Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1163164166168169

Comments

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    I suspect they'd be more likely to gain votes in the middle by emphasizing the enormity of crimes, not soft-pedaling them. I think many Americans may not follow politics closely or care much about a lot of policies, but have an aversion to actions that disrespect national symbols and really dislike violence and disorder.

    Exactly. The US Chamber of Commerce has announced it will not be donating any more money to lawmakers that supported the riot on the Capitol. Riots are bad for business. So are civil wars.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Trump was impeached, for the second time, yesterday, for (Hamilton's) political offense.

    For the second time, he will not be convicted and will suffer no loss of retirement benefits.

    He will run in 2024. What can possibly stop him?

    Ill health. Death. He's in his mid-70s, has poor eating habits, and exercises only erratically.

    We shouldn't only hope.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    He has prodigy.
  • Progeny?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    He's a fire starter?
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.

    I’m thinking they may never bring the impeachment case to the senate but simply disbar him from ever running again.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.
    I’m thinking they may never bring the impeachment case to the senate but simply disbar him from ever running again.

    Can't do that without trying the impeachment in the Senate.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.

    In the absence of Trump actually being convicted of something(which I think may very well happen, though likely not in the Senate), I don't think it would set a very good precedent to just ban a particular individual from running for office.

    Especially considering that this banning would be carried out not by an impartial court, but by a legislative chamber, whose partisan composition could very well have swung back to the Republicans by 2022.

    And anyway, there'd be nothing to stop a banned Trump from just getting Ivanka or some other obvious stand-in to run for him in 2024, with the understanding that that candidate would be a continuation of his policies.

    (Plus, I don't think it likely that Trump or a proxy would get the actual Republican nomination again, and a third-party MAGA ticket would be a heaven-sent gift for the Dems.)
  • With the possible exception of Barron (why can't his parents spell?) I think all the Trump children should be regarded as toxic in varying degrees.

    Ivanka and Donald Jr seem to be the most like DT Sr and are the brightest, but not so clever that they don't parrot their father on the validity of the elevtion, etc.

    If Forbes magazine got it right, Eric appears to have inherited his father's attitude towards the truth and financial probity - a sample of his methods can be found here.

    Before the 2016 campaign it was widely believed that Tiffany was the "normal" Trump child and that she was less involved with the Trump Organisation and her father's politics. However she's now grown up and seems to be a fully-fledged member of Team Trump if this is anything to go by.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    In the absence of Trump actually being convicted of something(which I think may very well happen, though likely not in the Senate), I don't think it would set a very good precedent to just ban a particular individual from running for office.

    That precedent has already been set. It's in the Constitution. In two places.
    stetson wrote: »
    Especially considering that this banning would be carried out not by an impartial court, but by a legislative chamber, whose partisan composition could very well have swung back to the Republicans by 2022.

    As this is an inherently political question it seems appropriate to have the legislature (the body most representative of the people) address it. As a side note, the first person ever barred from future office by the U.S. Senate after being impeached was tried in absentia in a trial lasting a single day. The second person so barred established the precedent that while it takes a two-thirds supermajority to convict and remove someone from office in an impeachment, a simple majority will do to bar them from future officeholding. For the record, only three of the twenty-one impeachments in American history have resulted in the impeached individual being barred from future office . . . so far.
  • On the spelling thing: perhaps Barron wasn't named after the rank of nobility so much as a weekly magazine owned by the Wall Street Journal.
  • edited January 15
    stetson wrote: »
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.

    And anyway, there'd be nothing to stop a banned Trump from just getting Ivanka or some other obvious stand-in to run for him in 2024, with the understanding that that candidate would be a continuation of his policies.

    Errr - did he have any policies, apart from making himself the centre of attention all the time? That could be tricky to continue with someone else in the role. Have to look back and see what happened when Medvedev stood in for Putin. But Trump is no Putin (PBTG).
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    There are now several reports that T and Rudy have had a falling out, and T is refusing to pay for Rudy's legal work.

    Meanwhile, here is a story about several congressmen who may have contributed to the insurrection. Other rumors are swirling about, but I cannot comment on them because I have yet to see a reliable source for them.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.

    And anyway, there'd be nothing to stop a banned Trump from just getting Ivanka or some other obvious stand-in to run for him in 2024, with the understanding that that candidate would be a continuation of his policies.

    Errr - did he have any policies, apart from making himself the centre of attention all the time? That could be tricky to continue with someone else in the role. Have to look back and see what happened when Medvedev stood in for Putin. But Trump is no Putin (PBTG).

    Given that it's a personality cult, it might be possible to transfer the affection to a family member, especially if it's someone who's already big in the public eye(like Ivanka), and Donald plays a high-profile role in the campaign.

    And the "policy" aspect of it could be as vague as "She'll do everything her dad woulda done!!", without the faithful getting into too much detail about what that would be.

    (And FWIW, immigration and anti-masking were two areas where I think DJT did have distinct policies, though on the latter his contribution was mostly rhetorical.)
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 16
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Yeah, I thought of him, but I still think the best bet would be Ivanka.

    Granted, I've seen very little of either of them in moving-image media, but I really do get the impression that Ivanka is the more telegenic, and hence charismatic, of the two.

    Plus, if I'm not mistaken, she legally goes by her old man's name, so in addition to campaigning as "Trump", she could have the name appear on the ballots.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    And those fascist bastards Cruz and Hawley and all neo-fascist and cowardly Representatives and Senators who spoke and voted against the fully constitutional vote.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Wait - what about all those other sons that T actually had? Why does he need another one?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Wait - what about all those other sons that T actually had? Why does he need another one?

    Golden Key's odd usage of the phrase caught my eye as well. But I assumed she meant something like "The guy who he wishes was his son."
  • Why though? Eric and Donald Jr. seem a lot more Trump-y than Kushner!
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    edited January 16
    mousethief wrote: »
    On the spelling thing: perhaps Barron wasn't named after the rank of nobility so much as a weekly magazine owned by the Wall Street Journal.

    Or because his mother... wasn't barren?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Yeah, I thought of him, but I still think the best bet would be Ivanka.

    Granted, I've seen very little of either of them in moving-image media, but I really do get the impression that Ivanka is the more telegenic, and hence charismatic, of the two.

    Plus, if I'm not mistaken, she legally goes by her old man's name, so in addition to campaigning as "Trump", she could have the name appear on the ballots.
    Trump supporters seem to need to follow a bully; I don’t think she’s ever shown that kind of affect.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 16
    Dave W wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Yeah, I thought of him, but I still think the best bet would be Ivanka.

    Granted, I've seen very little of either of them in moving-image media, but I really do get the impression that Ivanka is the more telegenic, and hence charismatic, of the two.

    Plus, if I'm not mistaken, she legally goes by her old man's name, so in addition to campaigning as "Trump", she could have the name appear on the ballots.
    Trump supporters seem to need to follow a bully; I don’t think she’s ever shown that kind of affect.

    Probably not, but remember, in my scenario, she's viewed by the voters as the avatar of her father, who would be front-and-centre in the campaign.

    I doubt that Lurleen Wallace was anywhere near the rabble-rousing populist that George was, but when she ran for Governor of Alabama in 1966(in order to dodge the term-limits law), I think most people understood that a vote for her was a vote for everything George stood for.

    (My understanding is that people actually expected the First Gentleman to function as the de facto Governor, but I'm not sure how far that was taken. Did he actually attend cabinet meetings in her stead? Question for anyone who might know.)
  • Franklin Graham, what?
    https://twitter.com/Franklin_Graham/status/1349795016848379911?s=20

    "Shame, shame on the ten Republicans who joined with @SpeakerPelosi
    & the House Democrats in impeaching President Trump yesterday. After all that he has done for our country, you would turn your back & betray him so quickly? What was done yesterday only further divides our nation."

    How far evangelical Christianity has fallen into the maw of the beast.
  • WTAF!

    Mind you, I never felt particularly comfortable at FG's father's links with politicians, and was perturbed that he never spoke out about other prominent evangelicals, including Franklin, aligning themselves so publucly and exclusively with the GOP.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    Trump supporters are not going to vote for a female president.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Franklin Graham, what?
    https://twitter.com/Franklin_Graham/status/1349795016848379911?s=20

    "Shame, shame on the ten Republicans who joined with @SpeakerPelosi
    & the House Democrats in impeaching President Trump yesterday. After all that he has done for our country, you would turn your back & betray him so quickly? What was done yesterday only further divides our nation."

    How far evangelical Christianity has fallen into the maw of the beast.

    I found this article from Religion Dispatches.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Trump supporters are not going to vote for a female president.

    I'm pretty sure alot of them voted for the GOP ticket in 2008.
  • Yes I am sure most Trump supporters would have no problem voting for a female president if she pushed the right buttons.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Purgatory Host
    The culture war has intensified since then.
  • Even so I imagine that some sort of super-Palin would find it possible to win approval in Republican heartlands. I don't see Ivanka Trump as the one to do it, though.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Yeah, I thought of him, but I still think the best bet would be Ivanka.

    Granted, I've seen very little of either of them in moving-image media, but I really do get the impression that Ivanka is the more telegenic, and hence charismatic, of the two.

    Plus, if I'm not mistaken, she legally goes by her old man's name, so in addition to campaigning as "Trump", she could have the name appear on the ballots.

    I don't think that the Republican party would be daft enough to pick anyone associated with Trump but I was wrong last time.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    The culture war has intensified since then.

    True, but I don't think it's at the point where most people who voted for a woman to be a Heartbeat Away in 2008 have now become so convinced of female inferiority that they would reject even a woman candidate who was in the right party, endorsed by their hero, and was giving them everything they wanted politically.

    Now, if it were a female DEMOCRAT running for POTUS, yes, those same people might very well attack her in misogynistic terms that would imply women are unfit for the presidency.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Yeah, I thought of him, but I still think the best bet would be Ivanka.

    Granted, I've seen very little of either of them in moving-image media, but I really do get the impression that Ivanka is the more telegenic, and hence charismatic, of the two.

    Plus, if I'm not mistaken, she legally goes by her old man's name, so in addition to campaigning as "Trump", she could have the name appear on the ballots.
    Trump supporters seem to need to follow a bully; I don’t think she’s ever shown that kind of affect.

    Probably not, but remember, in my scenario, she's viewed by the voters as the avatar of her father, who would be front-and-centre in the campaign.

    In your scenario, why isn't Trump running himself? Why would he be promoting anyone else? That seems very out of character.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 16
    Dave W wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Yeah, I thought of him, but I still think the best bet would be Ivanka.

    Granted, I've seen very little of either of them in moving-image media, but I really do get the impression that Ivanka is the more telegenic, and hence charismatic, of the two.

    Plus, if I'm not mistaken, she legally goes by her old man's name, so in addition to campaigning as "Trump", she could have the name appear on the ballots.
    Trump supporters seem to need to follow a bully; I don’t think she’s ever shown that kind of affect.

    Probably not, but remember, in my scenario, she's viewed by the voters as the avatar of her father, who would be front-and-centre in the campaign.

    In your scenario, why isn't Trump running himself? Why would he be promoting anyone else? That seems very out of character.

    Somewhere along the way, we got discussing the possibility of DJT being unable to run again, and it went from there.

    The thread has gotten a little convoluted, but I think Ohher's post on the previous page might be the beginning of the tangent.

    @Ohher

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Ah, I see. Still, I can't see him putting any significant amount of effort into anything that isn't directly about him.

    I think it's more likely he'll spend his time and his donors' money trying to bring down the Republicans in Congress who failed to challenge the Biden results, holding rallies around the country that are supposed to boost primary challengers but which somehow always turn into long, rambling recitations of every slight he's perceived and grudge he's carried these last four years.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I hear tell it will cost the American Taxpayer $500,000 to deep clean the White House before the Bidens will be able to move in. Do you think it will be enough to clear out the Trump stench?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    stetson wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Don't forget Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, as a possible T-related future candidate. He seems to be the son T never had--though I haven't seen T behave that way for some time.

    Wait - what about all those other sons that T actually had? Why does he need another one?

    Golden Key's odd usage of the phrase caught my eye as well. But I assumed she meant something like "The guy who he wishes was his son."

    Yes. T has often seemed much more approving and proud of Jared than of DT Jr. and Eric. I'm not the only one who's noticed. Late-night talk shows periodically joke about DT Jr. and Eric trying to get his attention.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Gramps--

    Probably part of that is checking for any unpleasant/dangerous surprises left for the new administration.

    Of course, they might also be bringing in space-blessers, shamans, and clergy (oh, my) of any religion they can thin of to do a spiritual deep cleansing of the place.

    Both are good ideas, I think.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The New York Times is known for giving excellent obituaries for notables. Is this one for the pariah that is leaving the White House?
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The New York Times is known for giving excellent obituaries for notables. Is this one for the pariah that is leaving the White House?

    Wow, David Asp, RNC member, says the GOP should “advance a vision for the party focused on the national interest.” That would turn back the clock how many decades?
  • This CNN article paints the picture of a broken man, exploding in expletives if someone mentions Nixon, beating his breast over the PGA's snub, abandoned by most of his brown-nosers, fearing the coming legal onslaught.

    I'm not finding any sympathy frankly.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Last night I saw some footage of Trump staff(?) hauling stuff out of the White House. One item was a bust of Abraham Lincoln.

    It could be his, I guess. :neutral:
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I hear tell it will cost the American Taxpayer $500,000 to deep clean the White House before the Bidens will be able to move in. Do you think it will be enough to clear out the Trump stench?

    I would be so tempted to get a pastor or priest in, to exorcise the place.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited January 16
    Lyda wrote: »
    Last night I saw some footage of Trump staff(?) hauling stuff out of the White House. One item was a bust of Abraham Lincoln.

    It could be his, I guess. :neutral:

    There are people permanently assigned to inventorying, tracking, setting up and taking down various artifacts in the White House. At this point in the cycle they would be hauling things out to return them to storage/original owner (if lent). I'd be very hesitant to accuse anybody carrying stuff out of behaving unethically unless it was clear this was a person NOT on that staff (say, Jared or Ivanka).

    Which is not to say that I think T & Co. wouldn't clean the place out in a heartbeat, if they could find a way...
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Good point.
  • Do you think they'd try to dump the computers? I knew somebody to do that, when they left a job in a hissy fit.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Some people in Clinton's staff removed key board keys from some computers to prank Bush's people.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I hear tell it will cost the American Taxpayer $500,000 to deep clean the White House before the Bidens will be able to move in. Do you think it will be enough to clear out the Trump stench?

    I would be so tempted to get a pastor or priest in, to exorcise the place.

    Where's Zelda Rubinstein when we need her so badly?
This discussion has been closed.