Jump to content

Donald Trump 2020

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105307

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

i don't even need a crib sheet any longer.

does this person have an (R) next to their name? yes? fuck this person.

Yep.  I'm there.  That said, I regularly provide a crib sheet to a lot of of folks with my recommendations in judicial races.  Historically, my recommendations have been bipartisan (seriously, I've recommended an R in at least one judicial race in every election I can remember....until 2018).  Today, nope.  Having an R next to your name should be punished.  You are associated with and support a criminal enterprise that is actively working to undermine the very foundations of the Republic, and free and fair elections and transfers of power.  I don't care if you're just a good soldier in the Wermacht, just doing your duty -- I don't give a fuck.  I want your unconditional surrender just like I want it from the worst fucking SS officer out there.  You picked the wrong fucking side, and there are consequences.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1391

  • Biff Tannen

    1374

  • 4th&Five

    1222

  • WhatTheBuck

    910

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thatguy
Thatguy

Let me be candid and honest here my man. I cannot be sympathetic to your comments because this is how adult life has always been. From the moment I stepped out of my home and headed off to college I h

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

it won't matter if his taxes ever come out.  it won't matter if his taxes don't ever come out.  you wanna know why?  because we already know what's in them. since early 2017 when people starting

Posted Images

Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13523

Posted
Posted

A peace agreement in the Middle East between Israel and any Arab country is a good thing. However I find it odd that Bahrain and UAE sent their foreign ministers to sign the agreement and not senior leadership.  As in the Emir of Bahrain or at least the Prime Minister. Or the President or VP of UAE. Instead lower leaders are signing. These are Pompeo's equals not Trump's.

Seems like the UAE are basically trading some recognition of Israel for F-35s which even the Saudis don't get. All for a Sept photo op before an Nov election. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted

Stay vigilant.  Be prepared for anything - Including the R rigging shit.  But between those who have left the R party and a unified left I have faith in the system.  Maybe I’m crazy, but I know the power the people of this country have...if they choose to exercise that power, and in that scenario they would, we will be fine.  It won’t be easy but the right side (left) wins this one.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11365

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

A peace agreement in the Middle East between Israel and any Arab country is a good thing. However I find it odd that Bahrain and UAE sent their foreign ministers to sign the agreement and not senior leadership.  As in the Emir of Bahrain or at least the Prime Minister. Or the President or VP of UAE. Instead lower leaders are signing. These are Pompeo's equals not Trump's.

Seems like the UAE are basically trading some recognition of Israel for F-35s which even the Saudis don't get. All for a Sept photo op before an Nov election. 

 

yeah, that's kind of a big middle finger, given that netanyahu is here.

other than that, this is a big cynical trade deal, as far as i see it, but you got to give a little to get a little i reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45724

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pancho said:

 

FFS.  There is so much nonsense here.  Just for starters, you would have heard if the president was talking about staying in office and seizing power?  Well, HE'S FUCKING SAID IT IN PUBLIC MULTIPLE TIMES.  Might want to start paying a bit more attention you baby dinosaur muppet.

He is saying all of their plans out loud in the last paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas Jeff

Texas Jeff 1945

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Maybe the GOP can find a method to not count EC votes but that doesn't change that Trump would be out of office on Jan 21. The office doesn't remain his until an successor is named. I'm unsure of Pence's role if Trump is out. Does the House Speaker become acting POTUS until a president is named?

Every two years after our national elections, the new Congress is sworn in on the following January 3rd.  So on Jan 3rd, 2021, we will have a new Congress and an old President and VP.  If it is also a presidential election year, they meet in joint session on January 6th to count the electoral votes.

For this session, the current VP is in charge.  So Pence will stand up at the front on Jan 6th, 2021, flanked probably by Pelosi as speaker of the house, unless the R's take control of the house.

Four "tellers", two from the house and two from the senate, read and submit the electoral vote count from each state.  At the end, the VP announces the new president and VP, if a candidate got more than 270 votes. You can have objections in writing if signed by a house member and a senator, which would turn into chaos if we were really fighting down to the last vote.

Pence's role is to oversee this process and announce the new president and vice president.  Hopefully someone will win by much more than 270 votes and make this a formality.

If no one gets a majority, it goes to the house to pick the president, but they vote by states so almost certainly Trump would win.  There are tons of weird scenarios that could come into play if this happens.

If a president is not picked by Jan 20th, it's possible that the VP elect (if there is one) or the speaker of the house could be named president , depending on what has happened in the house and senate.

Edited by Texas Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32426

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Glad to see a media outlet that addressed this:

https://www.axios.com/trump-merchandise-fashion-boats-flags-9d27d9cb-ff09-4119-a512-1514fbd5d363.html

 

Quote

If President Trump defies today's swing-state polls and pulls off another upset, what will we have missed that could have been a clue?

Here's a big one: Trump flotillas ... Trump flags bigger than American flags ... Trump truck rallies ... Trump shirts ... Trump underwear ... lawns that don't have a Trump-Pence sign or two but 50 or even 100 — a forest.

Why it matters: To his diehard supporters, Trump isn't just a candidate. He's a lifestyle choice and a vehicle for self-expression — a way to continually flip the middle finger at big media, big business, big government ... anything big.

It's all part of one of the big Trump triumphs — convincing his voters that an attack on him is actually an attack on them.

 

Quote

A hat, popular in rural convenience stores this summer, says it all: "If You Don't Like Trump Then You Probably Won't Like Me."

At rallies, you see people wearing Trump flags like a billowing robe. And a lot of this isn't official campaign merch — people print these up themselves.

At a Trumper classic-car rally in Michigan this weekend, one red, white and blue Trump flag — in place of "Keep America Great" — said, "NO MORE B.S.," with the last word spelled out. Nearby, a man wore a flag-bedecked t-shirt proclaiming: "JESUS IS MY SAVIOR / TRUMP IS MY PRESIDENT."

 

Quote

Trump regattas are everywhere, from the solid South to the fancy waters of Mystic, Conn. (Bad metaphorical optics when five Trump boats, swamped by the wake from a massive lake rally, sank near Austin over Labor Day.)

"Axios on HBO" went to Lake of the Ozarks, Mo., to explore this phenomenon for a segment we call, "Trump on the lake."

Axios CEO Jim VandeHei: "In your lifetime, do you ever remember a Ronald Reagan flag as big as the American flag in somebody's front yard? Do you ever remember someone spray painting 'Obama' on their boat?"

 

Quote

White House editor Margaret Talev: "No, but there's never been a president whose brand was branding. ... They like the fact that he says things that you're not allowed to say — that he says things that they feel that they can't say at work or in mixed company."

Randy Kelly, a retired boat dealer who has lived at Lake of the Ozarks since moving down from Kansas City 43 years ago, told "Axios on HBO":

"If you see someone that has on a Trump hat, there's a camaraderie: Hey, we got something in common."

The bottom line: Trump touts a "silent majority," and pundits pundit about "shy Trump voters" who may be missed by pollsters.

But one of the stories of this election is that the Trump vote is screaming, not silent.

 

 

1600167102881.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted

Have we ever had a blatantly partisan attorney general? I know we've had AGs that clearly belong to one party or another, but have we had one that incorporates said partisanship into their rhetoric and actions on a constant basis like this? Honestly of everything that's happened in the Trump administration, this is one of the most concerning for  me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  I'm there.  That said, I regularly provide a crib sheet to a lot of of folks with my recommendations in judicial races.  Historically, my recommendations have been bipartisan (seriously, I've recommended an R in at least one judicial race in every election I can remember....until 2018).  Today, nope.  Having an R next to your name should be punished.  You are associated with and support a criminal enterprise that is actively working to undermine the very foundations of the Republic, and free and fair elections and transfers of power.  I don't care if you're just a good soldier in the Wermacht, just doing your duty -- I don't give a fuck.  I want your unconditional surrender just like I want it from the worst fucking SS officer out there.  You picked the wrong fucking side, and there are consequences.

We used your suggestions to supplement our candidate info this year during the primaries, so thanks again for that. With incumbents there is a record and news beyond the pretty colored mailers and websites, but with lesser known positions or candidates sussing out someone who is fair and balanced gets tougher. It's what we always did until the GOP went off the cliff into the cesspool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105307

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

We used your suggestions to supplement our candidate info this year during the primaries, so thanks again for that. With incumbents there is a record and news beyond the pretty colored mailers and websites, but with lesser known positions or candidates sussing out someone who is fair and balanced gets tougher. It's what we always did until the GOP went off the cliff into the cesspool.

Yeah, now the general election ballot is really easy: in any race with an R and a D, vote for the D.  Period.  In any case with R and a third party opponent only, vote for the third party candidate.  In any vote in which the R candidate is unopposed, do not vote.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3311

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Have we ever had a blatantly partisan attorney general? I know we've had AGs that clearly belong to one party or another, but have we had one that incorporates said partisanship into their rhetoric and actions on a constant basis like this? Honestly of everything that's happened in the Trump administration, this is one of the most concerning for  me.

Not like this in my lifetime.  He has definitely earned a spot on my upcoming "Piss on their Graves" tour - Trump, McConnell, Limbaugh, Barr, Rupert Murdoch, etc.  I hope I don't have to wait too long.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

 

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Have we ever had a blatantly partisan attorney general? I know we've had AGs that clearly belong to one party or another, but have we had one that incorporates said partisanship into their rhetoric and actions on a constant basis like this? Honestly of everything that's happened in the Trump administration, this is one of the most concerning for  me.

I still maintain that much of what he does isn't just because of his philosophy about the executive branch, etc but that he knows too much regarding what happened during his previous rounds in DC (Iran Contra/ Bush Sr. etc) and that some way some how he is tied up with Epstein and it would blow the ceiling off. As an example, he behaves like a man who is smart but had an affair and everything is snowballing to the point where his wife has him in the kitchen with an ice pick pointed against his male parts.

I've heard he is highly thought of, but I'd like to know in who's esteem that is, because I simply get bad vibes from him. There is my unqualified, unverified opinion and as you all know from my posting history, it's pretty consistent. Perhaps one day I will be proven wrong. I'd like to be. I try and adapt to new information.

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28797

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Have we ever had a blatantly partisan attorney general? I know we've had AGs that clearly belong to one party or another, but have we had one that incorporates said partisanship into their rhetoric and actions on a constant basis like this? Honestly of everything that's happened in the Trump administration, this is one of the most concerning for  me.

John Mitchell, Nixon's AG and Watergate co-conspirator. By the time Barr's through, though, Mitchell might come away looking like a choir boy by comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48161

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

I still maintain that much of what he does isn't just because of his philosophy about the executive branch, etc but that he knows too much regarding what happened during his previous rounds in DC (Iran Contra/ Bush Sr. etc) and that some way some how he is tied up with Epstein and it would blow the ceiling off. As an example, he behaves like a man who is smart but had an affair and everything is snowballing to the point where his wife has him in the kitchen with an ice pick pointed against his male parts.

I've heard he is highly thought of, but I'd like to know in who's esteem that is, because I simply get bad vibes from him. There is my unqualified, unverified opinion and as you all know from my posting history, it's pretty consistent. Perhaps one day I will be proven wrong. I'd like to be. I try and adapt to new information.

well. He'ls not kindly thought of by his fucking alma mater. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/politics/george-washington-law-william-barr/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

Ouch, that is a lot of people on the list there. I cannot recall where I ran across it, but I read a lot (breadth not depth) during the lead up to the impeachment stuff and it may have been something old, from his first AG time or when 41 passed. People sometimes speak a little softer with their criticism around a recent passing than they would otherwise. Or at least they used to, Trump is in a category all his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Ouch, that is a lot of people on the list there. I cannot recall where I ran across it, but I read a lot (breadth not depth) during the lead up to the impeachment stuff and it may have been something old, from his first AG time or when 41 passed. People sometimes speak a little softer with their criticism around a recent passing than they would otherwise. Or at least they used to, Trump is in a category all his own.

Bill Barr got his law degree taking evening classes while working as an intelligence analyst for the CIA and graduated with the highest honors the school can give. He has then climbed up the ladder in the DoJ to become the AG in 1991. He then goes on to have a fantastic legal career in private life that ends with him on the board of directors for Time Warner. In 2019, he finds himself back in the AG chair. As far as legal resumes go, he is in the top 1% of 1%. That should tell you that when someone with that kind of resume says something that blatantly runs against Constitutional law or the democratic processes on which this country functions, they aren't misquoting or misunderstanding a Constitutional concept. They're telling you how THEY think it should be.

Cruz, for example, graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude, was the editor of their Law Review, and was regarded as a brilliant student. He then went on to be the first Hispanic to ever clerk for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was part of the Bush legal team in Bush v. Gore and was Texas Solicitor General at the age of 33. An off the charts legal resume. Top 1% of 1%. I'm certain that if he were to sit down with 99% of the attorneys in the nation to talk Constitutional law and the cases surrounding it, he would embarrass them all outside of people who are Constitutional scholars for a living. Yet, we see him get pantsed on a regular basis when he's holding his ground on his own positions. That's not because he's stupid, in a legal sense. He just doesn't believe that a lot of the law that stands today should be the law and wishes to replace it with his own vision.

People like Barr and Cruz in the government aren't misspeaking when it comes to the law. They're telling you how they think it should be and are actively working to change it. For someone like Cruz, that's part of his job as an elected official. But when it comes to someone like Bill Barr, it is insanely problematic. His job is to enforce the law, as it is today, and advise the executive branch of the law when necessary. The way mail-in voting currently works is the law of the land. He knows it is. But here he is waxing poetic about the loss of the secret vote, conjuring up hypothetical fraud, and then projecting that fraud onto those who he sees as political opponents. Sure, he is entitled to have an opinion, but if Eric Holder went into an interview and questioned the validity of the 2012 election 2 months before election day, it would be an absolute political firestorm and rightfully so. Barr says something like this, Trump latches onto it, and it feeds an already dangerous, out of control rhetoric regarding the 2020 election.

  • Hook 'Em 13
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Bill Barr got his law degree taking evening classes while working as an intelligence analyst for the CIA and graduated with the highest honors the school can give. He has then climbed up the ladder in the DoJ to become the AG in 1991. He then goes on to have a fantastic legal career in private life that ends with him on the board of directors for Time Warner. In 2019, he finds himself back in the AG chair. As far as legal resumes go, he is in the top 1% of 1%. That should tell you that when someone with that kind of resume says something that blatantly runs against Constitutional law or the democratic processes on which this country functions, they aren't misquoting or misunderstanding a Constitutional concept. They're telling you how THEY think it should be.

Cruz, for example, graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude, was the editor of their Law Review, and was regarded as a brilliant student. He then went on to be the first Hispanic to ever clerk for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was part of the Bush legal team in Bush v. Gore and was Texas Solicitor General at the age of 33. An off the charts legal resume. Top 1% of 1%. I'm certain that if he were to sit down with 99% of the attorneys in the nation to talk Constitutional law and the cases surrounding it, he would embarrass them all outside of people who are Constitutional scholars for a living. Yet, we see him get pantsed on a regular basis when he's holding his ground on his own positions. That's not because he's stupid, in a legal sense. He just doesn't believe that a lot of the law that stands today should be the law and wishes to replace it with his own vision.

People like Barr and Cruz in the government aren't misspeaking when it comes to the law. They're telling you how they think it should be and are actively working to change it. For someone like Cruz, that's part of his job as an elected official. But when it comes to someone like Bill Barr, it is insanely problematic. His job is to enforce the law, as it is today, and advise the executive branch of the law when necessary. The way mail-in voting currently works is the law of the land. He knows it is. But here he is waxing poetic about the loss of the secret vote, conjuring up hypothetical fraud, and then projecting that fraud onto those who he sees as political opponents. Sure, he is entitled to have an opinion, but if Eric Holder went into an interview and questioned the validity of the 2012 election 2 months before election day, it would be an absolute political firestorm and rightfully so. Barr says something like this, Trump latches onto it, and it feeds an already dangerous, out of control rhetoric regarding the 2020 election.

Yeah, reading the Wikipedia article, he was unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate with a Judiciary Committee led by, wait for it, Joe Biden.  https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/21/us/barr-is-confirmed-on-voice-vote-as-77th-attorney-general-of-us.html

Some startling quotes and praise in there.  At one time, he was highly thought of.

I will quibble minorly with the "job is to enforce the law as it stands."  AGs have always brought a set of political priorities to their enforcement agenda.  Nothing new about that.  Some are going to emphasize voting and civil rights, or antitrust, others the opposite.  They have a role in shaping the law that is legitimate.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I will quibble minorly with the "job is to enforce the law as it stands."  AGs have always brought a set of political priorities to their enforcement agenda.  Nothing new about that.  Some are going to emphasize voting and civil rights, or antitrust, others the opposite.  They have a role in shaping the law that is legitimate.

For sure. A good AG is one that can squeak those political priorities and enforcement agendas through the already existing goalposts. Bill Barr, unfortunately, is so partisan in his role that he is kicking outside of the goalposts and yelling at the ref to put it on the board, the Roger Stone situation being the prime example.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted

I wish Supreme Court justices, and top government lawyers of all stripes, came from less Beltway-centric backgrounds.  It may be unrealistic for the DOJ.

But, for example, most Commissioners of Patents come from highly varied patent backgrounds with a combination of law firm, government, and corporate positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

I like that during most of that signing ceremony, there was a large commercial truck giving its beeping warning, indicating what we all know. 

That Donald Trump is driving this country backwards.  But at least has the decency to warn us out loud about the fact.  Many are just too dumb to heed it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Siap 

 

I totally believe this guy from #TeamBiden

What disturbs me as an American is not the tweet by a campaign person but the embarrassment that we, as hosts, did not defer to our guests’ reasonable request. That is not how Americans should treat visitors to our shores. My dad would have been so ashamed and as his daughter, I am too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...