Donald Trump 2018

[Anastasis 23393]

 

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

Secret service won’t confirm that they are pill popping dolt heads!

Edited April 28, 2018 by Anastasis

[retread 2951]

Makes you wonder if some people in the WH have pill problems.

[Chad Fuck 17556]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A few months ago it was hard to imagine Kim coming to the DMZ, holding hands with moon, and dancing across the border. I am not sure where this all goes, but I think that we should be guardedly optimistic. The signals here are better than the recent and longer term status quo. 

I don't really hear anyone arguing against this.  It is far better to have active diplomacy between the Koreas than not.

The motives are what is being questioned.  That and the people shouting "See!  Trump did this!"  Both are suspect.

[kevwun 15620]

I don't think Donald wants to get in to a discussion about things that are unfair.

[6th Street 6355]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The punctuation is far too accurate for him to have typed that.  Feels like a staffer did the body and he added the last line.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Biff Tannen

[Anastasis 23393]

fuck clapper.

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Triggered 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Anastasis 23393]

35 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I don't really hear anyone arguing against this.  It is far better to have active diplomacy between the Koreas than not.

The motives are what is being questioned.  That and the people shouting "See!  Trump did this!"  Both are suspect.

And I don't see anyone arguing against this. As far as "trump did this", I think that would be a gross over simplification.  Leave that to the historians to worry about. But I do think that he played a part in his own retarded way in the milieu.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

The thing that irks me the most about the Nork situation is how normalized and numb we’ve become to Kim Jong Un.  This guy runs a prison concentration camp state and he killed his own brother last year.

And Trump is like, “Kim Jong Un is an honorable guy! Very professional! Look forward to meeting him!”  It’s disgusting.

Fuck Lil’ Kim and his whole fucking family. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And I don't see anyone arguing against this. As far as "trump did this", I think that would be a gross over simplification.  Leave that to the historians to worry about. But I do think that he played a part in his own retarded way in the milieu.  

You say that as if it is over.   Of course Trump played a part, but we don't yet know what he played a part in.   His supporters think he stared down NK and forced them to accept peace with SK, and that yesterday's events are a standalone success, independent of anything that happens next.   You seem to think the same thing.   I think that's wrong, and the events that come next will tell us what happened yesterday. 

Is NK capitulating, and Trump gets them to give up their entire nuclear program, meaning yesterday was the first major sign of their defeat?   Or is the US capitulating, and Trump gets some token "concessions" but NK gets to keep nukes, relief from sanctions, and to re-enter the world community as an acknowledged nuclear state -- meaning yesterday was the first major sign of our defeat?   It's not for historians to judge.   It's for us all to find out soon as events unfold over the next six months, because it isn't over yet.

[Sawbonz 27398]

I'm very disappointed that Clapper doesn’t warrant a nickname 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

With regards to North Korea and Trump, all I’ve seen Trump do is ramp up the fear mongering rhetoric for a year and then claim victory for not getting us into a catastrophic war by capitulating to North Korea’s fantasy of a Summit with POTUS.

North Korea was never a legitimate threat to the United States.  North Korea is not going to denuclearize and they are not going to open up to rigorous inspections.  They will lie like they always have and get what they want out of Trump as long as they make him look good.

Wag the Jong 

Sad!

[Anastasis 23393]

14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

You say that as if it is over.   Of course Trump played a part, but we don't yet know what he played a part in.   His supporters think he stared down NK and forced them to accept peace with SK, and that yesterday's events are a standalone success, independent of anything that happens next.   You seem to think the same thing.   I think that's wrong, and the events that come next will tell us what happened yesterday.

You seem to suck at reading comprehension. 

 

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

A I am not sure where this all goes, but I think that we should be guardedly optimistic. The signals here are better than the recent and longer term status quo. 

 

17 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Is NK capitulating, and Trump gets them to give up their entire nuclear program, meaning yesterday was the first major sign of their defeat?   Or is the US capitulating, and Trump gets some token "concessions" but NK gets to keep nukes, relief from sanctions, and to re-enter the world community as an acknowledged nuclear state -- meaning yesterday was the first major sign of our defeat?   It's not for historians to judge.   It's for us all to find out soon as events unfold over the next six months, because it isn't over yet.

 

Historians will judge Trump's role in how this all played out, once it plays out.  

 

 

 

 

[Anastasis 23393]

10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I'm very disappointed that Clapper doesn’t warrant a nickname 

I think his should have a not too veiled reference to venereal disease. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Anastasis

[DixonHur 11170]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think his should have a not too veiled reference to venereal disease. 

No way, Trump still has PTSD from his own personal Vietnam.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Fozzz 152]

[retread 2951]

 

[Gatorubet 30083]

21 hours ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

It is pretty obvious, sanctions, public denouncement, backdoor dealing with China, and threatening them with military action. You been living under a rock? 

Give the man credit, he called his shot and nailed it.

And JoePa never knew....

Because, I mean, we've never placed sanctions or denounced them or had backdoor deals with China or threatened them with Military action before.  Our military was over there just for the massage parlor hand-jobs and Bulgogi.  Forget the annual two-month long US–South Korean military exercise involving tens of thousands of troops practicing how to defeat Kim & Company.

I love how cultists view the world. 

 

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, retread said:

 

Everybody with a quarter brain knows that the political process of impeachment is inevitable once the democrats take control of the house in 2019. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

20 hours ago, Chrispy said:

Wait, people are arguing the end of the Korean conflict is a bad thing?

The end of formal hostilities is not a bad thing. Diplomacy  (i.e. "talking") directly between leaders is not a bad thing.  

- But - 

A bait-and-switch that brings an communist authoritarian, nuclear North Korea that rules into more normalized trade relationships the community of nations without precondition is a bad thing. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Everybody with a quarter brain knows that the political process of impeachment is inevitable once the democrats take control of the house in 2019. 

My understanding is that this is increasingly not true; the president is understood to be a electoral political asset for Democrats, provided that he continues to remain a mostly inept embarrassment, because his disgraceful failures both motivates Democrat voters and demotivate his own coalition. Mike Pence, on the other hand, is viewed as an adroit politician and reputational blank slate who projects decency and competence well. Pence could manage both roles, as: 1) healing unifier following a bitterly contested impeachment and trial and, 2) vehicle of backlash if the Democrats overreach, even during a successful impeachment, which is not a cinch even if they take the house, because a Senate Majority is unlikely let alone the kind of majority it would take to make 2/3 achievable. 

The bottom line is that impeachment is less likely by the day unless the votes are clearly there in both the house and senate, and that would take a bipartisan consensus.  

Edited April 28, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[David Dennison 18651]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My understanding is that this is increasingly not true; the president is understood to be a electoral political asset for Democrats, provided that he continues to remain a mostly inept embarrassment, because his disgraceful failures both motivates Democrat voters and demotivate his own coalition. Mike Pence, on the other hand, is viewed as an adroit politician and reputational blank slate who projects decency and competence well. Pence could manage both roles: as 1) healing unifier following a bitterly contested impeachment and trial, and, 2) vehicle of backlash if the Democrats overreach, even during a successful impeachment, which is not a cinch even if they take the house because a Senate Majority is unlikely let alone the kind of majority it would take to make 2/3 achievable. 

The bottom line is that impeachment is less likely by the day unless the votes are clearly there in both the house and senate, and that would take a bipartisan consensus.  

Agreed. The once and future Madam Speaker has said as much. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I agree that impeachment for purely partisan reasons is increasingly unlikely.   IMO impeachment depends 100% on what Mueller concludes.    If it's bad, the Dems will have to impeach.  If Mueller is wishy-washy as to Trump's direct knowledge, the Dem house will make life hell for every aide who was implicated, but won't impeach. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11806]

The long pole in the tent is unlikely, but if the entire apparatus was tied to the fraud, things might move differently. Meaning if the Republican Party as a whole was aware and complicit.  

Edited April 28, 2018 by Judge Roybeanbag

[kevwun 15620]

Will be interesting to see how enthusiastic Republican incumbents will be about his support in their races.  Anyone going up against a moderate Dem will have some hard thinking to do.  Playing to Trump's base in anything but the reddest of red districts is not a great idea.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My understanding is that this is increasingly not true; the president is understood to be a electoral political asset for Democrats, provided that he continues to remain a mostly inept embarrassment, because his disgraceful failures both motivates Democrat voters and demotivate his own coalition. Mike Pence, on the other hand, is viewed as an adroit politician and reputational blank slate who projects decency and competence well. Pence could manage both roles, as: 1) healing unifier following a bitterly contested impeachment and trial and, 2) vehicle of backlash if the Democrats overreach, even during a successful impeachment, which is not a cinch even if they take the house, because a Senate Majority is unlikely let alone the kind of majority it would take to make 2/3 achievable. 

The bottom line is that impeachment is less likely by the day unless the votes are clearly there in both the house and senate, and that would take a bipartisan consensus.  

If dems take the House, they will impeach Trump. I have zero doubt about this.

What you’re saying makes sense and the Democrats would be foolish to campaign on impeachment but once the they control the House, I have no doubt they will impeach Trump and take their chances with the trial in the Senate regardless of the perceived outcome. The have nothing to lose by putting Trump on trial. Nothing.

Democrats are not going to put party over country by allowing Trump to finish his term just because it helps their political position in 2020.  

The people are going to speak in 2018 and Dems are going to do their job.

Blee dat. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

I agree that impeachment for purely partisan reasons is increasingly unlikely.   IMO impeachment depends 100% on what Mueller concludes.    If it's bad, the Dems will have to impeach.  If Mueller is wishy-washy as to Trump's direct knowledge, the Dem house will make life hell for every aide who was implicated, but won't impeach. 

  There’s enough overt malfeasance to remove Trump from office now.  Mueller’s findings are irrelevant but let’s be honest, it’s probably only going to bolster impeachment.

[Blotto 23427]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Democrats are not going to put party over country by allowing Trump to finish his term just because it helps their political position in 2020.  

Lulz. Dems will put party over country just as easily as Trump and his merry bunch of retards on the other side of the aisle. That's what being a politician in this country entails today, sadly.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

6 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Lulz. Dems will put party over country just as easily as Trump and his merry bunch of retards on the other side of the aisle. That's what being a politician in this country entails today, sadly.

Both sides!

Not this time.

Impeachment articles have already been drawn up and presented in the House.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Pods 7526]

The Dems will impeach and let the GOP in the Senate fail to convict.

The House committee chairs will spend 2 years up Trump's ass with a magnifying glass. They will find copious amounts of material that will be absolutely damning to everyone who is not a hard core Trumpkin. 

That leads to an even bigger wave in 2020 just in time to redraw Congressional districts and the US lurches hard left. Those of us in the middle get fucked in that process too. 

The GOP can stop the poison spreading anytime they want to. They could have stopped it by cutting off the hand. It's spread and it's going to have to be the whole arm now, but this is the absolute last moments they can still stop it if they take a stand. I'm not holding my breath. 

[4th&Five 41457]

If this actually happened the secret service should release a statement on it. 

[David Dennison 18651]

32 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Both sides!

Not this time.

Impeachment articles have already been drawn up and presented in the House.

 

 

Nancy Pelosi controls everything that goes on in that caucus.

There will be no impeachment from the Democratic side without her approval.

She will require Republicans to be on board.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

When do the new senators and reps take their place in Washington in 2019?  Like, the actual date.  The weeks between the election and that should be super entertaining, what with dotus conjuring up every conceivable defense against impeachment he can muster.

[TheFlyingBoat 906]

56 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If dems take the House, they will impeach Trump. I have zero doubt about this.

What you’re saying makes sense and the Democrats would be foolish to campaign on impeachment but once the they control the House, I have no doubt they will impeach Trump and take their chances with the trial in the Senate regardless of the perceived outcome. The have nothing to lose by putting Trump on trial. Nothing.

Democrats are not going to put party over country by allowing Trump to finish his term just because it helps their political position in 2020.  

The people are going to speak in 2018 and Dems are going to do their job.

Blee dat. 

Please. Impeachment won't and should not begin until Mueller concludes his investigation and Pelosi and Schumer will ensure that. The Democratic policy should be reopen the House investigation if they win the House and to hold weekly sessions in the either the chamber(s) of Congress they win where they bring in members of Trump campaign, transition team, and administration. Once a month after about 6 months, they should begin bringing Trump family members in on a cycling basis once a month. Continue doing this until they find enough to impeach or Mueller wraps up his investigation. After all the shit the Republicans pulled this year in the HPSCI, I say we throw it back in their face so in 2020 we can sweep everything from statehouse offices to congressional seats and the Presidency and drive a stake through the heart of Republicans and their bullshit. Every state should do what California did and move redistricting to a non-partisan committee. The districts we have today are a fucking joke and the idea of representatives choosing their districts is equally laughable. We don't need to cheat to end them for good in the House. I think current gerrymandering requires us to go +3.5 or something like that nationally to get even representation and that in pretty much every election since 2000 there are more Democratic voters than Republican voters. Get non-gerrymandered districts and the House goes Democratic representing the plurality of voters that don't want to vote Republican after Bush (people keep forgetting because of how bad the Republicans are today that they were still really bad 18 years ago and imo their descent to madness began with Gingrich's ascendancy to Speaker) the Senate will be a tossup as it should be and things will be a lot better.

[TheFlyingBoat 906]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

When do the new senators and reps take their place in Washington in 2019?  Like, the actual date.  The weeks between the election and that should be super entertaining, what with dotus conjuring up every conceivable defense against impeachment he can muster.

Noon on January 3rd.

[Hank Scorpio 17721]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My understanding is that this is increasingly not true; the president is understood to be a electoral political asset for Democrats, provided that he continues to remain a mostly inept embarrassment, because his disgraceful failures both motivates Democrat voters and demotivate his own coalition. Mike Pence, on the other hand, is viewed as an adroit politician and reputational blank slate who projects decency and competence well. Pence could manage both roles, as: 1) healing unifier following a bitterly contested impeachment and trial and, 2) vehicle of backlash if the Democrats overreach, even during a successful impeachment, which is not a cinch even if they take the house, because a Senate Majority is unlikely let alone the kind of majority it would take to make 2/3 achievable. 

The bottom line is that impeachment is less likely by the day unless the votes are clearly there in both the house and senate, and that would take a bipartisan consensus.  

I have a similar analysis as to why the Democrats won't impeach Trump: they are fucking pussies. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Hank Scorpio

[Mdhorn 5911]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

Lulz. Dems will put party over country just as easily as Trump and his merry bunch of retards on the other side of the aisle. That's what being a politician in this country entails today, sadly.

It's difficult enough to rein in all the different fragments into one corral. Trump would never make it in the DNC because people would take his insults to heart and would never support him.  

[Mdhorn 5911]

17 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I have a similar analysis as to why the Democrats won't impeach Trump: they are fucking pussies. 

Until it happens, this is perpetual.  This is also why I laugh when the right tries to frame them as big bad bullies coming after their guns or whatever else.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Mueller is going to have an obstruction of justice report come out in the next few months but I don’t know if it will be made public, it’s up to Rosenstein.

I’d be shocked if Mueller doesn’t conclude that Trump obstructed justice.

Let’s say Mueller’s obstruct report is overwhelmingly damning, what then? 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11806]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller is going to have an obstruction of justice report come out in the next few months but I don’t know if it will be made public, it’s up to Rosenstein.

I’d be shocked if Mueller doesn’t conclude that Trump obstructed justice.

Let’s say Mueller’s obstruct report is overwhelmingly damning, what then? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Yeah pretty much.  

It’ll be, “Well he obstructed Justice but let’s wait until Mueller finishes everything.”

which could take until 2021

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Sawbonz 27398]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Nancy Pelosi controls everything that goes on in that caucus.

There will be no impeachment from the Democratic side without her approval.

She will require Republicans to be on board.

If mueller has more than payments to whores and illegal real estate deals, we will have a resignation with pardons by the new pres similar to Nixon. If not you’ll see a shitshow impeachment trial with the senate failing to convict with voting along party lines. If the latter happens Trump declines to run or loses the nomination for 2020 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

14 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

If mueller has more than payments to whores and illegal real estate deals, 

My money is on Conspiracy to defraud the United States.

18 USC 371

[Sawbonz 27398]

If he has hard evidence of that we’ll never get to impeachment 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

If he has hard evidence of that we’ll never get to impeachment 

Excluding those with plea deals, everyone indicted by Mueller has been hit with 18 USC 371 so far. 

Seems to be a trend.

[Sawbonz 27398]

You’re dreaming Hugo 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11806]

No you’re dreaming, doc.  You’re pretending the wagon you hitched your fat paycheck and morals to is infallible, just like your judgement. Well it is all gone to shit.  Good luck to you.