Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

DixonHur

DixonHur 11341

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

I thought Rand Paul was for less government?  WTF is up with a lie detector to find your enemies?  Is he one of those pro Fascist Libertarians? 

And isn't he also supposed to be against government surveillance, presidential overstep, and warrantless searches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3593

  • retread

    1324

  • Brisketexan

    1195

  • jimmyjazz

    1186

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

M12BH
M12BH

SInce y'all seem to be my clearinghouse for all things political, let me tell a story.  A couple of them, actually.  Three, if you want to be specific. When I was 14 I went with a family frien

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom
brown water
brown water

Slocum’s Razor

RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29932

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Detour, but I never liked people saying this about Reagan and now it has kind of crept into being an issue of record.  His Alzheimer's didn't start appearing until the 90s.  Here's a quick clip of him in the 1992 convention.  

 

Sorry, man, but:

hqdefault.jpg

We're doing everything we can.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9875

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, troph said:

Impeachment or the 25th amendment are the tools of a resistance that would consider direct insubordination - not subversion and refusal to carry out lawful albeit grossly misguided directives of the President - but removal due to a lack of mental fitness or impeachment and conviction for high crimes. The resistance claims both. To borrow a popular phrase. Just do it.

What if it’s FLOTUS?  She didn’t take an oath to defend the constitution and is not a government employee.  She would just doing what most wives do on a daily basis...passive aggressive resistance.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9875

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Nolacycling said:

Yeah "Be Best" did it, for sure.

All I know is if I ever became president (and It would have to be as a Repub cause no way I could pull it off without serious active measures),  this is exactly the kinda shit I would expect my wife to pull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

Speaking of lie detector tests, from page 68 of:

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

 

Senator HATCH. OK. Now, we understand that the FBI is now requiring polygraphs for managers handling national security matters. Are you willing to continue that approach?


Mr. MUELLER. Yes.


Senator HATCH. And would you be willing to take a polygraph yourself if that were the case?


Mr. MUELLER. Yes, indeed, it is my belief you don’t—this may be my training from the Marine Corps, but you don’t ask people to do that which you’re unwilling to do yourself. I have already taken that polygraph.


Senator HATCH. The only reason I ask that question is because I knew you had, and I just think it is important for people to——


Chairman LEAHY. How did you do?


Senator HATCH. Yes, how did you do?
[Laughter.]


Mr. MUELLER. I’m sitting here. That’s all I can say.


Senator HATCH. We just hope you had a good examiner, that is
all.

https://www.congress.gov/107/chrg/shrg80335/CHRG-107shrg80335.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4984

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, troph said:

If you’re okay with the Op-Ed tell me why that’s better than resigning and telling all, or invoking constitutional process.

 

Here’s why I have a problem with it - it normalizes unlawful behavior making it easier to do next time. And next time the threshold can be lowered to a “I just don’t agree” standard if you can get away with it.

 

At some point we have to stand up and say no to all law breaking in politics. We don’t get our republic back by violating its principles. We can burn it to the ground that way, and if that’s what we want so be it, let anarchy reign.

 

I think trump should be impeached and convicted for financial crimes and collusion/obstruction involving his presidency, the GOP should be strung up by their heels as well, and these hiding cowards should resign and show their faces.

 

And the final return of our republic should be handled with ordinary people taking office.

 

 

 

Sure. If all the lawful avenues weren't corrupted and offices weren't held by unprincipled people - I'd be right there with ya. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105158

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, staboner said:

If all the lawful avenues weren't corrupted and offices weren't held by unprincipled people -

and that's why I've said that we've lost, and that it's already all over.

Because once those things happen, then the only possible outcomes are 1) disaster by letting him actually govern, or 2) destruction of all norms by having a soft coup.  You don't recover from option 1).  And you never get past the new precedent set by option 2).  Sure, we see the distinction, 2) should only be in play when all other failsafes have failed....but do you think a future round of assholes isn't going to use EXACTLY that rationale, whether it's true or not?  Of course they are.

There are some things that you you shouldn't ever have to resort to, because you'll never get them back.

On just a small scale, try this -- in your next argument, call your wife a "fucking cunt."  5 years later, let me know if your relationship EVER got all the way back to normal (and I'm betting strongly that the answer will be "no").  The rule of law and norms exists.....until it doesn't.  Once it crumbles, it crumbles.  

That's why I've been shouting NOT that we shouldn't have a soft coup, but rather, that we should do EVERYTHING WE POSSIBLY CAN to avoid being in a position where that's our only viable option.  And now, here we are.

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17409

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, troph said:

Subverting the direct authority of the President of the United States when you work at the White House is treasonous. The Op-Ed is a coward and should resign. The precedent set by such resistance is far more dangerous than anything Trump is doing.

This is exactly right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17409

Posted
Posted

To elaborate needlessly: I absolutely loathe Trump, but this is the worst of the Pandora’s boxes that have been opened over the past year and change.  Use the above-the-table processes provided in the constitution to remove a President who is unfit to lead or get the fuck out.

Any chance this was planted?  I mean, fuck, I’m not sure there would be any other circumstance in which I could see myself defending this diarrheal shit-bag of a President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105158

Posted
Posted
To elaborate needlessly: I absolutely loathe Trump, but this is the worst of the Pandora’s boxes that have been opened over the past year and change.  Use the above-the-table processes provided in the constitution to remove a President who is unfit to lead or get the fuck out.

Any chance this was planted?  I mean, fuck, I’m not sure there would be any other circumstance in which I could see myself defending this diarrheal shit-bag of a President.


I hear you, and largely agree, but....all of those processes depend on Congress. Congress is the failsafe.

And our failsafe has utterly failed. We pulled the rip cord. The chute didn’t open. At this stage in the free fall, it’s now sane to do ANYTHING if you think it will prevent the splat.

There are no good options. Only really bad ones. And they all probably still end the same. Splat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Goredho said:

To elaborate needlessly: I absolutely loathe Trump, but this is the worst of the Pandora’s boxes that have been opened over the past year and change.  Use the above-the-table processes provided in the constitution to remove a President who is unfit to lead or get the fuck out.

Any chance this was planted?  I mean, fuck, I’m not sure there would be any other circumstance in which I could see myself defending this diarrheal shit-bag of a President.

There’s a chance it was planted but I highly doubt it.  The NYT would have done their due diligence and it’s not the worst thing.  Any other administration and I’d agree with you but this anonymous op-ed isn’t telling us anything that hasn’t been already reported by sources named and unnamed inside the White House via books and articles.

Bannon has been on the record (Fire and Fury book) saying there was a 33% chance Trump would be removed and the 25th amendment was under consideration.

ETA: this is on Trump at the end of the day. He hired these people.  The best people.  This is just another self inflicted wound.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

The reason being only someone close to trump would actually be stupid enough to write that anonymous poorly written piece and the getting even more prosperous every day New York Times would likely only run it if it was someone high up, like the crown prince douche married to the princess.

and it’s just like trump to create a false media narrative to distract everyone from the damage caused by the Woodward book. Hell putin may have even suggested it to him.

occams razor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

 

And it is here the author outs himself/herself to at least one other administration official, unless the other he or she is in on it.

Edited by JimmyJames
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1968

Posted
Posted

I have a question for trumpkins (even though no one admits to being on here):

Which stance are you/POTUS taking?

1. Trump is being undercut by treasonous insubordination, or

2. The anonymous op-ed is fake news so none of that shit is happening.

You/POTUS can not argue both, though it wouldn’t surprise me (real leaks of classified fake stuff).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, scottsins said:

I have a question for trumpkins (even though no one admits to being on here):

Which stance are you/POTUS taking?

1. Trump is being undercut by treasonous insubordination, or

2. The anonymous op-ed is fake news so none of that shit is happening.

You/POTUS can not argue both, though it wouldn’t surprise me (real leaks of classified fake stuff).

4B7BB59E-E49D-4D6D-9C82-82F77B288A33_zps

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45978

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

 

And it is here the author outs himself/herself to at least one other administration official, unless the other he or she is in on it.

Not necessarily.  That "top official" might have complained about that meeting to multiple people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8850

Posted
Posted
Quote

"I don't even bring it up because I view it as something, you know, they like to use the impeach word. Maxine waters, 'We will impeach him.' But he didn't do anything wrong. It doesn't matter, we will impeach him. We will impeach -- but i say how do you impeach somebody that's doing a great job? That hasn't done anything wrong?"

He added, "It is so ridiculous. But we will worry about that, it ever happens, but if it does happen it is your fault because you did not go out and vote. You did not go out to vote, that is the only way it can happen. I will be the only president in history that will say what a job he has done, by the way, we are impeaching him."

At his rally tonight

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45978

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

At his rally tonight

His utter lack of intellect continues to alarm.  I don't know why.  It's not like I wait for him to say something substantial -- I know the general tone of what's about to come out of his mouth -- but it still shocks me.  C'est la vie.

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...