unsuccessful, but it's no less treasonous; unlike murder, where there are gradations of first degree, second degree, attempted, etc. (according to jurisdiction).

    Attempted murder is still a crime. Getting caught in the act and stopped my lessen your penalty in certain jurisdictions, but it's still a crime. Of course, in the case of double voting the offender has committed the same elements of the crime whether their ballot is counted or not.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    The "system" (such as it is) might catch the double voting, but it would take a long time to resolve. Would make the 2000 election and Bush v. Gore look like a minor tiff over who gets the last piece of pie.


    ETA: I did, though, just have a delicious thought: if T's followers were, in order to set up the Democrats, vote for Biden on their extra ballots...and, somewhere down the line, it was decided that those were the right ballots to count...
    :)

    Can they try to vote illegally in states where people go to jail for that please? If it starts happening to white folks they might think about instituting a fair system.
  • Trump's assault on the concept of a free press continues on a front I did not expect. The man who claims to have done so much for the troops (when he is not calling them losers or suckers) is trying to shut down their access to news on the front lines.
  • This whole story about Trump referring to US war dead as "losers and suckers" raises huge red flags for me. Why is the article in the Atlantic based entirely on "anonymous sources"? Why does John Bolton's book make no mention of any of this, even though he was on the trip where these incidents supposedly took place?
    I mean, it could be true, for all I know...I wasn't there. But it seems to me a lot of people are jumping to conclusions without evidence, simply because it reinforces their existing perceptions about the man.
  • fair comment Powderkeg.
  • I think you have to factor in people's cognitive dissonance, right now on my facebook feed there are a number of very nice boomer age Christians who are freaking out because Dennis Prager told them that Marxism was around the corner.

    Marxism is always just around the corner for those people. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) was supposed to lead to Marxist tyranny. Medicare and Medicaid were supposed to lead to Communist domination. The Social Security Act was supposed to lead to Bolshevism. When something has been warned about since the 1930s (i.e. longer than "boomer age Christians" have been alive) and keeps not happening you'd think some people would eventually figure out the scam, but I guess not.
    Powderkeg wrote: »
    This whole story about Trump referring to US war dead as "losers and suckers" raises huge red flags for me. Why is the article in the Atlantic based entirely on "anonymous sources"?

    Because Donald Trump is a vindictive bastard. Anonymity is often granted to public officials who want to say things their bosses won't like for this very reason. For what it's worth the AP claims to have verified the Atlantic's account.
    Powderkeg wrote: »
    I mean, it could be true, for all I know...I wasn't there. But it seems to me a lot of people are jumping to conclusions without evidence, simply because it reinforces their existing perceptions about the man.

    We have Donald Trump on video claiming John McCain is not a war hero and calling him a loser. Donald Trump's current claims that he never said those things about McCain in private despite saying them publicly strains credulity. Why doesn't video showing Trump saying the things the Atlantic article claims he said count as "evidence"?
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Question...

    If I try to vote twice, and am caught, can I be charged with a crime?

    Or do they consider that, since my vote was never counted, no crime has taken place?

    In most jurisdictions it's still a crime even if you get caught and stopped. For example, the woman in the link in my previous post is serving five years despite her vote never being counted.

    Thanks. What I was thinking was, if I try to bring some forbidden object on an airplane, airport security will tell me I can't have it on the plane, but I won't be charged. I thought maybe voting irregularities were like that as well.

  • stetson wrote: »
    Thanks. What I was thinking was, if I try to bring some forbidden object on an airplane, airport security will tell me I can't have it on the plane, but I won't be charged. I thought maybe voting irregularities were like that as well.

    Depends on what that object is. Try it with a firearm and you might very well be facing charges.
  • Interestingly one of Fox News' journalists is now confirming a lot of the details in the Atlantic's story about how Trump hates the troops. Even more interestingly she did so via Twitter. Her account has not yet made it onto Fox News itself, as far as I know.

    I'm not sure why people regard this account as dubious. It's fully consistent with a lot of Trump's public actions and utterances and what we know of his personality or, as @Powderkeg puts it, our "existing perceptions about the man".
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm not sure why people regard this account as dubious. It's fully consistent with a lot of Trump's public actions and utterances and what we know of his personality or, as @Powderkeg puts it, our "existing perceptions about the man".
    Or as John Bolton is quoted as saying, “I have not heard anybody say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t sound like the Donald Trump I know.’”

  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Trump's assault on the concept of a free press continues on a front I did not expect. The man who claims to have done so much for the troops (when he is not calling them losers or suckers) is trying to shut down their access to news on the front lines.

    I don't think this is quite a free-speech issue, since there isn't any constitutional obligation for the government to provide employees with their own newspaper, however worthy an endeavour that may be.

    Definitely a strange decision, in any case, and I'm skeptical that it just boils down to Trump needing the money for SpaceForce(as has been reported). I'm wondering if Stars and Stripes was running stories he disapproved of.

    And I'd like to think this is an issue the Dems could exploit, but if Trump says that Stars And Stripes are just a bunch of losers who want America to fail, I suspect most of his base will just yap their assent. Might have some impact on swing voters, though.

  • stetson wrote: »
    Definitely a strange decision, in any case, and I'm skeptical that it just boils down to Trump needing the money for SpaceForce(as has been reported). I'm wondering if Stars and Stripes was running stories he disapproved of.
    Oh, yeah. it has nothing to do with Trump's Star Troopers. And the issue is (possibly) becoming moot. It is reported that Trump is backing down.
  • 1. Trump has now ordered the Pentagon to continue supporting Stars and Stripes.

    2. He has called those who served in Vietnam losers because they did not work hard enough to get a deferment.

    3. He called George H W Bush a loser for getting shot down in World War II, even though Mr. Bush was one of the few pilots to be rescued the day he was shot down. The others were caught and executed by the Japanese.

    4. He also said McCain was not a hero for getting shot down and surviving Hanoi Hilton--there is a long story about McCain's flying ability anyway.

    5. The real reason why he did not want to go to the cemetery in France was because it was raining heavily and he did not want his hear to get messed up--there the leaders of the other allies did go to the cemetery, and even the Germans were represented.
  • Remember that Huckabee woman? Trump told her to have sex with the North Korean. But it's okay it was a joke.
    prompting Trump to say, “Kim Jong Un hit on you! He did! He fucking hit on you!”

    Sanders said the president then joked, “Well, Sarah, that settles it. You’re going to North Korea and taking one for the team! Your husband and kids will miss you, but you’ll be a hero to your country!”

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/donald-trump-sarah-huckabee-sanders-kim-jong-un-wink_n_5f4f64e6c5b6250f655d0198

    Much as I dislike the woman no-one deserves sexual harassment.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Yeah, I heard about Sarah. :( From the short bit of her account that I read, she sounds like she was gob-smacked at the time. (Someone else--two someones--should've been smacked.) It is, however, very much in her boss's character.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Re T vs. the military:

    The Atlantic has a really good investigative piece on this.

    "Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’. The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic."

    If the general public--even some of T's base--believes the situation, his popularity and votes could go wayyyy down.

    I notice the article above was written by the editor-in-chief himself. I don't know the magazine well; but I suspect that means either he thinks this is really important, and/or he and others at the magazine are really pissed off about it, and/or he was in the military.

    It would be lovely if he could be tricked into doing at least one day of boot camp (basic training). ("Sir, you're our commander-in-chief (C-in-C). It would do the hearts of your soldiers good to see that you understand and value their service. You'd be a winner, sir!") He is in no way, shape, or form in any shape to even dress for the course, let alone try anything. So it would be cruel.

    But it could be gratifying to watch.
  • The Atlantic Article has been confirmed by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and (Gasp) Fox News.

  • Odd, when I went to it, a notice asking for a donation or a subscription came up, but when I pressed escape, the notice disappeared and I was able to read the article.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »

    Odd, when I went to it, a notice asking for a donation or a subscription came up, but when I pressed escape, the notice disappeared and I was able to read the article.
    It may be a regional paywall. I didn’t hit a paywall, but maybe folks outside the US or North America do.

  • I was able to read the article, and I'm in Korea.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »

    Odd, when I went to it, a notice asking for a donation or a subscription came up, but when I pressed escape, the notice disappeared and I was able to read the article.
    It may be a regional paywall. I didn’t hit a paywall, but maybe folks outside the US or North America do.

    I'm in the U.S. and hit the paywall.
    :confused:
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »

    Odd, when I went to it, a notice asking for a donation or a subscription came up, but when I pressed escape, the notice disappeared and I was able to read the article.
    It may be a regional paywall. I didn’t hit a paywall, but maybe folks outside the US or North America do.

    I'm in the U.S. and hit the paywall.
    :confused:

    Paywall in Canada.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    IIRC, Yahoo had a copy of it. You might also do a web search for "Trump Mrs. Fred Rogers", or some such.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »

    Odd, when I went to it, a notice asking for a donation or a subscription came up, but when I pressed escape, the notice disappeared and I was able to read the article.
    It may be a regional paywall. I didn’t hit a paywall, but maybe folks outside the US or North America do.

    I'm in the U.S. and hit the paywall.
    :confused:

    Paywall in Canada.

    Delete all tracking browser cookies and you can see it in Canada.
  • The gist of the Mrs. Rogers article...

    Mrs. Rogers says that her husband didn't publically discuss politics, but since she doesn't do a kids' show, she can speak her mind.

    She thinks that Trump is a very bad person, very dishonest, and probably mentally ill. She likes Joe Biden, thinks he is very kind, and is not troubled by his age.

    The piece ends with Mrs. Rogers comparing Biden's friendly approach to someone at the convention with a speech impediment, with her husband's similar treatment of a person with disabilities on his show back in the day.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Thanks, stetson, good of you to provide that summary.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    If I may add 2 things to that great summary:

    Mrs. Joanne R. is 92 years old! And she wonders if Biden's occasional gaffes are connected to his own stuttering problem. (AFAIK, his stuttering under control, at least in public; but maybe they're both related to the same "frayed wire"?)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    This thread just will not go away, I know. The latest OOPS is in his latest Support Our Troops ad. The image is of a group of soldiers on the ground with a group of jets flying over them. Problem is, the jets that are depicted are MIG-29s. The ad ran from Sept 8 thru the 12th before it was pulled. Story here. Also, it appears one of the soldiers is carrying an AK-47. Double oops.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    You saw it here first.
Sign In or Register to comment.