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.

1135136138140141168

Comments

  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Working hard to avoid Godwin's Law after that tweet.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Caissa wrote: »
    Working hard to avoid Godwin's Law after that tweet.
    Godwin's Exception states that if the person you're talking about is actually trying to abolish democracy or setting up concentration camps marching about with swastikas comparisons with Hitler are allowed. (I believe Godwin is on record comparing Trump to Hitler.)

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 2020

    A few observations:
    1. Trump tries to make the distinction between "Mail-In Voting" (which he says is bad) and "Absentee Voting" (which he says is good, and which he does himself). These are the same thing and my guess is that he's trying to distinguish between people who tend to vote Republican by mail (seniors and deployed military) as voting "absentee" while anyone who'd cast a ballot by mail for a Democrat is using a "mail-in vote".
      ·
    2. There's no indication that voting by mail is structurally advantageous to either major political party. There are, however, plenty of indications that voting in any form will be disadvantageous to Trump specifically and Republicans generally in November 2020.
      ·
    3. Putting off an election "until people can properly, securely and safely vote" would tend to give Trump a major disincentive to get COVID-19 under control. Also, the vague and ill-defined nature of when the election would be held is inherently suspicious. The non-secessionist parts of the U.S were able to have a presidential election in 1864 in the middle of the Civil War. If the current government can't figure out how to collect ballots by mail (and several states already conduct elections entirely by mail) that means an election is even more necessary.
      ·
    4. This is, of course, an obvious set-up for claiming victory in November no matter what the returns say.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    As expected, the potus is trying to pre-empt excuses for his defeat.

    Tweeted - “
    With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

    He writes like a twelve year old. I can see him whipping up his base to ‘fight’ the result.

    Nutcase.



  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    For those who are able to vote in the U.S., here's a tweet from a president detailing the deadlines for requesting an absentee/mail-in ballot.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Word has reached this side of the pond that POTUS has or is repealing an Obama era law about fair housing in the suburbs. That way middle class suburban home owners will see their houses increase in value and crime will go down because hey there are fewer poor people. 😡

    Like many things in American politics, the dog whistle isn't audible to non-Americans. Trump's claim is that his revocation of an Obama-era rule against racially-discriminatory housing practices will preserve property values and keep out the wrong sort (if you know what he means, and I think you do). This is the same play the Republicans have been running since Nixon (if not Goldwater). We'll see if the "scary black people might move in next door" tactic is as effective in 2020 as it was in the mid-twentieth century.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    I know the military is *supposed* to defend the Constitution, and it may be very comforting to believe that they would. And I hope they would.

    But it's not necessarily the case.
    It’s probably worth mentioning that the oath the President takes is “I do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    We can only hope the military will do a better job of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution than Trump has done.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I know the military is *supposed* to defend the Constitution, and it may be very comforting to believe that they would. And I hope they would.

    But it's not necessarily the case.
    It’s probably worth mentioning that the oath the President takes is “I do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    We can only hope the military will do a better job of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution than Trump has done.

    We can be pretty sure that the top military brass know better than he what's actually in the damn thing.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited July 2020
    Having been in the military, I have no doubt they will follow the dictates of the Constitution. The key to this is the Joint Cheifs of Staff. I can't think of any one of them that will back Trump should he try to resist the outcome of the general election.

    Look at it this way, we have had no military coup. Yes, several flag officers became traitors during the Civil War, but they were defeated, and now their memorials are coming down.

    For your consideration.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Gramps--

    Thx for the article. Are you seeing it as proving your point? Because, after saying there's a "low baseline risk", the author acknowledges concerns; explores two scenarios of how a coup might happen under (IMHO) plausible circumstances; and ends with this:
    Hopefully, cooler heads prevail and no such constitutional crises arise to threaten democracy. Most data suggest a coup is highly unlikely in the United States given the country’s wealth, centuries of civilian rule, and historic strength of the country’s institutions. The CoupCast model at One Earth Future assesses the risk of a coup in the U.S. in 2020 at only 0.39 percent. But a unique set of circumstances—rising partisan polarization, the possibility of electoral violence, and uncertainty about whether political actors will follow democratic scripts surrounding the November 2020 elections—give reason to worry.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I presented the article to show how low there is a chance of a coup 0.39%. I did not say there would never be a chance. I did say it was highly unlikely.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Ok, fair enough. :)
  • I'm not certain where on Purg would be most appropriate for this, but this is as good as any....

    Herman Cain, is dead at 74, of C-19. He held contradictory opinions about C-19. He advocated wearing a mask on his website, but was clearly unmasked at the Tulsa rally, and was travelling widely. I take no joy in his death, but I hope that people draw the appropriate conclusions.

    Note that WH staffers are told that they cannot mask at work.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Hmmm...I would think that's some kind of health code violation, under the circumstances. But I'm guessing the upper levels of the administration would try to block any investigation. I bet that the WH staff wouldn't be allowed to sue, either--probably something in their employment contracts.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Hmmm...I would think that's some kind of health code violation, under the circumstances. But I'm guessing the upper levels of the administration would try to block any investigation. I bet that the WH staff wouldn't be allowed to sue, either--probably something in their employment contracts.

    The upper levels of the federal government often exempts itself from workplace regulations. There seems to be a lot of discontent among Congressional staffers on this subject of late. A lot of them seem to be talking to reporters, particularly Jake Sherman of Politico. Louis Gohmert's positive test result seems to have been a tipping point.

    Sherman's colleague Anna Palmer has a longer form article about this.
    Other lawmakers have come down with Covid-19. But in many ways, Gohmert’s diagnosis has become a tipping point for a sprawling complex where hundreds of people stream in and out daily, with little institutional guidance.

    Hours after Gohmert tested positive — the second case among GOP lawmakers in three weeks — Speaker Nancy Pelosi swiftly implemented a mask mandate for House office buildings and the chamber itself. House Republican leaders recirculated a memo to stress guidance from the Capitol physician, such as limiting or rotating staff, encouraging masks, and implementing home temperature checks.

    “The reporting on this situation has led to other reports suggesting House staff reporting unsafe work conditions,” the GOP memo, obtained by POLITICO reads.

    <snip>

    Many described feeling uncomfortable taking the very kinds of health steps recommended by public health experts, and feeling pressured to report to work in person despite the risks. Multiple aides said it was common to mock those wearing masks, or brush off concerns among staff members with specific health issues.

    Others recalled seeing aides avoid taking elevator rides with certain members out of fear of contracting the virus — an almost unheard-of reversal of the usual dynamics of power in a place teeming with ambition and hierarchy.

    “Our office has been required to be fully staffed since session resumed at the end of June (including an intern),” a scheduler for a House Republican member said. “While mask use isn’t banned, it’s also not encouraged, and has been derided on several occasions by the [chief of staff] and the member.”

    Charlie Pierce compares Republican congressional offices to small chicken-plucking plants; places where workers theoretically have legal protections for their health and safety, but in practice their employer is an unaccountable dictator.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Herman Cain, is dead at 74, of C-19. He held contradictory opinions about C-19. He advocated wearing a mask on his website, but was clearly unmasked at the Tulsa rally, and was travelling widely. I take no joy in his death, but I hope that people draw the appropriate conclusions.

    He also praised Trump for not requiring masks at that rally in a since-deleted tweet. Here's an image of that tweet, since nothing on the internet is ever truly lost.

    I hope that people draw the appropriate conclusions.
  • It has been reported that Gohmert announced to his staff is positive test results in person.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It has been reported that Gohmert announced to his staff is positive test results in person.

    Complicating matters even further, Gohmert uses his Capitol Hill office as his residence when Congress is in session, which complicates his quarantine.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Hmmm...I would think that's some kind of health code violation, under the circumstances. But I'm guessing the upper levels of the administration would try to block any investigation. I bet that the WH staff wouldn't be allowed to sue, either--probably something in their employment contracts.

    It's tempting to think of an unmasked person getting close to me to be (potentially) committing assault with a deadly weapon. Of course, that implies that one could legally shoot them in self-defence, to prevent them from exhaling on you...

    There is precedent - men with HIV have been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for infecting their sexual partners. I suppose someone would have to know that they had Covid-19, rather than being aggressively negligent about whether they had it, to be convicted.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    It has been reported that Gohmert announced to his staff is positive test results in person.

    Complicating matters even further, Gohmert uses his Capitol Hill office as his residence when Congress is in session, which complicates his quarantine.

    Ever since Newt Gringrich was the Speaker of the House, it has been quite common for Representatives to use their offices as residences while in D.C
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    (a) The armed forces have already stated that they aren't interested in being used as a police force, and (b) A good number of boots on the ground are themselves white supremacists and very much support the president.

    The military is sworn to defend the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. At the beginning of the year, half of all active-duty military did not support Trump and I would argue it has gotten worse, with the resignation of Mattis, his use of active-duty and forces to clear Laffeyete square and now the strong reports that Russia had put a bounty on American servicemen in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is not too pleased with the forced withdrawal of American troops in Germany either, and IMHO he also shot himself in the foot with the pardon of Eddie Gallagher plus a few other Army personnel accused of war crimes.
    The Navy people also have not forgotten how his administration bungled the COVID outbreak on the Teddy Roosevelt. I forgot to mention when he inexplicably withdrew the troops that had been the buffer between the Turks and the Kurds in NE Syria.

    No, the military may not forcibly remove T from the White House, but they definitely will be prepared to intervene on the orders of the new president if right-wing militias try to keep him in office.

    I follow the Army Times. The comments section is not as rabid as you might expect, if you didn't know military people. It was a pleasant surprise to me that there is a wide range of views, and lots of dissing of trumpistas for not knowing the way the army works. People quote codes and orders and stuff at them.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    (a) The armed forces have already stated that they aren't interested in being used as a police force

    My kneejerk reaction to this is that bringing in the army to do the police's job can escalate problems out of control. As difficult as it may be to fix systemic problems within a police service, it is arguably a lot more difficult to put the genie back in the bottle if you once go down the route of expecting your army to police civilians, and be accepted as a non-biased arbiter between who's right and who's wrong.

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Umm...who says they'd be non-biased? Or expected by anyone to be? T certainly doesn't expect--or WANT--them to be. Who expects the actual police to be unbiased?
  • And now, Trump is calling the Rollings Stones Unamerican because they won't let him play their songs anymore.
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    I've always wanted to know if you have to be an American to be deemed Unamerican.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Ummm...aren't the Stones all British?
  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Yes. But is being Unamerican impossible (or automatically the case) for non-US citizens (I assume this is the right answer) or something to do with an attitude which conflicts with expectations of Americans?
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    😂😂😂 Looks like he assumed they are American? 😂😂😂
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    (a) The armed forces have already stated that they aren't interested in being used as a police force

    My kneejerk reaction to this is that bringing in the army to do the police's job can escalate problems out of control. As difficult as it may be to fix systemic problems within a police service, it is arguably a lot more difficult to put the genie back in the bottle if you once go down the route of expecting your army to police civilians, and be accepted as a non-biased arbiter between who's right and who's wrong.

    This. This is why I want to see the sheriff come in (or whoever the local housing enforcers are), walk him out the front door, and pile his possessions on the sidewalk. Just as would happen to any other evictee. It would do my heart good.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    RE: Unamerican. It has long be suggested that Assange be tried for treason against the US. You might not like Assange, and you might think that he's a criminal, but one cannot be a traitor to something to which one has never sworn loyalty, or be born to that loyalty.

    "Unamerican" seems to have entered the language (I'm prepared to be corrected) with the House Unamerican Activities Committee, which was focussed on American citizens, both native born and naturalised. The Un- is pejorative, or, intended to be. The most that can be said of me is that I'm non-American. Just like the Stone.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited August 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    And now, Trump is calling the Rollings Stones Unamerican because they won't let him play their songs anymore.
    Apparently this is not a true statement about Trump.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Several have said that some republicans are not happy with Trump but could they actually vote Democrat? Well if the Brexit vote over here is anything to go by then yes. Most of my life it would have been unthinkable for Labour voters to vote Conservative. They did, hence Brexit. I would not be surprised if the same happened and republicans voted for Biden
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    And now, Trump is calling the Rollings Stones Unamerican because they won't let him play their songs anymore.
    Apparently this is not a true statement about Trump.

    It might not be a published statement, but it does not mean he has not thought it. Just saying.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    And now, Trump is calling the Rollings Stones Unamerican because they won't let him play their songs anymore.
    Apparently this is not a true statement about Trump.

    It might not be a published statement, but it does not mean he has not thought it. Just saying.
    What an absurd assertion. You presented it as something he said, not as something he maybe thinks—which none of us have any way of knowing.

    Trump says and does enough outrageous things that there’s no need for those of us who oppose him to follow his playbook and make stuff up or spread untruths.

  • Would it have helped if I had put a winking or laughing emoji behind the statement?
  • No. We really need to be careful not to er, "step in the shit" of those who mess with the truth on a regular basis, as a colorful Vietnamese metaphor puts it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Vanity Fair published an article recently about the Jared Kushner directed group trying to come up with a federal testing plan.
    Six months into the pandemic, the United States continues to suffer the worst outbreak of COVID-19 in the developed world. Considerable blame belongs to a federal response that offloaded responsibility for the crucial task of testing to the states. The irony is that, after assembling the team that came up with an aggressive and ambitious national testing plan, Kushner then appears to have decided, for reasons that remain murky, to scrap its proposal. Today, as governors and mayors scramble to stamp out epidemics plaguing their populations, philanthropists at the Rockefeller Foundation are working to fill the void and organize enough testing to bring the nationwide epidemic under control.

    Inside the White House, over much of March and early April, Kushner’s handpicked group of young business associates, which included a former college roommate, teamed up with several top experts from the diagnostic-testing industry. Together, they hammered out the outline of a national testing strategy. The group — working night and day, using the encrypted platform WhatsApp — emerged with a detailed plan obtained by Vanity Fair.

    Okay, so far, so Republican. Assuming big business and guys with MBAs can solve any problem, even if they know nothing about the subject.
    Rather than have states fight each other for scarce diagnostic tests and limited lab capacity, the plan would have set up a system of national oversight and coordination to surge supplies, allocate test kits, lift regulatory and contractual roadblocks, and establish a widespread virus surveillance system by the fall, to help pinpoint subsequent outbreaks.

    The solutions it proposed weren’t rocket science—or even comparable to the dauntingly complex undertaking of developing a new vaccine. Any national plan to address testing deficits would likely be more on the level of “replicating UPS for an industry,” said Dr. Mike Pellini, the managing partner of Section 32, a technology and health care venture capital fund. “Imagine if UPS or FedEx didn’t have infrastructure to connect all the dots. It would be complete chaos.”

    The plan crafted at the White House, then, set out to connect the dots. Some of those who worked on the plan were told that it would be presented to President Trump and likely announced in the Rose Garden in early April. “I was beyond optimistic,” said one participant. “My understanding was that the final document would make its way to the president over that weekend” and would result in a “significant announcement.”

    Not bad. A little light on specifics and the devil is always in the details, but not a bad framework. So what happened?
    But the effort ran headlong into shifting sentiment at the White House. Trusting his vaunted political instincts, President Trump had been downplaying concerns about the virus and spreading misinformation about it—efforts that were soon amplified by Republican elected officials and right-wing media figures. Worried about the stock market and his reelection prospects, Trump also feared that more testing would only lead to higher case counts and more bad publicity. Meanwhile, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, was reportedly sharing models with senior staff that optimistically — and erroneously, it would turn out — predicted the virus would soon fade away.

    Against that background, the prospect of launching a large-scale national plan was losing favor, said one public health expert in frequent contact with the White House’s official coronavirus task force.

    Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert.

    That logic may have swayed Kushner. “It was very clear that Jared was ultimately the decision maker as to what [plan] was going to come out,” the expert said.

    So if this article is correct, the Trump administration* decided to ignore COVID-19 and sabotage testing because the virus was killing all the "right people".

    The article has been edited to include pro forma denials by White House spokesperson and serial fabulist Kayleigh McEnany.

    I'm x-posting this over in Hell because the U.S. government consigning its own citizens to death and suffering for political advantage seems like it might merit some strong language and colorful responses.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Would it have helped if I had put a winking or laughing emoji behind the statement?
    For the reason @Lamb Chopped said, no.

  • No. We really need to be careful not to er, "step in the shit" of those who mess with the truth on a regular basis, as a colorful Vietnamese metaphor puts it.

    And wasn't you who said I could not take a joke?
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    No. We really need to be careful not to er, "step in the shit" of those who mess with the truth on a regular basis, as a colorful Vietnamese metaphor puts it.

    And wasn't you who said I could not take a joke?

    Telling an untruth and then trying to pass it off as a joke is a bad joke indeed.
  • No, it was I who identified a particular joke that apparently whizzed right past your ear. On a different thread.

    Do you mean to tell me that your previous post on THIS thread, which I took to be a flat statement of fact--as I understand others also did--was in fact a joke?

    But leaving that aside, to your second-last post: No, an emoticon is NOT sufficient in and of itself to signal "this flat statement is in fact a joke and not true in itself."

    Good grief, man, I read what you said and reported it to my son as straight fact. And why? Because it's precisely the kind of thing Trump WOULD do.

    If you'd said it of Jimmy Carter, now, no emoticon would be needed.

    Saying it of Trump is so close to what he would do, that the entire load of emojis ever created would not be sufficient to raise a doubt. You'd pretty much have to say "THIS IS A JOKE" in flaming letters a mile high.
  • I have seen Croesus's story about Kushner, and it is truly appalling. It needs to be shouted from the rafters. I'm only sorry that it didn't come out in about 80 days from now.

    But the thing I missed, and which is also tremendously concerning, is this bit:
    Meanwhile, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, was reportedly sharing models with senior staff that optimistically — and erroneously, it would turn out — predicted the virus would soon fade away.

    This gives Trump some cover for their earlier decisions, I reckon. Obviously not the decision to let blue states suffer, but others perhaps. I would like to see Blix grilled about this.
  • In other words, Lamb Chopped, you just got punked.

    Think of the absurdity of the statement.

    The Rolling Stones are obviously English.

    Moving on....
  • You know the Rolling Stones are English. It does not follow from this that Trump does. What else you got?
  • C'mon Gramps. This is the President who thought a major US city in the midwest was in another state. It is totally believable that he thought the Stones were from New England.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    It’s a version of Poe’s law.

    Trump is so mind bogglingly thick that we believe that he did say any ridiculous thing.

    If anyone else said it we’d say ‘really?’ and then check. But he says things like this every day, so why go to snopes?

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    <snip> But he says things like this every day, so why go to snopes?

    Indeed. Actually my search was prompted by wondering if the Stones had responded, and it immediately brought up links to the fact checking website.

    While the underlying idea is both funny and plausible, I’d rather minimise any actually fake stories otherwise he’ll use their existence as a smokescreen for the real rubbish.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I have seen Croesus's story about Kushner, and it is truly appalling. It needs to be shouted from the rafters. I'm only sorry that it didn't come out in about 80 days from now.

    I don't think it will have much effect. Most diehard MAGA-types will assume it's all just Deep State media lies.

  • stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I have seen Croesus's story about Kushner, and it is truly appalling. It needs to be shouted from the rafters. I'm only sorry that it didn't come out in about 80 days from now.

    I don't think it will have much effect. Most diehard MAGA-types will assume it's all just Deep State media lies.

    They are perfectly inoculated against the truth, even the anti-vaxxers.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Yeah, but if his support is whittled down to them, the election will be a walkover. He needs the anti-Clinton moderates. Plus, I'm interested in the extent to which people like Blix were corrupted or pressured into fudging stuff for the bastard.
Sign In or Register to comment.