Former President Trump Thread

figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
While I was out grocery shopping today, I had the displeasure of hearing some conservative talk radio. The stupidity in bullet points:
  • It can't be quid pro quo because Biden isn't garaunteed to be the Democratic nominee.
  • Warren is rich and doesn't understand your average American because she can't do the right beer drinking redneck voice, or something.
  • There are 472 Democratic candidates and none are impressive
All of this took less than a minute, but apparently had already been talked about several times over. I think they just cover the same talking points over and over in a loop. It's brainwashing.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Frank said:
The fact that all this shit is out there on the table and you still have the people in charge now that you did while this was all happening just shows how abysmally broken the entire system is.
Click to expand...
The problem is we don't know how to fix it.

The final safety net was supposed to be elections. You get some giant corrupt asshole in office that you can't convict? You can vote him out.

However, we have now reached such a polarizing degree of partisanship that people who vote one side or the other would rather vote in the most corrupt, dishonest jester that headlines their team then even the moderate clown in the other party. Jesus Christ himself could come down and run as a democrat in the next election and be railroaded by half the country for being weak with Judas and giving aid to illegal immigrants.

Add in gerrymandering and other tactics to keep themselves in power, and we feel stuck, because the only ones that can change the laws that make the system are the people who benefit from those laws.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

ScytheRexx said:
Add in gerrymandering and other tactics to keep themselves in power, and we feel stuck, because the only ones that can change the laws that make the system are the people who benefit from those laws.
Click to expand...
Fun fact: the actual winner of the last dozen or so presidential elections have been NoOne, because that's who got the most votes.

If everyone who felt stuck went and voted for MIckey Mouse, then Disney wouldn't have to wait slowly to buy out the competition to take over.
Post automatically merged:

figmentPez said:
'Well, doesn't that suggest that the House did an incomplete job then?' "
Click to expand...
"Yeah, you guys should send it back to the House then..." - what you think of in the shower hours later!
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Intelligence officials ask Congress not to hold threats hearings after angering Trump last year

"US intelligence officials have quietly asked the Senate and House Intelligence committees not to hold public hearings on this year's Worldwide Threat Assessment after testimony from agency chiefs last year prompted an angry response from President Donald Trump, according to a source familiar with the talks."

How can anyone not view this as a colossal failure in Trump's leadership?
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Remember last week when the President said there were no American casualties in the attack on our military base in Iran? This may come as a surprise, but he lied.

Eleven US Troops Were Injured in Jan. 8 Iran Missile Strike
"This week, they were medically evacuated to U.S. military hospitals in Kuwait and Landstuhl, Germany, to be treated for traumatic brain injury and to undergo further evaluation, several U.S. defense and military officials have confirmed to Defense One. "
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

figmentPez said:
Remember last week when the President said there were no American casualties in the attack on our military base in Iran? This may come as a surprise, but he lied.

Eleven US Troops Were Injured in Jan. 8 Iran Missile Strike
"This week, they were medically evacuated to U.S. military hospitals in Kuwait and Landstuhl, Germany, to be treated for traumatic brain injury and to undergo further evaluation, several U.S. defense and military officials have confirmed to Defense One. "
Click to expand...
So war with Iran is unpopular with his base too, i guess.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
True, but it would still be a radically different situation if they'd blurred advertising, porn, or some other form of speech that's not as protected as political speech.
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that blurring anything is a crime against History. Blurring an ad might be more of a misdemeanor, but it still erases something.

--Patrick
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
PatrThom said:
It is my opinion that blurring anything is a crime against History. Blurring an ad might be more of a misdemeanor, but it still erases something.
Click to expand...
It's a display at a museum, not the archive photo itself (at least, I haven't heard about any altering of archived information). The museum display is inherently, by nature of only showing a selection of photos and not every photo taken, limited in scope and focus. If they decided to blur a billboard in the background in an effort to focus on the political protest, and not on the ubiquitous presence of corporate advertising, it would be no different than choosing one photo over another. That they showed a political protest and censored part of the message of the political protest, is the important part of what happened. Quibbling over other issues only distracts from that.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Trump Lawyers Argue No President Can Be Impeached for Any Abuse of Power

They're arguing that sitting Presidents can only be impeached for breaking the law, not for abuse of power. Never mind that Trump did break the law, it's pretty damn clear that impeachment is meant for any sort of action that shows a person should not be allowed to continue in office.

If this impeachment fails to remove Trump from office, he's only going to get bolder in his abuses of power. He's done some fucked-up things already, but it's only the tip of the iceberg compared to what he'll do if the Senate proves that they'll back him regardless of the facts.
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

I would be spamming the airwaves of Republicans repeating the mantra "an innocent person has nothing to hide," with all the refusals to allow testimony. If he's so damn innocent, where are the witnesses to prove it? Yeah, yeah, burden of proof and all that. But there's no one to rebut the evidence against.

Same goes for the culling of the voter rolls. Put the question in the public's mind. Why is the GOP so afraid of the voters?
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
DarkAudit said:
Why is the GOP so afraid of the voters?
Click to expand...
The problem with this question is that the GOP leadership and the GOP voters have very different answers. The leadership knows the truth, that their voters are outnumbered, and that they're very much in danger of losing seats any time educated voters get out in numbers. GOP voters, on the other hand, firmly believe that they're smarter, more moral, more Amercian, etc. and that they are deserving to be in the majority, and that they will be in the majority as long as Democrats don't cheat the system by allowing immigrants to vote or otherwise cheat the system.

But you know all this. I just wanted to rant about the problem inherent in the question. There's no way to convince a GOP voter that their leadership is lying to them.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
@Li3n said:
So am i to assume abuse of power isn't illegal in the US?
Click to expand...
As it applies to the president... is untested. In theory, impeachment is supposed to be the check to presidential power, and it's left open to congress and the senate to decide what is impeachable in order to avoid "well, technically, this isn't something the President is forbidden from doing..." But the US constitution was written under the assumption that elected officials would actively work to keep any one man from becoming a king. The idea that a political party would collude together in order to not only cover up crimes, but go as far as to ensure that the president is left unchecked in his power, would likely have shocked them. After all, they had just spent a lot of blood, sweat, and tears trying to ensure that they had created a system that would prevent having a monarchy where the voice of the people goes unheard.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

But doesn't that apply to most crimes?

I was asking if it's not a crime to abuse your public office.

Because they're making it seem like it's not one at all.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
@Li3n said:
But doesn't that apply to most crimes?

I was asking if it's not a crime to abuse your public office.

Because they're making it seem like it's not one at all.
Click to expand...
No, crimes have to be spelled out in the law and you can't just say "this really should be considered a crime" after the fact. One important part of impeachment (and more positions than the president can be impeached), is that it can be used to remove someone from office, even if they've thought of a novel way to be unfit for office.

And that's not even getting into how Trump and his lawyers also think that the concept of a crime doesn't apply to the president at all, but that's just setting him up to be a dictator.
 
Dei

Dei

I will say that it is fucking hilarious watching Cory Gardner try to act like he's totally going to consider the facts before voting on impeachment.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
@Li3n said:
So there's no law that says an elected official can't use his position for personal gains?
Click to expand...
Generally there are a lot of laws that specify what "personal gains" are illegal. The Emoluments Clause in the constitution being one of them. But not every possible personal gain is spelled out explicitly, and there are abuses of power that don't necessarily involve personal gain.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

figmentPez said:
But not every possible personal gain is spelled out explicitly, and there are abuses of power that don't necessarily involve personal gain.
Click to expand...
If you go back (to your own post), you can clearly see they said "any abuses of power", and not just that this one didn't have any personal gains etc.

Anyway, i just saw video of '90s Dershowitz saying you don't need a crime to impeach, and then one of now Dershowitz saying he was right then, but it's more right now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top