Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

15657596162106

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is impeachment the only tool for Trump facing justice?

    The Department of Justice holds the position that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted. This is unsurprising since Attorneys General are picked by presidents and one of the typical qualifying factors in making that choice is an expansive view of presidential authority coupled with a minimalist view of presidential accountability. Another body, like the Supreme Court, may come to a different conclusion. They've already held that a sitting president can be civilly indicted and tried. For those interested in the legal intricacies of the question, this Lawfare article is a good place to start. In short, there's no explicit Constitutional barrier to a sitting president being indicted or convicted in a criminal proceeding, just a lot of legal briefs that argue it would be incredibly inconvenient to do so.

    For what it's worth, although they haven't stated it explicitly the Trump Justice Department seems to be congealing around the position that Trump committed felonies to become president* but that he can't be prosecuted for them because he's president*.

    From the historical record we know that vice presidents can be criminally indicted and tried. There's the case of Spiro Agnew within living memory, and Aaron Burr was indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey when he was vice president.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Re the UN ambassador. You really couldn't make this stuff up. Trump's appointment 'skills' strike again.

    I suppose Mattis will be next to go. Trump will be lining up Triple H, with Brock Lesnar and Rhonda Rousey as deputy enforcers.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    There was also something about a woman who used to be a host on Fox News possibly being nominated as UN ambassador. AIUI, she was on T's favorite Fox show.

    Yes. She has been misquoted as saying that D-Day was a good example of our cooperating with the German government. Seriously.

    Correction provided gratis.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    romanlion wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    There was also something about a woman who used to be a host on Fox News possibly being nominated as UN ambassador. AIUI, she was on T's favorite Fox show.

    Yes. She has been misquoted as saying that D-Day was a good example of our cooperating with the German government. Seriously.

    Correction provided gratis.

    Full quote, including video, here.
    When you talk about Germany, we have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany. Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion. We obviously have a very long history with the government of Germany, and we have a strong relationship with the government.

    So technically Nauert cited D-Day as an example of the U.S. having "a very strong relationship with the government of Germany", not "a good example of our cooperating with the German government". I'm not sure that distinction makes a difference, though technically speaking invasion is a form of "relationship", I guess.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited December 2018
    tangent/

    Couldn't you have kept Steve Bannon over there? He's busy fanning the flames here alongside Marine Le Pen (link in French because I can't find decent coverage in English*):
    "In the little villages and rural areas of France, in the streets of Paris, the "yellow vests", the "deplorables" of France, exactly the same people as those who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016, the same people as those who voted for Brexit..."

    *Same event, not so specific coverage

    /tangent
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    romanlion wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    There was also something about a woman who used to be a host on Fox News possibly being nominated as UN ambassador. AIUI, she was on T's favorite Fox show.

    Yes. She has been misquoted as saying that D-Day was a good example of our cooperating with the German government. Seriously.

    Correction provided gratis.

    Host Hat On

    romanlion

    Changing the meaning of another Shipmate's post by misquoting that post is not allowed here.

    In view of your track record I am reporting this latest offence to Admin.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host

    Host Hat Off

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is impeachment the only tool for Trump facing justice?

    The Department of Justice holds the position that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted. This is unsurprising since Attorneys General are picked by presidents and one of the typical qualifying factors in making that choice is an expansive view of presidential authority coupled with a minimalist view of presidential accountability. Another body, like the Supreme Court, may come to a different conclusion. They've already held that a sitting president can be civilly indicted and tried. For those interested in the legal intricacies of the question, this Lawfare article is a good place to start. In short, there's no explicit Constitutional barrier to a sitting president being indicted or convicted in a criminal proceeding, just a lot of legal briefs that argue it would be incredibly inconvenient to do so.

    For what it's worth, although they haven't stated it explicitly the Trump Justice Department seems to be congealing around the position that Trump committed felonies to become president* but that he can't be prosecuted for them because he's president*.

    From the historical record we know that vice presidents can be criminally indicted and tried. There's the case of Spiro Agnew within living memory, and Aaron Burr was indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey when he was vice president.

    I assume he can be charged for offenses committed in office once he's voted out. The Presidential immunity, if it exists, does not apply once he's no longer President, right?
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited December 2018
    admin mode/

    @romanlion

    Making other people's post content appear to say something it doesn't qualifies as jerkish behaviour of the highest order under Commandment One. You won't get a second warning over this.

    If you want to counter an allegation (e.g. about what somebody is supposed to have said or not said), the Purgatory way is to request the poster for evidence or provide some counter-evidence of your own. Your remaining onboard here depends on adjusting your behaviour in this respect too.

    /admin mode



  • Eutychus wrote: »
    admin mode/

    @romanlion

    Making other people's post content appear to say something it doesn't qualifies as jerkish behaviour of the highest order under Commandment One. You won't get a second warning over this.

    If you want to counter an allegation (e.g. about what somebody is supposed to have said or not said), the Purgatory way is to request the poster for evidence or provide some counter-evidence of your own. Your remaining onboard here depends on adjusting your behaviour in this respect too.

    /admin mode



    Understood.

    Since the post following mine provided the actual quote demonstrating the error I assumed anything further would have been redundant. Full disclosure, my post was also partly a jab at the poster I quoted who "fixed" a shipmate's comment by adding a gratuitous expletive on page 56 of this thread.

    A second warning won't be required. Thank you.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    I heard someone American on the radio opine that the statute of limitations on the election-related offence concerning the payments to the porn star and the playgirl expired in 2021, so that Trump could not be charged if he got re-elected in 2020 if the DoJ's view of Presidential immunity in criminal matters prevailed. This same American held the view that the Court might well take a different view to the DoJ. I have a feeling he was a Democrat, but I only caught part of the interview on my way to the shop to buy icecream. I wonder if the Court could 'stop the clock' in effect on the limitation period? I have a dim recollection too that Courts in Australia can elect to proceed despite the expiration of a limitation period. That might have been a cheese dream.

    By the time I came out with peanut butter, two loaves of bread, the ice cream, a packet of Vita-wheats and a bag of Smith's thin-cut potato chips, the radio had moved on to another story.
  • admin mode/
    romanlion wrote: »
    Full disclosure, my post was also partly a jab at the poster I quoted who "fixed" a shipmate's comment by adding a gratuitous expletive on page 56 of this thread.

    You (and everybody else) can take as read some legalese along the lines of "unless notice is otherwise served in writing, the non-application of any given rule by the Crew in any given instance shall not be understood to mean that any such rule is waived, inapplicable, or not enforced", and take any more such comments to the Styx.

    /admin mode

  • So Maria Butina has agreed to plead guilty. She's a Russian who was allegedly working to recruit Republicans for Russia and possibly funneling Russian money to the Trump campaign via the NRA. This bit from ABC's account has gotten a lot of attention:
    And during an FBI raid of [ Republican operative and Butina boyfriend Paul ] Erickson’s South Dakota home, investigators discovered a handwritten note suggesting Erickson may have been aware of a possible job offer from Russian intelligence services: “How to respond to FSB offer of employment?” Erickson scratched, an apparent reference to the Russian equivalent of the CIA.

    Maybe it's just me, but if you're going to leave papers lying around asking if you should become a spy, you're probably not cut out for it.
  • was he drawing up a SWOT chart maybe?
  • I'll look out for Trump denying it on Twitter in the next couple of days, then we'll know it's true.

    AFZ
  • Nothing on what Trump did with Chuck and Nancy today? Unprecedented, and compelling as hell to watch!

    Her response afterward was nearly as entertaining.

    Two long years to go, I'm sure that duo will get better as they go.
  • romanlion wrote: »
    Nothing on what Trump did with Chuck and Nancy today?

    You mean his acting like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum to get what he wants?
    :rage:

  • Romanlion, I think you must have something in your eye.
  • So much of wall has been built.

    Including "really effective renovation".
  • romanlion wrote: »
    Nothing on what Trump did with Chuck and Nancy today? Unprecedented, and compelling as hell to watch!

    It was "unprecedented" only because it happened in America. As Charlie Pierce noted it would be a typical Question Time in your average parliamentary democracy "[ b ]ut, because the American government is greased by tawdry piety and transparently artificial civility, the meeting might as well have taken place in the Octogon."

    For those who have a quarter hour to spare here is the whole exchange.

    For those who don't want to spend a quarter hour watching Trump bellow "wall" or "border security" any time Pelosi or Schumer calls him on his prevarications Aaron Rupar has highlights in Twitter format.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I admire Nancy Pelosi's candid response: "You get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you."

    And about his obsession with the wall: ""It's like a manhood thing for him — as if manhood could ever be associated with him."

    Brava, Nancy! My favorite Italian aunt -- and everybody's.
  • I have a theory that Mexico will pay for the wall. They will even build it themselves.

    It is traditional for fugitives from Justice in the US to head South.

    When the FBI comes calling and Trump jumps in a car... something makes me think Mexico will want to keep him out...

    :wink:
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    When the FBI comes calling and Trump jumps in a car...
    I'm sure his friend Teresa May will welcome him in.
    (The pundits will be forecasting that she can't possibly hold onto power for another week, but she'll still be holding on like a limpet.)
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    I'm sure his friend Teresa May will welcome him in.
    (The pundits will be forecasting that she can't possibly hold onto power for another week, but she'll still be holding on like a limpet.)

    Recent video has surfaced indicating May is quite fond of limpets and other fishes.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I admire Nancy Pelosi's candid response: "You get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you."

    And about his obsession with the wall: ""It's like a manhood thing for him — as if manhood could ever be associated with him."

    Brava, Nancy! My favorite Italian aunt -- and everybody's.

    A link for those who need it.
  • I admire Nancy Pelosi's candid response: "You get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you."

    And about his obsession with the wall: ""It's like a manhood thing for him — as if manhood could ever be associated with him."

    Brava, Nancy! My favorite Italian aunt -- and everybody's.

    The 2020 dim nominee, flanked by Chuck and Nancy...

    The cartoons draw themselves.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    I do like Pelosi. The Democrats would be wise to keep her level head and experience in the House, even if she has apparently promised to relinquish the Speakership in four year's time. I understand the pressure on her though. The Democrats have a wealth of talent in their rank and file Representatives. It looks like young and talented Republicans are on the other hand leaving in droves. No doubt it is the smart move. You can sense the smell of death in the White House even from Downunder. I'm not sure what's wrong with some people's noses in the vicinity of North Carolina. Perhaps its related to the problem with their vision.

    But as we have just examined, Trump's corruption, double-dealing and fraudulent behavior was well known around the world for years. It is no secret that the guy was an ethics free zone. It is no secret that no respectable bank would lend him money during periods when they would give money to almost anyone.

    What I have never understood is how ordinary Republicans who voted in the Primaries decided that this is OK. They decided that they would prefer this admitted criminal and multiple bankrupt to any of the other Republican candidates on offer. They decided that they preferred the obvious criminality of Trump to the legalised corruption of the other candidates, who were not given money because of their core beliefs, but who constructed their platform so that they would receive money.

    Republicans who voted for Trump in the primaries were fools. Their loyalty was too easily purchased by this scammer who tailored his message to support their deeply racist, misogynist and ultimately atavistic fantasies. Trump hates women and people of other ethnic backgrounds, and he is savage at his heart, enjoying causing suffering while he remains safe. He didn't have to pretend. All he had to do was shout and snarl and Republicans and others rallied to him. But Trump is for nobody but Trump. He is interested in satisfying his greed and other urges, especially the urge to make himself feel important. But his soul is empty. He is never satisfied, and that is why he continually seeks to enrich himself at the expense of others.

    Romanlion makes a foolish decision indeed when they support Trump. At present, he is hooked and the line is running, but he is not yet reeled in. He might yet break the line, but he is tiring. People like Romanlion would do well to abandon their tarnished idol quickly, before they end up fruitlessly protesting for his release from a Federal Prison somewhere, their image used as an example of ridiculous and unwarranted loyalty.

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    {H/As: Please delete my last post, just before this. It's accidentally incomplete. Thx!}
    (Done - B62)
    Various:

    --Re Ms. Nancy:

    She is, very specifically, my representative, 'cause she's the rep for my district. She's done a good job, I think, over the years. And she has a ton of experience, knowledge, and coping with the system. She should be speaker again, for as long as she both wants to do the job *and* can do it. (Maybe with some really good aides, if necessary, given her age.)

    I'm concerned about what I've heard of the new crop of not-sworn-in-yet representatives, particularly the young ones. It sounds like they want to take over NOW, and don't have the sense to wait a bit and maybe learn something. Particularly Alexandria Occasio Cortez, of New York. It's not just that they want to hit the ground running--they seem to want to throw out the experienced folks; slash and burn the House as it is now; and immediately make it over in their images and the images of their ideas.

    I realize that's pretty common, and not just in politics. But if they accomplish that, in the way they want to accomplish it, they're apt to do far more harm than good--and, with this administration, we just can't afford it.

    --I don't particularly care, at this point, whether or not T goes to prison. I want him, Pence, and their staff all out of office--legally, non-violently, but *out* *soon*. To borrow a phrase, they can all go to the places of their best good--and that absolutely isn't in national public office.

    --Re why ordinary Republicans voted for T:

    If they're rich and powerful, to keep their party in power. If they're weary of poverty and hard times, and desperately want another chance to get (back?) what they should have, they may have thought T was the only candidate offering what they need. They may have tuned out everything else he said/did; or decided that all politicians pull that kind of crap, so he's not going to be worse than any other politician; or maybe they thought all the quotes and allegations by/about T were fake news.

    And, of course, it may be that Russian meddling had more to do with T's "win" than the Republican voters did.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »

    Romanlion makes a foolish decision indeed when they support Trump. At present, he is hooked and the line is running, but he is not yet reeled in. He might yet break the line, but he is tiring. People like Romanlion would do well to abandon their tarnished idol quickly, before they end up fruitlessly protesting for his release from a Federal Prison somewhere, their image used as an example of ridiculous and unwarranted loyalty.

    I suppose you could have me more wrong, but it would take effort.

  • romanlion wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    Romanlion makes a foolish decision indeed when they support Trump. At present, he is hooked and the line is running, but he is not yet reeled in. He might yet break the line, but he is tiring. People like Romanlion would do well to abandon their tarnished idol quickly, before they end up fruitlessly protesting for his release from a Federal Prison somewhere, their image used as an example of ridiculous and unwarranted loyalty.

    I suppose you could have me more wrong, but it would take effort.

    He could have got you less wrong, but you would need to provide more than a mere assertion.
  • One of the interesting things about American politics is that the further you are to the right the less likely it is that you'll ever be held accountable for your actions. For example:
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I'm concerned about what I've heard of the new crop of not-sworn-in-yet representatives, particularly the young ones. It sounds like they want to take over NOW, and don't have the sense to wait a bit and maybe learn something. Particularly Alexandria Occasio Cortez, of New York. It's not just that they want to hit the ground running--they seem to want to throw out the experienced folks; slash and burn the House as it is now; and immediately make it over in their images and the images of their ideas.

    The abandoned plan to supplant Pelosi as the next Speaker of the House was engineered primarily by Tim Ryan (a Congressman from Ohio starting his ninth term in January) and Seth Moulton (starting on his third term representing Massachusetts' 6th district). Ryan is fairly conservative by the standards of the Democratic Party. Moulton less so, but neither is some new arrival. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, was not part of the attempt to kneecap a second Pelosi Speakership but rather forcefully threw her support behind Pelosi at the earliest opportunity. Acknowledging this doesn't let people (and the media) have their comfortable narrative/rant about kids-these-days with their wild and crazy ideas so the actions of folks like Ryan and Moulton are deftly and falsely attributed to Ocasio-Cortez.

    Bringing this back to the Trump administration*, I'm guessing something like this will start happening soon with Republicans, if it's not underway already. We saw something similar happen between approximately November 5, 2008 and January 20, 2009 when a bunch of newly-minted "independents" suddenly appeared on the scene claiming that they'd never heard of this "George W. Bush" fellow. Maybe they'll dust off the old tricorns with the bags of Lipton attached to replace their MAGA hats, or maybe they'll come up with some completely different sort of headgear. Either way, it would be nice if this time the pretense of being a different person because of a change of hat could be abandoned.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    romanlion wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    Romanlion makes a foolish decision indeed when they support Trump. At present, he is hooked and the line is running, but he is not yet reeled in. He might yet break the line, but he is tiring. People like Romanlion would do well to abandon their tarnished idol quickly, before they end up fruitlessly protesting for his release from a Federal Prison somewhere, their image used as an example of ridiculous and unwarranted loyalty.

    I suppose you could have me more wrong, but it would take effort.

    He could have got you less wrong, but you would need to provide more than a mere assertion.

    Hear hear. My recollection is that Romanlion claims to support an independent of one stripe or another (no prizes for guessing which side of the spectrum). The evidence of their posts on both this and the old forum is consistent with the most ardent of Trump supporters. This is especially true of Romanlion's recent post concerning Trump's meeting with the leadership of the Democratic party. It's like the post was written by a blind adherent, unable to see past the huge shadow their idol throws in their mind. It had no balance, no insight, and betrayed no evidence of the author having watched the meeting unfold on television, or have considered any of its implications. Rather, it was like a regurgitation of whatever prejudiced pundit Romanlion follows, no doubt a pundit who would have self-published a photocopied pamphlet every now and then before the arrival of the internet, or maybe had a weekly programme on community access radio. Make no mistake: Romanlion is a huge fan of President Trump.


  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Let's not divert the thread by speculating about the opinions of a Shipmate.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Posting as a Shipmate.

    Trump is into managing the news cycle so I think he probably wanted to divert some attention away from his guilty ex-lawyer. Hence the stunt. His comments failed various fact-checks, but when has that ever bothered him.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    I think the media really likes the narrative of old versus new, partially as a way to make the new people look foolish. Clearly that AOC is one dumb cookie, look how she wants to make trouble and overthrow all the good things we have. And that narrative got told a lot for a few weeks, so I can see why people were fooled by it, but I think it's authentic fake news. In other words, they have reason to want drama, and drama between two women like that would be considered delectable.
  • Golden Key wrote:
    --Re why ordinary Republicans voted for T:

    If they're rich and powerful, to keep their party in power. If they're weary of poverty and hard times, and desperately want another chance to get (back?) what they should have, they may have thought T was the only candidate offering what they need. They may have tuned out everything else he said/did; or decided that all politicians pull that kind of crap, so he's not going to be worse than any other politician; or maybe they thought all the quotes and allegations by/about T were fake news.

    And, of course, it may be that Russian meddling had more to do with T's "win" than the Republican voters did.

    I'm specifically thinking about the Republican Primaries. There was no appreciable domestic policy difference between the various candidates vying for selection as the endorsed candidate. Bush or Cruz or Rubio or any of the more unlikely contenders would have protected the interests of the wealthy. All would have made the same or similar appointments to the Bench. All would have tinkered at the edges of women's reproductive rights.

    The only difference is in trade policy, the policies that have effectively funneled cash into the hands of wealthy US stockholders (and wealthy individuals elsewhere) and suppressed wages and conditions for working people in developed countries for many years. Trump's policies there ought to have prompted the powerful to support another Republican candidate. Those people in particular, people involved in business and finance, must have known what quality of person Trump is.

    I agree with what you say about Republican voters at the General Election. My issue with Republicans is why choose Trump as your candidate. I didn't think of it at the time. I was too busy pissing myself laughing and then running around screaming and horrified for a good 6 months. Now I am just left with cold hatred for Trump and a desire to come up with a different answer than, 'Many Republicans are horrible racist and sexist homophobes who do not share any of my core believes, not even one vote one value.' The working class resentment one helps, except that when I'm in America, most white people in the West seem to identify as middle class, and all the working class jobs are done by people of colour. I suspect that a fair proportion of the real American working class are not even citizens.
  • Ryan Zinke resigns/is sacked. Who said Trump wasn't draining the swamp?

    I want to do a song to the tune of Alouette...

    Ryan Zinke bought his wife a trinkie
    charged the Government
    used his expense account.

    Drove his kids in Federal car
    Man he really drove them far
    Fed's found out
    trough and snout
    OHHHHHH

    Ryan Zinke ... etc.

    Ok ok, but its just off the top of my head, see.
  • I've heard that Scott Walker is on the short list to replace him.
  • Maybe the gov't should do something wild, and--I don't know--put a Native American in charge of the Dept. of the Interior, as Zinke's replacement? If you check the bottom-of-page nav bar at that link, there's a list of what DOI covers, like the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. It also covers all sorts of land use matters, which often affect Native Americans.
  • THIS government?
  • Well, it would be wild with any gov't the US has had. While writing, it did occur to me that T would probably make some crack about appointing Elizabeth Warren. I didn't have her in mind as a possibility. All things considered, she probably wouldn't be accepted by Native Americans or most other people--and we'd lose her voice in the Senate.

    I just figured a Native American who was particularly environmentally sensitive and tough enough to stand up to big oil, etc., would be a nice change of pace--and give NAs more say in politics and policies that affect them. (Though I think maybe a NA headed the BLM or one of the Indian Bureaus at some point.)
  • It would be brilliant GK.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Well, it would be wild with any gov't the US has had.
    But mousethief's question is still valid. Considering the present Administration's track record on the environment, hoping that they would appoint even somebody with the slightest level of sensitivity to the environment (much less a Native American) makes believing in Santa Claus seem perfectly reasonable by comparison.
  • We can but hope that a temporary blood clot or other medical event in the President's brain causes a miracle appointment. I might be wrong, but I think GK was expressing a fervent wish against all odds.
  • What's that you're saying about Santa? ;)

    Of *course*, what MT said is valid! And, as I said, it would be a wild thing for any US administration in the past to have done, let alone this one. I just think it might be a good thing, and that's all I was suggesting.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Here's a video from PBS Newshour from Shields and Brooks. I find Brooks analysis at times to be, shall we say, idiosyncratic, but that is surely a criticism that could be leveled at me from time to time. But I discovered tonight that he has a long association with the moderate conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard. I thought his reflections on its closure, from about 5:30 to 7:30 on the linked piece were poignant and insightful.

    I particularly like his lament that people no longer seem to join political parties to promote a set of ideas, but to effectively be a cheerleader for whoever is in charge, or to achieve personal power. I think that criticism obviously does not apply to most people in the hetrodox Democrats (Bob 'on the take' Menendez I'm glaring at you), and I do wonder whether it even applies to Republicans. I wonder if the real problem is that the Republican party is presently a hostage to those who practice identity politics in a most virulent way, and who's identity is white and wealthy.

    David Brooks is not that kind of Republican. James Comey is not that kind of Republican. I don't think Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski are that sort of Republican. One can hold conservative views without being a racist.

    I've never looked at the Weekly Standard. Recently I've been too busy trying to find a reason to think kindly towards the fruit loops who put Trump into office. I suspect I've missed out on a good place for thinking.
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Well, it would be wild with any gov't the US has had.
    But mousethief's question is still valid. Considering the present Administration's track record on the environment, hoping that they would appoint even somebody with the slightest level of sensitivity to the environment (much less a Native American) makes believing in Santa Claus seem perfectly reasonable by comparison.

    It’s also almost unimaginable that Trump would appoint anyone other than a wealthy white man (though he might pick a woman if she was rich and white enough).
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    It’s also almost unimaginable that Trump would appoint anyone other than a wealthy white man (though he might pick a woman if she was rich and white enough).

    And good-looking.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »

    At least it shows he has some wisdom and perception to bring to the role (or had some, at least...)!
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Wesley J wrote: »
    It’s also almost unimaginable that Trump would appoint anyone other than a wealthy white man (though he might pick a woman if she was rich and white enough).

    And good-looking.

    He certainly hasn't appointed any good looking white men. (No, I can't stand even to contemplate his brats or his son-in-law, let alone look at them.)
Sign In or Register to comment.