Former President Trump Thread

strawman

strawman

DarkAudit said:
The point is the perception that you seem to be okay with Nazis running because "they won't win." Really?
Click to expand...
It costs time and/or money to get enough signatures to appear on the ballot.

If this bothers you so much why don’t you put your time or money into that race to prevent it?

I perceive that you too are ok with it. You didn’t even care until someone else pointed it out to you, and it’s not even your distract, and yet here you are suddenly castigating an entire party because they don’t exert an iron fist of control over even the most unwinable of political seats.

If this brothers you then it must drive you absolutely insane that the DNC ignored the down ticket and focused almost all its resources on the presidential election on 2016. And that had real political consequences, unlike this race.

I don’t think you really have a foundation to stand on to point and laugh.[DOUBLEPOST=1517975451,1517974870][/DOUBLEPOST]But I agree it is a laughable situation, to be clear, and ideally we wouldn’t be in this spot.

I just think it’s a waste of time to worry about it.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

stienman said:
It costs time and/or money to get enough signatures to appear on the ballot.

If this bothers you so much why don’t you put your time or money into that race to prevent it?

I perceive that you too are ok with it. You didn’t even care until someone else pointed it out to you, and it’s not even your distract, and yet here you are suddenly castigating an entire party because they don’t exert an iron fist of control over even the most unwinable of political seats.

If this brothers you then it must drive you absolutely insane that the DNC ignored the down ticket and focused almost all its resources on the presidential election on 2016. And that had real political consequences, unlike this race.

I don’t think you really have a foundation to stand on to point and laugh.
Click to expand...
Do I look like I'm laughing? Spend your own money. You're not the one virtually homeless tonight.
 
strawman

strawman

I’m sorry, i shouldn’t be adding to your load.

I do hope things get better for you, and I wish the political trumoil didn’t weigh so heavily on you.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

stienman said:
I’m sorry, i shouldn’t be adding to your load.

I do hope things get better for you, and I wish the political trumoil didn’t weigh so heavily on you.
Click to expand...
With someone like Don Blankenship running for senate, and the other option Joe Manchin, the only choices left are hitting the lottery and getting the hell out of here, or Giant Meteor.

Really, the only way to get out of "50th in everything" is to either wipe Charleston off the face of the Earth, or add a few new states so we can then rank 55th or even 60th. Because who else but WV is stupid enough to believe Trump will still save coal even as he tells them to their face that coal can get fucked.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

stienman said:
Given that the American population voted those senators into those seats one could presume the senate had a duty to act according to their constituent’s desires.

One might call it a mandate.

At any rate the Democrats can and would/will do the same thing if the opposite circumstance arises. Contact your senator and have them craft legislation that forces a time limit on the senate or similar.

It’s a sword that cuts both ways though.

Your best bet is to keep congress staffed with people who truly represent you.
Click to expand...
Even if this all is true, it still shows why it wouldn't have mattered if the judges retired when Obama was president.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
DarkAudit said:
The point is the perception that you seem to be okay with Nazis running because "they won't win." Really?
Click to expand...
I would say I'm ok with Nazis running because everybody's supposed to be able to run. I'm just not worried about a Nazi running because he won't win, and in fact, the more spotlights on a Nazi the better - and there's no spotlight bigger than running for office.

Now, I'm not ok, on an individual basis, with people who knowingly vote for a Nazi. But that's a different discussion.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
I would say I'm ok with Nazis running because everybody's supposed to be able to run. I'm just not worried about a Nazi running because he won't win, and in fact, the more spotlights on a Nazi the better - and there's no spotlight bigger than running for office.

Now, I'm not ok, on an individual basis, with people who knowingly vote for a Nazi. But that's a different discussion.
Click to expand...
What irks me is the notion that it was okay to not even put up a cardboard cutout in opposition under the guise of "he won't win the general." Doesn't change the fact that you've let a nazi be your flag carrier in the district, and you stood by and let it happen.

And what happens if Der Cheetofuhrer suddenly decides to champion this guy?
 
Zappit

Zappit

Staff member
DarkAudit said:
What irks me is the notion that it was okay to not even put up a cardboard cutout in opposition under the guise of "he won't win the general." Doesn't change the fact that you've let a nazi be your flag carrier in the district, and you stood by and let it happen.

And what happens if Der Cheetofuhrer suddenly decides to champion this guy?
Click to expand...
Didn't work for Roy Moore. Thank God.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
DarkAudit said:
What irks me is the notion that it was okay to not even put up a cardboard cutout in opposition under the guise of "he won't win the general." Doesn't change the fact that you've let a nazi be your flag carrier in the district, and you stood by and let it happen.
Click to expand...
It'd just have been a waste of time, an even bigger waste of time than this guy's campaign already is. It'd have been more reasonable if no Republican even bothered to run at all. Which happens quite a bit in dark blue areas, I imagine.

Krisken said:
“Because he won’t win” was exactly what was said about Trump.
Click to expand...
While true, this guy is definitely no Trump. He doesn't have the media presence, the support base, and even Trump isn't a former Nazi (in fact Trump was a former Democrat :p)
 
drawn_inward

drawn_inward

As for the Trump military parade, can the joint chiefs or someone tell that clown, "no"? It's so Trump to want that. Bravado and confidence are two separate things. I bet he's the biggest pant-pissing coward, but acts like a tough-guy. I am so sick of his shit. I bet the joint chiefs can't fucking stomach him.
 
strawman

strawman

drawn_inward said:
As for the Trump military parade, can the joint chiefs or someone tell that clown, "no"?
Click to expand...
He's not called the commander in chief for nothing. Those below him have two choices - follow orders, or resign, allowing another to fill their spot and follow orders.

If congress could pass a veto-proof majority bill that denies military funding for such displays, or imposes limitations for parading in Washington DC itself using their home rule, they might be able to rein him in. Otherwise he gets to do what he wants with the military - within federal limits anyway.

Now, if he orders them to fire on congress and the white house and literally drain the swamp, I believe the joint chiefs might have some sway...
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

stienman said:
He's not called the commander in chief for nothing. Those below him have two choices - follow orders, or resign, allowing another to fill their spot and follow orders.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Actually not even close. Those orders have to be LAWFUL orders. What he says most certainly does not go. If he gave an order to machine gun a crowd (as an extreme example), that would definitely be an unlawful order, and any soldier carrying it out would be in major trouble.

There's also the matter of the oath every member of the military takes. It's an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no exemption for anyone in that oath. So if Trump (or any POTUS) is deemed a domestic enemy, that soldier or sailor is duty bound to remove him.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

DarkAudit said:
Not quite. Actually not even close. Those orders have to be LAWFUL orders. What he says most certainly does not go. If he gave an order to machine gun a crowd (as an extreme example), that would definitely be an unlawful order, and any soldier carrying it out would be in major trouble.

There's also the matter of the oath every member of the military takes. It's an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no exemption for anyone in that oath. So if Trump (or any POTUS) is deemed a domestic enemy, that soldier or sailor is duty bound to remove him.
Click to expand...
Which stienman mentions at the bottom of his post
 
strawman

strawman

Who knows. Maybe he'll land in a fighter jet on the parade route with a big banner in the background.

What does the banner say, you ask?

B̸̭̩̘͎̪̣̫̓̀E̠̐̊ͮL̵͇̲͖̣͖͈̱̞̑͟Î̢̼̫̒̊ͯ͆̃͐E͖̳̻͇̞̎̓̆̆ͬ̒͂V̧͉͕̭͕̜͌̓͛̋ͨͮ̊̽Ȩ̯̬̮͚͎͎ͥ́ ̰̍̇̆̐̋̄̌͂M̙̙̳͍̦͉̐̀͟E̴̞̰̻̠̬̼ͧ̈́͂̃͂ͭ͝͞,͉̟̥̯̤͎̼͖̄̑͌ͤͬ̔̔̅͟ ̡͔͕͖̗̟̪̝̐̐ͣ́͢͠I̴̱̩̮̎͋̂ͭ̀ͣ͠Ṭ̹͆̒͂̓͂̽͑͡͞'̵̻̩͔̯̼̽̈͐̌ͣS͎͉ͫͭ̆̐ ̢̙̹̗͖̓̽G̽҉̳͖̲̩Ọ̸̯̜̫̠ͨͫ̍̌̋́̚͝Ṅ̮̿̏̑Ń̗̥̝͈̜̚A͉̝̱̠̜͚̎̅̿ͦ͋̍̾̽́̀ ̡̣̪̤̩͊́̋̿̄̔͝͡B̼̳̘͙̠͚͓ͤ̏͐̎̅ͨ̓Ĕ͍̝̺̙̭̞ͧ ͓̬̯̍̈͗͋ͫͬ̊Ȳ͉̼̘̹̪̩͔̌̍̃͂͌̌͟U̮̬̤͙̩̖ͯ̋̋̂̈͜ͅͅṶͦͨ̍Ų̡̮̼̈̓̚͠Ḡ̳̮͚̻̥̘̊͜E̵͖͔͓̥̣̐̀͛ͅ!̨̧̬͔̩̯̗̩ͦ̄̇͡ͅ!̡̘ͣͫ͐ͩ͡͞ͅ!̡̗̘͕͉̌͜
 
strawman

strawman

DA, the "lawful order" parts of sections 90, 91, and 92 are there so service members are blamed for carrying out illegal orders. Not their superiors.

https://www.thebalance.com/military-orders-3332819

So there's four situations:

You obey a lawful order - everything is fine.
You disobey a lawful order - you're screwed.
You obey an unlawful order - you're screwed.
You disobey an unlawful order - you're screwed until you prove in court that it was unlawful.

Notice that you're screwed if you disobey, even if you're in the right.

The idea floating around now that service members can disobey their commander's orders and therefore the president's orders has very strict limitations, and more often than not punishment is swift even in cases where the service member is right.

Unless it results in war crimes, the higher leadership are rarely punished, and if they are the punishments are usually administrative in nature. Remember the US's refusal to play nice with the war crimes tribunal after torture was discovered in active use in the middle east?

Who was punished more - those who gave the orders, or those who did or didn't carry them out?

And I bet there were those who refused to carry them out - they may have been in the right, but I bet they suffered for their disobedience.

I'm not suggesting this is good or right, but to blithely declare that the president's power has limitations based on "lawfulness" and that the military should turn it's fire on their commander in chief doesn't jive with reality.[DOUBLEPOST=1518026904,1518026785][/DOUBLEPOST]
HCGLNS said:
Hey the Senate is doing something!
Click to expand...
Maybe. Still under discussion, but since the deadline is Friday and the Democrats didn't come out of the last missed deadline smelling like roses, I'm guessing it'll go forward.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/372748-senate-leaders-agree-to-two-year-budget-deal
 
strawman

strawman

blotsfan said:
So they fucked over DACA people?
Click to expand...
They're trying to. It looks like the democrats get increased funding in a variety of non military programs, while the republicans get increased military funding.

The republicans didn't get tighter immigration controls or a wall, and the democrats didn't get DACA.

Seems like they each have to give a compromise to assure a related compromise from the other side.

But the debt ceiling probably isn't changing, and will have to be addressed soon, so maybe they'll tie immigration into that one somehow.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Trump just had another secretary resign, this time for domestic abuse.

The only thing Trump is repealing and replacing is the Executive Branch.
 
Tress

Tress

HCGLNS said:
How do these "best people" keep getting security clearance?
Click to expand...
Security clearances focus mostly on secrets or conflicts of interest. In other words, you can have a huge gambling problem or a history of habitual drug use, but if you are honest you can still get clearance. It just means that the hiring agency has to be okay with whatever you've revealed.

In this case, if Mr. Porter had told his background investigation that he had abused his wives, and therefore was not hiding it, he could still get security clearance. It would mean that the White House knew about it and went ahead anyway, though. It is highly unlikely that he was able to hide this history of abuse from background investigators, so he was probably given clearance despite the abuse.
 
HCGLNS

HCGLNS

I was being sassy. Sorry I ate some decent cheese earlier and I'm all cockof the walk now.

He was denied clearance over a year ago, and still was responsible for every written document given to trump.
 
Tress

Tress

HCGLNS said:
I was being sassy. Sorry I ate some decent cheese earlier and I'm all cockof the walk now.

He was denied clearance over a year ago, and still was responsible for every written document given to trump.
Click to expand...
No apology necessary. It's just that my girlfriend is a background investigator for various government agencies, so I hear quite a bit about the process. And how sometimes these agencies give clearances to people who really shouldn't have them.
 
Last edited:
General Specific

General Specific

sixpackshaker said:
Trump just had another secretary resign, this time for domestic abuse.

The only thing Trump is repealing and replacing is the Executive Branch.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is his "draining the swamp"? He finds all the worst people, places them in a position of power and then slowly they are forced to resign as their various scandals become public knowledge. At the rate we are going, though, it is going to be a long time before we get around to the skeletons in Pence's closet.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

General Specific said:
Maybe this is his "draining the swamp"? He finds all the worst people, places them in a position of power and then slowly they are forced to resign as their various scandals become public knowledge. At the rate we are going, though, it is going to be a long time before we get around to the skeletons in Pence's closet.
Click to expand...
Pence's skeletons are out in the open. It's just that in the US, they're considered acceptable.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
who else but WV is stupid enough to believe Trump will still save coal even as he tells them to their face that coal can get fucked.
Click to expand...
"Mysterious" and totally unexpected* epidemic of black lung disease in Appalachia.
[Clinics] would typically see five to seven cases each year, Ron Carson, who directs Stone Mountain's black lung program told NPR. Now, the clinics see that many in two weeks, he said. And in the past year, they’ve diagnosed 154 cases.
“That’s an indication that it’s not slowing down,” Carson said. "We are seeing something that we haven’t seen before.”
Click to expand...
Yes, we will save Coal by (presumably) reducing safety standards and killing off the workers?
I mean, I hope the root cause turns out to be different, but it sounds like somebody's being excessively stubborn and either not wearing proper protective equipment OR that someone is cheaping out on the protective equipment they buy. Or a third option I suppose where the protective equipment is inadvertently substandard due to design/manufacturing defect, but I'm thinking the odds are for the first two.

I don't think Trump is gonna "save" Coal, even if he deliberately tried to do so. It's collapsing on itself, and the collapse is accelerating.

--Patrick
*no, really. The doctors are legitimately stumped as how this is happening.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top