Donald Trump 2020

[henrygandorf 29,190]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I don't know. First I've heard of that. Seems implausible. She's on TBS, not HBO. 

not sure what the joke is here, they’re both under the att umbrella. 

[RPM 26,320]

4 hours ago, plimon said:

Didn't Samantha Bee roll out an app in the 2018 mid-terms that would pay you cash if you did certain tasks?

Yes she did.

Samantha Bee Unveils Midterm Election Trivia App 'This Is Not a Game: The Game' Players can win actual money while also, you know, engaging with their civic responsibility.

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

20 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

not sure what the joke is here, they’re both under the att umbrella. 

Not under the same budgetary constraints. I mean, come on. 

Did it ever actually happen? If so, how much money did the stunt pay out? To how many people? More importantly, did it motivate a significant number of people to register to vote?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,512]

7 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

I can’t see many seniors agreeing to a one time payment of 5k or 10k in exchange for a pause of remaining payments. Outside of someone that has their entire family (kids, grandkids) in financial desperation, no one else would see this as a good idea. It would also test Dan Patrick’s idea that seniors are willing to die.

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

37 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I can’t see many seniors agreeing to a one time payment of 5k or 10k in exchange for a pause of remaining payments. Outside of someone that has their entire family (kids, grandkids) in financial desperation, no one else would see this as a good idea. It would also test Dan Patrick’s idea that seniors are willing to die.

What if they get Tom Selleck to make a commercial promoting it?

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

9 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Fuck, now I have the horrible jingle in my head. 

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You're catching on to the "standing/injury" prong of it, which is one, but not the only aspect of the difficulty in trying to sue on the Constitution without a statute.

I only "picked on" you because you mentioned "ethics laws," which there are none applying to the President.  Except the Emoluments Clause.  And then I explained why that's problematic, despite there being what seems to be a pretty clear violation of it.

And, as brisket alludes, the Supreme Court may decide that although his actions are unconstitutional, he's only answerable for it by impeachment.  Kind of like criminal acts committed by the President in office (although the Supreme Court has never ruled on that).

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." 

Dick Nixon

[DixonHur 11,303]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Bill Barr isn't going to have Hillary and Obama arrested.  Come on.  Let's temper the hysteria just a bit.

Don't know if he will or won't...that's the scary part.

I didn't think he'd sanction the killing of an American journalist by the Saudis...but he did.  There are enumerable examples of things that only three years ago would have seemed impossible to believe would happen in America, but here we are.

Let's not forget this is a guy whose rallying cry during the election was "lock her up!" 

Do you really think that with his back up against the wall, as it is now, that he won't pull out all the stops to win reelection?  Especially knowing that he himself could be locked up if he loses?  Why not throw the Hail Mary to fire up the base?  Who's going to stop him?  Barr? Mitch? By the time it made it to SCOTUS the election would be over.  

I know what you're thinking...it would also energize the Dems...yes, but the GOP can handle that with their patented brand of voter disenfranchisement.  Again, I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just saying I wouldn't be shocked.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

By the time it made it to SCOTUS the election would be over.  

This brings up a broader point for me, being a non-lawyer and all.  Can SCOTUS make a decision on executive actions immediately, without the laborious judicial process, or does it all have to go through the red tape?  Seems like it would be to our benefit for them to step in and just be like, yeah, you can’t fucking do that. 

[DixonHur 11,303]

43 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This brings up a broader point for me, being a non-lawyer and all.  Can SCOTUS make a decision on executive actions immediately, without the laborious judicial process, or does it all have to go through the red tape?  Seems like it would be to our benefit for them to step in and just be like, yeah, you can’t fucking do that. 

Can't do what?  Arrest someone?  Therein lies the problem. 

I hesitated even mentioning SCOTUS because, I'm not sure what part of the Constitution would be violated by arresting someone...anyone.  

[4th&Five 41,541]

 

[DigDug 1,669]

Ah screw it

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by DigDug

[lemonlime 5,503]

13 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Bill Barr isn't going to have Hillary and Obama arrested.  Come on.  Let's temper the hysteria just a bit.

I have no idea if/when they'll start arresting political opponents.  But trump's been leading his cult in chants of "lock her up" for four years now.  It's not hysterical to think he might actually do that.

[4th&Five 41,541]

2 minutes ago, DigDug said:

Ah screw it

 

 

Here you go:

 

[DigDug 1,669]

1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

Here you go:

 

Gracias, struggling to work my new phone.

[Jive Turkey 12,597]

This one is particularly confusing. 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Just now, Jive Turkey said:

This one is particularly confusing. 

 

Why? It's the new attack/talking point. The former president in collusion with the current democratic candidate has been orchestrating the toppling of the current president all along. (Or some convoluted conspiracy theory that the entire world and media and global elitists have as a long range plan.) It's quite diabolical, actually. I'm fairly certain that someone smarter than Trump figured out a strategy by spending time amongst the various Q forums and took note of triggers, etc. and when you have ex CIA like Pompeo pushing certain agendas, you know there are various staffers that can spend time organizing material and then the masses of followers (plus Russia) take it from there. I mean, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it sure seems like they want the supporters to keep chasing rabbits and the media to keep following those stories so that the rest of the activities and dissemblings are not discussed. It plays right into the cohesion of supporters (us vs the world that is against us. only we know the truth. the truth is out there.)

 

As far as the twitter regarding Trump's tweet volume this weekend, Factbase attributed some as being likely from staff. Still, one would think anyone not named Trump would be a little more self aware as to content that reflects so poorly but nevertheless....

[Jack Straw 2,954]

18 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I have no idea if/when they'll start arresting political opponents.  But trump's been leading his cult in chants of "lock her up" for four years now.  It's not hysterical to think he might actually do that.

or that virtually all Republicans would be perfectly fine with it.  we all know they would be.

[DigDug 1,669]

8 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

This one is particularly confusing. 

 

This is not a President or leadership administration, it’s a marketing/pr firm.

It’s a marketing firm whose focus is disinformation, corruption, hate & fear.

And I’ll give it to them, they are world class at it.  Their slogan should be, Republicans, We’ll Troll For You!

[SameSame 1,704]

28 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Here you go:

 

You know as a parent, if my kid was tweeting that much they would probably be assigned some immediate chores and have their phone taken away for a while.

[DixonHur 11,303]

15 minutes ago, DigDug said:

Their slogan should be, Republicans, We’ll Troll For You!

Except it's not trolling...they're serious.

[Nivek 16,928]

Republicanism: distracting from reality with stupidity

33 million lost their jobs, while the elite gained 300 billion in net worth.   That is their only policy.  

[wildcat09 29,354]

15 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Bill Barr isn't going to have Hillary and Obama arrested.  Come on.  Let's temper the hysteria just a bit.

This post has some real @David Dennison energy to it.

[4th&Five 41,541]

 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

I have no idea if/when they'll start arresting political opponents.  But trump's been leading his cult in chants of "lock her up" for four years now.  It's not hysterical to think he might actually do that.

They would have to get a grand jury to indict. Trump's tweets and Breitbart articles will not cut it in our judicial system. At some point you have to have the goods like in the case of Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Stone. 

[jimmyjazz 45,935]

4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Don't know if he will or won't...that's the scary part.

I didn't think he'd sanction the killing of an American journalist by the Saudis...but he did.  There are enumerable examples of things that only three years ago would have seemed impossible to believe would happen in America, but here we are.

Let's not forget this is a guy whose rallying cry during the election was "lock her up!" 

Do you really think that with his back up against the wall, as it is now, that he won't pull out all the stops to win reelection?  Especially knowing that he himself could be locked up if he loses?  Why not throw the Hail Mary to fire up the base?  Who's going to stop him?  Barr? Mitch? By the time it made it to SCOTUS the election would be over.  

 

I feel like you're not understanding my point.  I wasn't talking about Trump.  I agree that Trump would, at any point in time, see almost any action as reasonable.  I'm saying that Bill Barr isn't going to act on Trump's whims to have Hillary or Obama thrown in jail.  I guess we'll see.

[Loch Ness Monster 3,533]

Our President seems to be a professional Twitter poster. 

At least we're lucky nothing serious is going on right now. 

[tx 3 putt 76,951]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Why? 

His base hates blacks, especially uppity smart blacks. Especially especially blacks that are much more successful and rich, compared to the base. He’s playing to his base. 
 

sometime between now and the election, expect a ‘border crisis’ and renewed attacks in the browns. 

[DixonHur 11,303]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I feel like you're not understanding my point.  I wasn't talking about Trump.  I agree that Trump would, at any point in time, see almost any action as reasonable.  I'm saying that Bill Barr isn't going to act on Trump's whims to have Hillary or Obama thrown in jail.  I guess we'll see.

My point is that no one has yet stopped Trump from doing anything, so I'm not sure why it would be any different in this case.  

 

12 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

They would have to get a grand jury to indict. Trump's tweets and Breitbart articles will not cut it in our judicial system. At some point you have to have the goods like in the case of Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Stone. 

Sol Wachtler says hello

[Brisketexan 105,134]

5 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Our President seems to be a professional Twitter poster. 

At least we're lucky nothing serious is going on right now. 

We don't have a functioning president or executive branch right now.  At least when it comes to that thing called "governing."

Now, they're doing things -- they are cranking out and disseminating propaganda.  They are pursuing further propaganda.  But as for actually DOING anything that we would call "governing' -- that is, taking care of the business of the country, in the interest of the country?  Nope.  Airlines are busier flying passengers (5% of historic load) than these guys are at governing.

Again, we are facing the greatest crisis in the past three generations, and we DO NOT HAVE ANY NATIONAL LEADERSHIP.  What a fucking shitshow.

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

12 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

It's actually pretty interesting to watch him float these trial balloons in real time in an attempt to find the narrative to pursue.  He's gone from "the cure can't be worse than the disease" to "wartime president" to the rampant overuse of the word "warriors" last week to describe citizens and now to "Obamagate."  It's such a blatant and obvious "throw shit and see what sticks" situation, and it is depressing to know that inevitably one of these will.

[Message Board User 12,395]

Considering Obama’s popularity vs Trump’s popularity, making Obama an issue in the 2020 campaign seems pretty stupid, even for them.

[DixonHur 11,303]

1 minute ago, Message Board User said:

Considering Obama’s popularity vs Trump’s popularity, making Obama an issue in the 2020 campaign seems pretty stupid, even for them.

When was the last time Trump did something that made you think..."now, that's a smart decision"? 

[jimmyjazz 45,935]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

My point is that no one has yet stopped Trump from doing anything, so I'm not sure why it would be any different in this case.  

That's not exactly true.  While I'd have to spend some time digging up the information, because I can only hold so many details in my head at one time, plenty of the people who have been fired by Trump have resisted his absurd implications and directives.  Now, that brings up the obvious point:  he'd fire Barr and install some lackey willing to pursue that angle, and that could be true.  My point is that Barr himself would probably not pursue such a brazen law enforcement action.  For one thing, he'd struggle to get anyone in DOJ and the law enforcement agencies to comply, as would said lackey.  To me, Barr seems entirely a political creature, one who finds ways to twist the rule of law in his favor.  False arrest just doesn't seem like it would be in his bag of tricks.

[Mo Horn 8,836]

21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's actually pretty interesting to watch him float these trial balloons in real time in an attempt to find the narrative to pursue.  He's gone from "the cure can't be worse than the disease" to "wartime president" to the rampant overuse of the word "warriors" last week to describe citizens and now to "Obamagate."  It's such a blatant and obvious "throw shit and see what sticks" situation, and it is depressing to know that inevitably one of these will.

Your post implies there is some thought put into his tweets. No way there is any plan or trial balloons. He just posts whatever shit pops into his brain, or whatever he saw on TV that sounds good.

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Your post implies there is some thought put into his tweets. No way there is any plan or trial balloons. He just posts whatever shit pops into his brain, or whatever he saw on TV that sounds good.

There's no forethought, but there is surely "well that last thing I shouted out to the world hasn't made everyone love me yet, so now let's try this."

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,869]

just came here to post what amazing piece of shit our president is. i seriously don't think we could have put anyone worse in charge.

[henrygandorf 29,190]

7 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

just came here to post what amazing piece of shit our president is. i seriously don't think we could have put anyone worse in charge.

long ago we reached the "silicon valley" situation where the empty chair was seen as a more productive and inspiring leader than actually naming a president (ceo/richard).

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

16 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

What’s his end game ???

I don't think he has an "end game" as such.  It's just the more power he can accrue to the executive and diminish power of other branches, the better.

I'm not sure he gives two fucks about the merits or substance of Trump's various actions.  He knows, though, that Trump's tendency to rule by fiat gives him lots of opportunities to legally justify them and reduce legal opportunities for congress to oversee the executive or curtail executive action.

For example, I don't think he has an opinion on arresting Hillary or Obama, or probably thinks it's a bad idea.  UNLESS he can use it to expand presidential power.

Edited May 11, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,869]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

long ago we reached the "silicon valley" situation where the empty chair was seen as a more productive and inspiring leader than actually naming a president (ceo/richard).

Let's not forget that as soon as he learned covid was disproportionately killing brown people, he stopped doing his press conferences

[henrygandorf 29,190]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Let's not forget that as soon as he learned covid was disproportionately killing brown people, he stopped doing his press conferences

i think it probably has more to do with his fragile ego after the disinfectant stuff.  people were making fun of him, his fellow gop/campaign people said to tone it down, and his numbers with the olds started to suffer.

in short, anytime trump does anything, you can be damn sure the reason boils down to this - it was affecting his ability to get reelected.  every single solitary fucking thing he does is based on that.  everything can be traced back to that.  everything.

[wildcat09 29,354]

The denialism that some people still exhibit about what Trump can and can't do is interesting. We've got the past 3.5 years to show us what he's been able to get away with and the entirety of human history to show us how dictators can undermine and destroy restraints on their power, yet some people are still pretending that there's any restraint but Trump's own incompetence.

He's already destroyed most of our institutions and succeeded in removing anyone who would slow or oppose him. He's absolutely going to try to steal the election.  If Trump loses in November and actually leaves office, it won't be because our institutions were strong and successfully restrained him. It will be because he was too busy live tweeting cable news to more completely dismantle them.

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

Provocative article from The Atlantic on why no editorial board has called for Trump's resignation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/why-no-one-calling-trump-resign/611416/

Notes that many papers called for Nixon and Clinton's resignations.  Explores the tolerance of failure.

[jimmyjazz 45,935]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The denialism that some people still exhibit about what Trump can and can't do is interesting. We've got the past 3.5 years to show us what he's been able to get away with and the entirety of human history to show us how dictators can undermine and destroy restraints on their power, yet some people are still pretending that there's any restraint but Trump's own incompetence.

He's already destroyed most of our institutions and succeeded in removing anyone who would slow or oppose him. He's absolutely going to try to steal the election.

Is anyone arguing that he won't try to steal the election?  I'm not keeping a scorecard, but it seems to be a pretty popular opinion among those who oppose him, and justifiably so.

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

45 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think it probably has more to do with his fragile ego after the disinfectant stuff.  people were making fun of him, his fellow gop/campaign people said to tone it down, and his numbers with the olds started to suffer.

in short, anytime trump does anything, you can be damn sure the reason boils down to this - it was affecting his ability to get reelected.  every single solitary fucking thing he does is based on that.  everything can be traced back to that.  everything.

Absolutely.

The single biggest problem with elected officials is their dedication to re-election.  Even good ones have to spend too much time working on campaigning and what their legislation will do to their re-election chances, no matter how necessary or right it is.

Teh Donald takes that to 11.

[Firemans4Horn 18,048]

1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

Considering Obama’s popularity vs Trump’s popularity, making Obama an issue in the 2020 campaign seems pretty stupid, even for them.

Yup. 
 

 

[Brisketexan 105,134]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

just came here to post what amazing piece of shit our president is. i seriously don't think we could have put anyone worse in charge.

That's the thing....we really couldn't have.  I mean, there are plenty of people with loathsome beliefs and agendas, but almost all of them would manage to govern, even accidentally, just out of some muscle-memory of what the office of president is supposed to do.

It's hard to imagine someone who would do a worse job.  That's fucking amazing.

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

We don't have a functioning president or executive branch right now.  At least when it comes to that thing called "governing."

Now, they're doing things -- they are cranking out and disseminating propaganda.  They are pursuing further propaganda.  But as for actually DOING anything that we would call "governing' -- that is, taking care of the business of the country, in the interest of the country?  Nope.  Airlines are busier flying passengers (5% of historic load) than these guys are at governing.

Again, we are facing the greatest crisis in the past three generations, and we DO NOT HAVE ANY NATIONAL LEADERSHIP.  What a fucking shitshow.

His whole presidency has been a reality tv show. Every crisis he's faced until now has been of his own making. Except now reality has crept into his reality tv show and he can't bullshit his way out of it. Trouble is, that's all he's got. And it's not going to change. 

We really are fucked. 

[henrygandorf 29,190]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Absolutely.

The single biggest problem with elected officials is their dedication to re-election.  Even good ones have to spend too much time working on campaigning and what their legislation will do to their re-election chances, no matter how necessary or right it is.

Teh Donald takes that to 11.

to even take it a step further...

russia = getting elected

ukraine/impeachment = getting elected

you’d be hard pressed to find any move he’s ever made that doesn’t fall under this umbrella. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

to even take it a step further...

russia = getting elected

ukraine/impeachment = getting elected

you’d be hard pressed to find any move he’s ever made that doesn’t fall under this umbrella. 

And even though we knew the cruelty was the point:

Asylum seekers detained=getting elected

Abandoning the Kurds=getting elected

Pretty damn sad.