Donald Trump 2019

[henrygandorf 29,191]

1 minute ago, retread said:

It would mean no consequences for a Presidential candidate collaborating with one of our most dangerous enemies. Even though the Ds are getting started on picking their nominee, there is a lot of time left in his first term. If all of this had come out in February of his last year in office, then maybe you say just wait for the election. I think Pelosi is def open to impeachment, but she's being deliberate about the process.

subpoenas are out, hearings will start.  they have some time.

but if you're hoping that impeachment hearings = consequences, then i have some bad news for you.

[retread 2,951]

Agree that they have time to conduct hearings and then consider impeachment, but things feel like they're moving slowly. I guess that's just the way it is.

Even if the consequences are hollow, there would be some value in impeaching him and forcing the Rs to vote on it. It would be a horrible precedent to normalize the behavior of the Trump campaign and the subsequent obstruction.

Edited April 23, 2019 by retread

[David Dennison 18,860]

3 minutes ago, retread said:

Agree that they have time to conduct hearings and then consider impeachment, but things feel like they're moving slowly. I guess that's just the way it is.

Even if the consequences are hollow, there would be some value in impeaching him and forcing the Rs to vote on it. It would be a horrible precedent to normalize the behavior of the Trump campaign and the subsequent obstruction.

Expect to start hearing more about censure in the coming months. That would also force an uncomfortable vote and might poll better. If the poll numbers on impeachment stay where they are, leadership will not go in that direction.

[conVINCEd 21,469]

Censure would be a fucking joke.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,199]

Two random thoughts:

1.  Would there be a way to start impeachment proceedings close enough to the 2020 election, so that it wouldn't have time to bring a Senate vote on it?  IOW, you have the sword of impeachment hanging over Trump's head but the Nov elections will happen before a vote, so the Reps can't bail him out.  

2.  I think it would be good if the surviving former POTUSs would come out w/ a joint statement on just what a scumbag Trump is.  Any way Carter. Clinton, Bush and Obama would/could do that?

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

The poll numbers will be greatly affected by what the Dems do.  If they go after Trump hard and with confidence, it will generate public support.  If they are wishy-washy, Trump's poll numbers will rebound. IMO. 

[retread 2,951]

^ Like you said many pages ago, there is going to be a fight. It just remains to be seen if the Ds will fight. Trump is going to denigrate the investigation and claim complete exoneration. The Ds are going to have to counter that.

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Two random thoughts:

1.  Would there be a way to start impeachment proceedings close enough to the 2020 election, so that it wouldn't have time to bring a Senate vote on it?  IOW, you have the sword of impeachment hanging over Trump's head but the Nov elections will happen before a vote, so the Reps can't bail him out.  

2.  I think it would be good if the surviving former POTUSs would come out w/ a joint statement on just what a scumbag Trump is.  Any way Carter. Clinton, Bush and Obama would/could do that?

I think the first point could backfire.  It lets voters off the hook by giving them a way to vote for Trump but not take the blame for it - i.e., "Hey I don't like Trump, I was just voting against the Dem because she/he was so bad, and it's up to the Senate if Trump stays."  Same as so many gutless Trump/3d party voters in 2016 said they thought Hillary would win and were just protesting her so it's not their fault. 

[Bruh Man 3,160]

It's sad to think about how he spends all this time tweeting and watching TV all day when he could be spending time with his 13 yr old son Barron. I wonder what their relationship is like.

[David Dennison 18,860]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The poll numbers will be greatly affected by what the Dems do.  If they go after Trump hard and with confidence, it will generate public support.  If they are wishy-washy, Trump's poll numbers will rebound. IMO. 

Maybe, maybe not. They're going to keep going with impeachment hearings while not calling them that and see what happens. It's pretty clear that voters aren't on board yet.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 hour ago, retread said:

 

 Anastasis is Jared Kushner!

 

/Shirtless Bernie rainbow flexing picture 

[Red Five 40,858]

Psst Jared, both campaigns were warned about what Russia was doing. As if common sense alone wasn’t enough.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

26 minutes ago, retread said:

Agree that they have time to conduct hearings and then consider impeachment, but things feel like they're moving slowly. I guess that's just the way it is.

Even if the consequences are hollow, there would be some value in impeaching him and forcing the Rs to vote on it. It would be a horrible precedent to normalize the behavior of the Trump campaign and the subsequent obstruction.

Don’t be fooled, they are intentionally pussyfooting and have no intention of ever taking a vote on impeaching Trump in the House.  They made the decision to do this long ago.  They are going for maximum impact in 2020 and death by 1000 hearings.  It’s a shrewd calculation and the smart/safe play.  

However, just like nearly all the democrats voting for the Iraq War, this decision not to impeach will most certainly come back to bite them ten or twenty years down the road.  No one in politics thinks about 10-20 years down the road.  Priority #1 is always the next election.  

What the democrats are doing is cowardly and should not be applauded.  If they were even remotely serious about impeachment, now is the time to stick your flag in the sand and say, “This lawless and aggression will not stand.  We’re starting the impeachment process right now to put the voters on notice, this is serious shit, everyone needs to stop what they’re doing and pay attention to the facts and evidence so voters can make a fully informed decision in 2020.”

They are not doing that though.  We’re on the “keep proving it” treadmill.  “We need to wait for Mueller before we start talking impeachment...We need more information before we move to impeachment...We need to see the president’s tax returns... We need to focus on the real issues instead of this impeachment talk...”

We are never getting off this “not going to impeach” treadmill. 

[retread 2,951]

It won't be surprising when the Rs impeach a D president for something similar in the next 10-20 years.

[Captainant 27,668]

1 minute ago, retread said:

It won't be surprising when the Rs impeach a D president for something similar in the next 10-20 years.

It would be surprising if the left elevates a bankrupt, pussy-grabbin, sunsetting narcissistic liar to the office of president

[retread 2,951]

That's true.

[jimmyjazz 45,953]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It would be surprising if the left elevates a bankrupt, pussy-grabbin, sunsetting narcissistic liar to the office of president

Whew, dodged a bullet in 2016.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

32 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

It's sad to think about how he spends all this time tweeting and watching TV all day when he could be spending time with his 13 yr old son Barron. I wonder what their relationship is like.

you mean the kid they forgot to include in their family Christmas portrait?

[Bruh Man 3,160]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

you mean the kid they forgot to include in their family Christmas portrait?

Lol you serious?

[4th&Five 41,552]

Edited April 23, 2019 by 4th&Five

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

36 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

It's sad to think about how he spends all this time tweeting and watching TV all day when he could be spending time with his 13 yr old son Barron. I wonder what their relationship is like.

I would bet ungodly sums of money that Trump doesn't know Barron's birthday.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

1 minute ago, Bruh Man said:

Lol you serious?

come on, what parents don't leave out their kids when sending a christmas card?

[RomaVicta 29,907]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It would be surprising if the left elevates a bankrupt, pussy-grabbin, sunsetting narcissistic liar to the office of president

The GOP bar for impeachment is far lower than the Dems. Tan suit. Lying about an affair. Being a Dem president.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

The GOP bar for impeachment is far lower than the Dems. Tan suit. Lying about an affair. Being a Dem president.

The right is more outraged over "Easter Worshippers" than anything Donald has ever done. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

7 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

hey Trumpsters:

Your President is Bitchmade.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

I think the first point could backfire.  It lets voters off the hook by giving them a way to vote for Trump but not take the blame for it - i.e., "Hey I don't like Trump, I was just voting against the Dem because she/he was so bad, and it's up to the Senate if Trump stays."  Same as so many gutless Trump/3d party voters in 2016 said they thought Hillary would win and were just protesting her so it's not their fault. 

you also run the risk of dems holding impeachment hearings, then having the senate vote to knock it down (which they will).  then, many americans who don't understand the process will say, "well, if what he did was that bad than why didn't he get removed?  why did the senate vote to keep him?"  which unfortunately perpetuates the "witch hunt" narrative trump has been pushing.  he's stupid but he's not stupid, if you know what i mean.

not everyone pays attention to the daily news or will watch every hearing.  not sure what exactly would come out, but we already know he's a piece of shit.  i don't need a hearing to tell me that.

[atomheartbevo 89,668]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

50+ tweets and retweets in 24 hours.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/trump-media-tweets-1287310

Either the security clearance stuff or Don McGahn has him rattled.  I’m guessing McGahn has him scared shitless.  

[Horn Dog 9,855]

2 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Time to pack those courts.

 

"But the conservative justices were skeptical about why they should intervene in an issue Congress seems to have entrusted with the executive branch.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that even if Census Bureau experts had advised against adding the question, Ross could have concluded that there would be little difference in outcome if the question was added."

 

 

I can't wait till President AOC asks her Commerce Secretary to add these questions to the 2030 census:

1.  Do you or anyone in your household possess any unregistered firearms?  If yes, where are they stored?

2.  Do you or anyone in your household hold racist views?  Also, which of your relatives do you find most attractive and why?

3.  In order for your census entry to be valid, please include a 2 page essay from each member of your household titled "The influence of the Renaissance and it's Influence on Quantum Theory. " 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

"But the conservative justices were skeptical about why they should intervene in an issue Congress seems to have entrusted with the executive branch.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that even if Census Bureau experts had advised against adding the question, Ross could have concluded that there would be little difference in outcome if the question was added."

 

 

I can't wait till President AOC asks her Commerce Secretary to add these questions to the 2030 census:

1.  Do you or anyone in your household possess any unregistered firearms?  If yes, where are they stored?

2.  Do you or anyone in your household hold racist views?  Also, which of your relatives do you find most attractive and why?

3.  In order for your census entry to be valid, please include a 2 page essay from each member of your household titled "The influence of the Renaissance and it's Influence on Quantum Theory. " 

 

AOC’s questions will be struck down by the Supreme Court because reasons. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

33 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Either the security clearance stuff or Don McGahn has him rattled.  I’m guessing McGahn has him scared shitless.  

Nah, it’s the SDNY/financial/State crimes/Counterintelligence Investigation that has him rattled.  Trump doesn’t give a shit about Don McGahn.  Ironically, Don McGahn is the person primarily responsible for Trump’s court packing, arguably Trump’s greatest success as potus. 

The thing you want to do when the President keeps asking you to commit felonies on his behalf is to write it down on a notepad to protect yourself while you stack the courts with all your GOP/corporate friends. 

Under no circumstances should you be a heroic whistleblower that marches straight up to Congress after the President tries to shut down a national security investigation into the subversion of American democracy by the Russian Federation.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 45,953]

"Court packing" does not mean nominating a judge who leans POTUS' direction.  It means expanding the size of SCOTUS so as to regain a majority.

Honestly, if Trump had a brain he'd try to expand the court right now.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Court packing" does not mean nominating a judge who leans POTUS' direction.  It means expanding the size of SCOTUS so as to regain a majority.

Honestly, if Trump had a brain he'd try to expand the court right now.

My mistake, should have said stacking not packing. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

28 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you also run the risk of dems holding impeachment hearings, then having the senate vote to knock it down (which they will).  then, many americans who don't understand the process will say, "well, if what he did was that bad than why didn't he get removed?  why did the senate vote to keep him?"  which unfortunately perpetuates the "witch hunt" narrative trump has been pushing.  he's stupid but he's not stupid, if you know what i mean.

not everyone pays attention to the daily news or will watch every hearing.  not sure what exactly would come out, but we already know he's a piece of shit.  i don't need a hearing to tell me that.

It just comes down to competing narratives.  I think "the partisan hacks in the Senate protected a corrupt president on party lines" is a much, much easier sell to the people you are talking about (and everyone, really) than "I trust the honor of Mitch McConnell and the Senate GOP over all of the testimony and evidence that came out during impeachment." 

IMO, too many people are approaching this as if there is an inevitable outcome that we should figure out in advance and go with —  the public will think this or that.  Trump has proven that there is no such inevitability:  he made Hillary's emails the main issue in 2016, even beyond his supporters, and he didn't do it by subtlety or reasonable nuance.  He did it by calling her a criminal who needed to be locked up in prison.   Over and over again.

It's up to the Dems to set the narrative now, sell it, and move the public/polls in the direction we want them to go.  IMO the way to do that is to go hard and Trump's corruption, hand in hand with anti-corruption policies.   Exactly what Elizabeth Warren is doing, BTW. 

[jimmyjazz 45,953]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My mistake, should have said stacking not packing. 

Same thing.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Court packing" does not mean nominating a judge who leans POTUS' direction.  It means expanding the size of SCOTUS so as to regain a majority.

Honestly, if Trump had a brain he'd try to expand the court right now.

He can't without Congress and he doesn't have the House.  If Dems take over the Senate and presidency, court packing needs to be the first order of business IMO. 

[henrygandorf 29,191]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It just comes down to competing narratives.  I think "the partisan hacks in the Senate protected a corrupt president on party lines" is a much, much easier sell to the people you are talking about (and everyone, really) than "I trust the honor of Mitch McConnell and the Senate GOP over all of the testimony and evidence that came out during impeachment." 

IMO, too many people are approaching this as if there is an inevitable outcome that we should figure out in advance and go with —  the public will think this or that.  Trump has proven that there is no such inevitability:  he made Hillary's emails the main issue in 2016, even beyond his supporters, and he didn't do it by subtlety or reasonable nuance.  He did it by calling her a criminal who needed to be locked up in prison.   Over and over again.

It's up to the Dems to set the narrative now, sell it, and move the public/polls in the direction we want them to go.  IMO the way to do that is to go hard and Trump's corruption, hand in hand with anti-corruption policies.   Exactly what Elizabeth Warren is doing, BTW. 

well the difference is right in your reply - trump made hillary's emails the issue.  he did it.  we don't have a spokesman (yet), so it's a tougher message to deliver even with a group of organized people, which is not what we currently have.

everything you're saying is right, of course, but execution is the key, and i'm not completely confident in that.  i'm not confident in a steady narrative coming out through impeachment hearings.  people like tweets, clips, and bullet headlines.  they're hicks, rita.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Same thing.

It’s not like there was a half reptile/half human turtle man obstructing the previous administration from appointing judges. 

[RPM 26,321]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s not like there was a half reptile/half human turtle man obstructing the previous administration from appointing judges. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

17 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

well the difference is right in your reply - trump made hillary's emails the issue.  he did it.  we don't have a spokesman (yet), so it's a tougher message to deliver even with a group of organized people, which is not what we currently have.

everything you're saying is right, of course, but execution is the key, and i'm not completely confident in that.  i'm not confident in a steady narrative coming out through impeachment hearings.  people like tweets, clips, and bullet headlines.  they're hicks, rita.

I hear you.   That's why (well, one reason why) I would never encourage the Dems to do what Trump actually did, which was to fabricate a bunch of shit and take it to ridiculous extremes.   That takes a level of malignant narcissistic sociopathy that, thankfully, only Trump has.   But the Dems don't need to.   They have the Mueller report.  They have evidence and credible witnesses to call.   They have an impeachment process at their disposal.   And they have the truth.   All they have to do is put it out there before the public and call it what it is.   Even the Dems can pull that off. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Blotto 23,511]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

well the difference is right in your reply - trump made hillary's emails the issue.  he did it.  we don't have a spokesman (yet), so it's a tougher message to deliver even with a group of organized people, which is not what we currently have.

everything you're saying is right, of course, but execution is the key, and i'm not completely confident in that.  i'm not confident in a steady narrative coming out through impeachment hearings.  people like tweets, clips, and bullet headlines.  they're hicks, rita.

The GOP marches in lockstep behind Trump. The dems are all over the map on the appropriate course of action with regards to 2020. The new crop of Dems are already showing signs of friction with the Pelosi era Dems, and my guess is that the party will struggle to maintain a unified message. The moment the AOC's  of the Democratic party think they can push the old fucks aside, they will try. 

Beating Trump should be a slam dunk, but the Dems will make this much more contested than they need to. Both parties are deeply flawed at this point. We're gonna watch a shit-your-pants-fest leading up to the next election, should be a hoot.

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

8 minutes ago, Blotto said:

The GOP marches in lockstep behind Trump. The dems are all over the map on the appropriate course of action with regards to 2020. The new crop of Dems are already showing signs of friction with the Pelosi era Dems, and my guess is that the party will struggle to maintain a unified message. The moment the AOC's  of the Democratic party think they can push the old fucks aside, they will try. 

Beating Trump should be a slam dunk, but the Dems will make this much more contested than they need to. Both parties are deeply flawed at this point. We're gonna watch a shit-your-pants-fest leading up to the next election, should be a hoot.

[Anastasis 23,469]

31 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

If Dems take over the Senate and presidency, court packing needs to be the first order of business IMO. 

If that occurs, I might have to revise my predictions re: Dem trajectory in 2022 and 2024.  If there is one single issue that could allow the GOP to coalesce and not fall to a completely minority position for the foreseeable, it would be packing the courts as first order of business in 2021.  

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, Anastasis said:

If that occurs, I might have to revise my predictions re: Dem trajectory in 2022 and 2024.  If there is one single issue that could allow the GOP to coalesce and not fall to a completely minority position for the foreseeable, it would be packing the courts as first order of business in 2021.  

Worth it. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Worth it. 

Do you think Trump wins without a SCOTUS seat on the line?  Not sure that he does.  That should demonstrate the ability of the issue to rally the GOP. The D's have their foot on the throat politically, and are in line for a lone line of congressional and WH control.  I make some hay with that setup before letting my foot of the wounded animals neck. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Do you think Trump wins without a SCOTUS seat on the line?  Not sure that he does.  That should demonstrate the ability of the issue to rally the GOP. The D's have their foot on the throat politically, and are in line for a lone line of congressional and WH control.  I make some hay with that setup before letting my foot of the wounded animals neck. 

There will always be a SCOTUS seat on the line.  Justices get old and die.    The right will fall in line in 2020 whether it's for Ginsburg's seat or Thomas's seat or to prevent an expanded court. It's well past time for the Ds to press an advantage the way McConnell did Garland. 

[Blotto 23,511]

14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Worth it. 

And then the GOP swings back into power and adds more justices. Next thing you know the Supreme Court will be 500 strong. What's the point.

I'd be more in favor of set terms for supreme court justices that are staggered. RBG shouldn't have to hang on for dear life to avoid dipshit appointing another political hack. With the natural ebb and flow of party control of Congress and the WH, it seems this would ensure a fairly balanced court over the long haul.

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Blotto

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

4 minutes ago, Blotto said:

And then the GOP swings back into power and adds more justices. Next thing you know the Supreme Court will be 500 strong. What's the point.

I'd be more in favor of set terms for supreme court justices that are staggered. RBG shouldn't have to hang on for dear life to avoid Dipshit appointing another political hack. With the natural ebb and flow of party control of Congress and the WH, it seems this would ensure a fairly balanced court over the long haul.

 

That's a stupid rationale.   Pass up a guaranteed SCOTUS majority out of fear that Republicans might get the House, Senate, and presidency again someday and take it back? The risk being nothing more than ending up in the same situation we are currently in?   Please.   I'll take the Court for several years, and if Republicans are able to shift it back later, at least we'll have gotten several years out of it.  And if they don't, all the better. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Blotto 23,511]

If it comes to a contest of which side can fuck over the other more effectively, I'll choose the GOP every day. That sort of gamesmanship will not end up well for the Dems. It's a short term solution that does more damage than good to the country.

 

[Js1 85,337]

42 minutes ago, Blotto said:

The Democrats march in lockstep behind Obama. The Republicans are all over the map on the appropriate course of action with regards to 2016. The new crop of Republicans are already showing signs of friction with the Boehner era Repubs, and my guess is that the party will struggle to maintain a unified message. The moment the Ryans of the Republican party think they can push the old fucks aside, they will try. 

I heard all this before.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My mistake, should have said stacking not packing. 

 

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Same thing.

I would MUCH prefer to go out with a gal who is stacked than a gal who is packing.  Just sayin'....