Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1130131133135136139

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I think American political animals, left and right, are too keen to label Supreme Court judges. It is too soon to tell, but perhaps even a Trump appointed judiciary will act like judges.

    Maybe some. Kavanaugh? I doubt it. If Ginsberg passes before January Trump will use a lame duck senate to ram through another in the same mould.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Did you catch up with Gorsuch's judgement a few days ago on legal protections for people of diverse sexuality?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Gramps49 Here is an opinion piece from Politico arguing that GOP organisers are fired up and expecting a Trump landslide. Their opinions seem to be based on a V shaped recovery and the coronavirus not coming back. They are, to name an actor in Dr Strangelove, Slim Pickens.

    Many states are not yet rid of the first wave of Covid19 🤔

  • Not only Gorsuch's vote, but that he authored the majority opinion, gobsmacked me. It will be interesting to watch... will this be a pattern, or an exception.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Trump lost a big one today. He had been saying LBGTQ people have no civil protections, but the Supreme Court today overruled (6-3) him saying, essentially LBGTQ people cannot be discriminated against under the sexual discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Law.

    Can't be discriminated against by their employers. The ruling [PDF] didn't come down one way or the other in terms of other forms of discrimination. Judicial restraint and all that.
    Not only Gorsuch's vote, but that he authored the majority opinion, gobsmacked me. It will be interesting to watch... will this be a pattern, or an exception.

    Gorsuch claims to be a strict textualist, meaning that only the words included in the law are binding. The intentions of the legislators or the expected interpretation at the time of passage are irrelevant if such things weren't included in the text of the law. He apparently decided to stick to his guns on that position.
    Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

    Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

    So to Gorsuch the fact that legislators in 1964 had no intention to forbid discrimination against homosexuals in employment carries no weight whatsoever. They wrote the law the way they did and that's what he's sticking to.

    A lot of conservative justices supposed "principles" are often little more than pretexts to achieve the desired end. (See, for example, the supposed devotion to equal protection doctrine in Bush v. Gore.) But for whatever reason Gorsuch decided to hold to his declared doctrine in this particular case.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Gramps49 Here is an opinion piece from Politico arguing that GOP organisers are fired up and expecting a Trump landslide. Their opinions seem to be based on a V shaped recovery and the coronavirus not coming back. They are, to name an actor in Dr Strangelove, Slim Pickens.

    That's a good one.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    My wife often says that if you appoint black letter lawyers you can't be surprised when they interpret the law in a black letter way.

    The commentary I have heard on the right is that legislation is for Congress, not the Courts. That extract from the Judgement seems to endorse that view though. The Court is asking what the words mean.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    My wife often says that if you appoint black letter lawyers you can't be surprised when they interpret the law in a black letter way.

    The commentary I have heard on the right is that legislation is for Congress, not the Courts. That extract from the Judgement seems to endorse that view though. The Court is asking what the words mean.

    Both left and right tend to think decisions that go their way should be decided by the courts, and decisions that go against them should have been left to the legislature.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    My wife often says that if you appoint black letter lawyers you can't be surprised when they interpret the law in a black letter way.

    The commentary I have heard on the right is that legislation is for Congress, not the Courts. That extract from the Judgement seems to endorse that view though. The Court is asking what the words mean.

    Both left and right tend to think decisions that go their way should be decided by the courts, and decisions that go against them should have been left to the legislature.

    I'm not so sure. From what I've seen I think the left tend to think that court decisions that go against them are wrong (and a result of Republicans appointing ideologues rather than jurists) rather than the court had no business making judgments on the law in the first place.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    As I understand it, assuming Biden is elected and the Democrats take control of the Senate, there will be a move to add 2 new judgeships on the court which could give Biden at least two possible judges to appoint, maybe three if Ginsberg steps down, bless her soul.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    As I understand it, assuming Biden is elected and the Democrats take control of the Senate, there will be a move to add 2 new judgeships on the court which could give Biden at least two possible judges to appoint, maybe three if Ginsberg steps down, bless her soul.

    I'll believe it when I see it. I have a suspicion that even if the Democrats take the senate a handful of blue dogs will decide to scupper any such plan.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Not just blue dogs. Also people who think beyond the next four or ten or how many years, and who consider that just because it benefits “us” now, it could benefit “them” in the future.

    So far as I’ve heard, it’s an idea that been bandied about, but I don’t know that many in (or wanting to be) in Congress are seriously considering it.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Not just blue dogs. Also people who think beyond the next four or ten or how many years, and who consider that just because it benefits “us” now, it could benefit “them” in the future.

    So far as I’ve heard, it’s an idea that been bandied about, but I don’t know that many in (or wanting to be) in Congress are seriously considering it.

    I would have thought the lesson of the last 4 years is that the GOP no longer consider themselves bound by the most basic norms, so packing the court sufficiently to outweigh Garland's stolen seat would be a rebuke to the behaviour that put Garland on the court without completely ditching all limits.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Not just blue dogs. Also people who think beyond the next four or ten or how many years, and who consider that just because it benefits “us” now, it could benefit “them” in the future.

    So far as I’ve heard, it’s an idea that been bandied about, but I don’t know that many in (or wanting to be) in Congress are seriously considering it.

    I very much agree. This will undermine the independence of the judiciary much more than the procedural shenanigans pulled by Mitch McConnell. Judicial independence is a vital bulwark against fascism, or any other type of authoritarianism. Gorsuch's recent judgement is a good reason for the conservatives to worry that yet again, a judge has shown that he will apply the law without fear or favor. Neither they, not anybody else who seeks to muddy the court with extra-legal considerations will prevail.

    I am pretty sure that Biden will reach the same conclusion as FDR. In the long term, expanding the Court in an attempt to get the outcomes you want is a foolish and Sisyphean task. It can only damage the country.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Not just blue dogs. Also people who think beyond the next four or ten or how many years, and who consider that just because it benefits “us” now, it could benefit “them” in the future.

    So far as I’ve heard, it’s an idea that been bandied about, but I don’t know that many in (or wanting to be) in Congress are seriously considering it.

    I very much agree. This will undermine the independence of the judiciary much more than the procedural shenanigans pulled by Mitch McConnell. Judicial independence is a vital bulwark against fascism, or any other type of authoritarianism. Gorsuch's recent judgement is a good reason for the conservatives to worry that yet again, a judge has shown that he will apply the law without fear or favor. Neither they, not anybody else who seeks to muddy the court with extra-legal considerations will prevail.

    I am pretty sure that Biden will reach the same conclusion as FDR. In the long term, expanding the Court in an attempt to get the outcomes you want is a foolish and Sisyphean task. It can only damage the country.

    I'm not so sure. I think the refusal to give advice and consent on Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court was an egregious abuse of the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution. Changing a relatively recent law (1869, so after the civil war) is a thoroughly constitutional process. The alternative, I suppose, would be to find some way of enforcing the advice and consent process, but I don't know whether that's possible given the Senate's constitutionally defined capacity to determine its own rules and procedures.

    The problem is that if the democrats do nothing about the GOP's procedural abuses then they are stuck with the results and the real risk of Roe v Wade being overturned. It's not hard to imagine Biden winning and the Democrats taking the senate this year, and having a two year window to fix things before the pendulum swings back at the mid-terms and the Republicans return to obstructionism. It can't just be business as usual, because the GOP have no interest in "politics as usual", they want to watch everything burn.
  • Mr ClingfordMr Clingford Shipmate
    edited June 18
    ...
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Breaking news from ABC news on TV:

    The Supreme Court has evaluated the question of whether or not T and his minions acted unlawfully when they (tried to?) shut down the DACA program. (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival, a program to help "Dreamers" who came to the US as undocumented kids, and are still undocumented.)

    The Supremes, in their (sometimes) infinite wisdom, decided T & co. acted unlawfully--and the Dreamers can stay!!!
    :celebrate:
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    The Supremes, in their (sometimes) infinite wisdom, decided T & co. acted unlawfully--and the Dreamers can stay!!!
    :celebrate:

    For now. The ruling was that the Trump administration*'s action was "arbitrary and capricious". Basically the court ruled that Trump didn't follow the procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies that draft versions of any rule change are submitted for public comment by interested stakeholders. If re-elected* Trump can simply follow the APA procedures and implement the DACA repeal he wants, which puts one more thing in the balance for November's election.
  • INO, the possibility that the use of the use of Nazi symbols in Trump campaign postings on Facebook ads (now removed) is accidental is x->0. It has the stench of Stephen Miller all over it. One can't help but wonder what his stetl-dwelling forebears would have made of this.

    (Tangent: Stephen Miller is a fascinating psychological case study. There has always been a right wing element in the spectrum of Jewish political thought. There has always been the trope of the self-hating Jew, e.g., Otto Weininger. Or of the outsider who over-compensates by becoming an echt [fill in the ethnicity] like Ferenc Szalasi (very little Hungarian ancestry) or (putatively) Corneliu Codreanu. )

    Time for a mea culpa: On SoF, in the early days of the Trump administration, I warned against over-heated rhetoric, and said that I thought that such language was a distraction and played into the hands of Trump supporters. A large chunk of my academic work dealt with various fascist movements, so I come to this question prepared. I still think that those in the early days of Trump who used "fascist" were for the most part being over-heated and not prescient. They were right, but for the wrong reasons. Now, I think that we are in fact living in a time of peril, and though not yet fascist, the drift in the administration's and campaign's behaviour is emboldened and unmistakeable. I look to those who took an oath to protect the constitution to honour that oath.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited June 18
    I bet the Purgatory Hosts are regretting breaking up this thread. I could have added another thread titled Trump's Delusion of the Day. But that would just be yet another thread pushing other discussions out of the way. Instead, I will just attach the comment here.

    Trump is now claiming no one knew about Juneteeth (The day when the Union Army informed the slaves in Texas they were free) until HE made it famous. (eye row)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Another Trump Delusion of the Day: he thinks some Americans are using masks because they disapprove of him and not as a preventive measure against the virus. (eye roll)
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    A large chunk of my academic work dealt with various fascist movements, so I come to this question prepared. I still think that those in the early days of Trump who used "fascist" were for the most part being over-heated and not prescient. They were right, but for the wrong reasons. Now, I think that we are in fact living in a time of peril, and though not yet fascist, the drift in the administration's and campaign's behaviour is emboldened and unmistakeable. I look to those who took an oath to protect the constitution to honour that oath.

    This scares me quite a bit because it reinforces my biggest fear about Trump and his allies in the GOP.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Trump is now claiming no one knew about Juneteeth (The day when the Union Army informed the slaves in Texas they were free) until HE made it famous. (eye row)

    Here's the actual quote.
    I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous. It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.

    Trump has a lot of easily identifiable verbal tics. One of the most common is that when he says "nobody had ever hear of" something, what he means is "I had never heard of this", since he knows everything worth knowing and if he doesn't know something that means no one else did either. It should be noted that the White House has issued statements recognizing Juneteenth for the last three years. These statements are attributed to Donald Trump, but my guess would be that they were prepared by his press office and he never laid eyes on them.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    There are several tics Trump uses. Articles have been written about this. The one tic that drives me up the wall is when he says, "No one has ever seen." Every time he says that I know he is lying.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    My default assumption is that every time he opens his mouth he is lying, until proven otherwise.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    My default assumption is that every time he opens his mouth he is lying, until proven otherwise.

    True
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Re T always lying:

    Or at least saying something incorrect, inaccurate, untrue. IMHO, lying requires consciously knowing truth/fact, and purposely saying/indicating something else. And knowing the difference, and that truth/fact is important. He often says what he needs to believe/hear, or what other people might accept enough to give him the massive affirmation and adulation that he desperately needs.

    He's such a mess that it's hard to tell which of his many modes of (dys)functioning he's in. ISTM it used to be easier to tell which way he was (dys)functioning at the time: bouncing around, blank stares, word salad, saying the first sound of a word and forgetting what's next, etc., etc., etc.

    But I think "They" have got him on meds. (I think Dubya went on them, too. Wonder if they're the same ones?) IMHO, he's more and more focused, with less evidence of the particular (dys)functions I just mentioned. He's more purposeful. Part of that is the upcoming election (if we have one!).

    This scares me. While he says evil, incorrect, scary things, you have to listen to know that now. And since he can focus much better now, he may be more inclined to actually act on some of his worst ideas. Not good.
    :(

    Slight tangent: in T's public complaint about the DACA ruling by the Supremes, he said something to the effect of "it's like they shot conservatives in the face". Given that many of his followers lean on his every word and also are devoted to guns, I'm concerned some of them will think it a good idea to turn *their* guns on the Supremes.
    :votive:

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I see no indication he is taking anything other than a baby aspirin, a statin to control high blood pressure, and maybe something to control rosacea. These are common meds for males his age.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    And don't forget the hydroxychloroquine, perhaps washed down with bleach.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Slight tangent: in T's public complaint about the DACA ruling by the Supremes, he said something to the effect of "it's like they shot conservatives in the face". Given that many of his followers lean on his every word and also are devoted to guns, I'm concerned some of them will think it a good idea to turn *their* guns on the Supremes.

    When you refer to the Supremes, my first thought was that you were referring to the Supremes who sang back-up to Diana Ross.

    That said, I imagine the justices are under heavy guard by the Secret Service, the SCOTUS security, and the Washington DC metro police.

    Nevertheless, there is ample proof people have gone hunting after the people Trump dislikes..
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 4
    I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else on the Ship yet, so here goes. On June 26 the New York Times broke the story that the GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency, was (and possibly still is) allegdly offering bounties to the Taliban and other Afghan militias for killing American troops. This was sourced to anonymous American intelligence officials. Other news organizations confirmed this story, with CNN confirming the additional details that bounties were also being offered for the troops of American allies in Afghanistan and claiming their sources included (still anonymous) European intelligence officials. A later piece by the New York Times confirmed that U.S. Special Forces had reported this to their chain of command back in January.

    The immediate response by the Trump administration* was to claim that neither the president* nor the vice president* had been briefed on the matter. This exact phrase was used by most official spokespeople for Trump, being very particular to use the word "briefed", rather than "told" or "informed", which I guess gives them the wiggle room to say that Trump wasn't told about it during a block of time marked out on his calendar labeled "Briefing". Kind of the same way Bill Clinton tried to parse the phrase "sexual relations". Trump himself, of course, did not have the same level of message discipline and tweeted out that neither he nor Pence had been "briefed or told" about the bounties. (The fact that Trump's tweet echoes Russian propaganda seems overdetermined.)

    It has since emerged that this information was included in the Presidential Daily Briefing back in February. (For those whose memories stretch back forty years four months, this was around the time Trump was trying to negotiate as cease-fire with the Taliban. Apparently collecting bounties for killing American troops isn't a sticking point for this administration*.) Trump (in)famously doesn't read the PDB but that would seem to count as "briefing" the president* in most reasonable definitions of the term. The new line is that the intelligence exists but isn't "actionable", which I guess is political-speak for "yeah we knew about this but we're not going to do anything about it". There was also this little tidbit from that last article:
    [ Rep. Michael ] McCaul was one of eight House Republicans briefed in the Situation Room of the White House on Monday by the White House chief of staff, national security adviser and national intelligence director. A group of eight House Democrats was set to receive a similar briefing Tuesday morning.

    This is in defiance of standard practice going back decades. Republican and Democratic Congress members always (until now) receive intelligence briefings at the same time. This is to insure that they're all receiving the same intelligence and nothing is being left out or shaded for domestic political reasons. This is why the Gang of Eight exists in the first place!

    So yet another example in the seemingly interminable list of times Trump has been ridiculously passive in the face of Russian provocation. For those who remember all the way back in January (yeah, it feels like forever), around the same time this intelligence on the alleged GRU bounty program was wending its way through the U.S. intelligence system, Trump was so outraged by the killing of American contractors in Iraq by militia forces supposedly backed by Iran that he killed the commander of the Quds Force in a missile strike and it looked quite possible that the U.S. and Iran would end up in a shooting war. But when it comes to Putin . . . crickets.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Yes, I am watching developments on this. I believe Trump has labelled the whole thing Fake News (tm).
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    I saw mention that Putin's arranging things so he can stay in office much longer. Putin vs. the US (and/or T) isn't over yet.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else on the Ship yet, so here goes. On June 26 the New York Times broke the story that the GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency, was (and possibly still is) allegdly offering bounties to the Taliban and other Afghan militias for killing American troops....

    I don't suppose it is directly relevant that the CIA and MI6 trained the Mujahideen to kill soldiers of the USSR - but if I were Putin, I would find righteous indignation over the current set of accusations, rather funny. Though the joke really got going with Bin Laden - this feels like a comic insulting his audience to the furthest ends of plausibility, just to enjoy their reaction.

  • (I could have said - 'trained and armed' as well as 'provided educational materials promoting extremist Islam, in alliance with Islamist support from Pakistan, for distribution throughout Afghanistan and within those federal republics of the USSR proper with large Muslim populations'. One of the Bhuttos told George Bush I he was 'creating a Frankenstein'. That article is quite illuminating.)
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    I saw mention that Putin's arranging things so he can stay in office much longer. Putin vs. the US (and/or T) isn't over yet.

    AIUI, Putin is indeed arranging things so that he can stay in office as Czar President until 2036 (!), by which time T will surely be pushing up daisies (or, more likely, deadly nightshade...)

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I don't suppose it is directly relevant that the CIA and MI6 trained the Mujahideen to kill soldiers of the USSR - but if I were Putin, I would find righteous indignation over the current set of accusations, rather funny.
    (I could have said - 'trained and armed' as well as 'provided educational materials promoting extremist Islam, in alliance with Islamist support from Pakistan, for distribution throughout Afghanistan and within those federal republics of the USSR proper with large Muslim populations'. One of the Bhuttos told George Bush I he was 'creating a Frankenstein'. That article is quite illuminating.)

    Countries usually make a distinction between training and equipping allied surrogates in a conflict (which they find objectionable but within bounds) and putting cash bounties on the killing of their soldiers (out of bounds). In other words, paying militias is (sometimes) considered okay, but paying them on a per-head basis is considered wrong.

    I don't make these rules.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else on the Ship yet, so here goes. On June 26 the New York Times broke the story that the GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency, was (and possibly still is) allegdly offering bounties to the Taliban and other Afghan militias for killing American troops....

    I don't suppose it is directly relevant that the CIA and MI6 trained the Mujahideen to kill soldiers of the USSR - but if I were Putin, I would find righteous indignation over the current set of accusations, rather funny. Though the joke really got going with Bin Laden - this feels like a comic insulting his audience to the furthest ends of plausibility, just to enjoy their reaction.

    Yes, but...

    The present issue is not whether Americans should be mad at Putin, it's whether Americans should be mad at Trump.

    Let's say that, during the Afghan conflict, someone had gone to Brezhnev with previously unrevealed evidence that the US was doing X Y and Z to further the killing of Russian soldiers, and Brezhnev had replied with "Ah, who cares." I would say the Russian people would be well within their rights to wonder which nation's interests Brezhnev was looking out for.

    That said, while I don't doubt that the intelligence reported by the NYT exists, I am somewhat skeptical as to its veracity. It would be a pretty big risk for the Russians to be putting direct bounties on the lives of US soldiers, and I'm not quite seeing any huge payback, given that the Taliban was presumably already killing Americans.

    Even if you argue "Well, the Russians know Trump is a patsy, so they figured they could get away with it", Trump is not gonna be president forever.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    That said, while I don't doubt that the intelligence reported by the NYT exists, I am somewhat skeptical as to its veracity. It would be a pretty big risk for the Russians to be putting direct bounties on the lives of US soldiers, and I'm not quite seeing any huge payback, given that the Taliban was presumably already killing Americans.

    Even if you argue "Well, the Russians know Trump is a patsy, so they figured they could get away with it", Trump is not gonna be president forever.

    You could say the same about. for example, hacking the American electoral system. Russia seems to be pursuing a series of escalatory steps towards the United States. So far their premise of American passivity, indifference, or even encouragement seems to be justified.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Not just Russia either...
  • I imagine the 'bounty' story would play well within Russia, for reasons I mention up thread. On reflection the whole Trump thing could be viewed from a Russian domestic perspective as 'Yeltsin - payback time' - "he was accused of economic mismanagement, overseeing a massive growth in inequality and corruption, and of undermining Russia's standing as a major world power." (wiki).
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Trump loyal supporters are so insulated from genuine news by the use of the Fake News label that even this appalling example of his unfittedness for office will pass by most of them.

    However the analogy which has been crossing my mind is that of a supersaturated solution. It remains liquid up to a tipping point, then crystals form rapidly. For liquid read loyalty. The loyalists have remained remarkably loyal despite the many revelations, since they have been been given the means (Fake News meme) to practise denial. But COVID-19 has been making that more and more difficult.

    If a tipping point, a crystallisation point, is finally realised, then the base may erode rapidly. I don't think it's going to take much more now.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    ...which raises the concern of what T might do if most people turn on him...
    :fearful:
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    ...which raises the concern of what T might do if most people turn on him...
    :fearful:

    What all bullies do - cry victim.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Boogie--

    That might be part of his response. But I was thinking more of starting a war; blowing something up; calling on his followers to start a civil war; or...kill himself. (I'm not in any way, shape, or form suggesting he do the latter. But there are reports that he thinks he won't win--and he's said that "Biden will be your president",)

    He truly can't cope with not having universal acclaim, and not being a winner. His dad taught the kids that only winners deserve to be loved. If he did exit that way, we well might have a civil war, courtesy of his angry, grieving followers. And the resulting conspiracy theories would make JFK's death seem like a minor curiosity.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    He should find something he can win at (hopefully without doing harm to others) and concentrate on that.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Trump has apparently decided to take action on the whole Taliban bounty story. He's decided the top (and, so far, only) priority will be . . . finding out who let the public know this was going on.
    The Trump administration has opened an internal investigation to try to uncover who leaked intelligence about Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers. The administration maintains the story is overcooked and the leaks cherry-picked despite a steady stream of follow-ups from media outlets across the globe.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Boogie--

    That might be part of his response. But I was thinking more of starting a war; blowing something up; calling on his followers to start a civil war; or...kill himself. (I'm not in any way, shape, or form suggesting he do the latter. But there are reports that he thinks he won't win--and he's said that "Biden will be your president",)

    He truly can't cope with not having universal acclaim, and not being a winner. His dad taught the kids that only winners deserve to be loved. If he did exit that way, we well might have a civil war, courtesy of his angry, grieving followers. And the resulting conspiracy theories would make JFK's death seem like a minor curiosity.

    So how does he cope now, being far from universally liked and being a total loser?
Sign In or Register to comment.