The Trump Presidency – 2016

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

BREAKING: Steven Mnuchin is now flat-out REFUSING to disclose the businesses receiving $500,000,000,000 in bailout funds, claiming the info is "confidential"

4.5 MILLION businesses received government funds. Zero transparency.

Unconscionable, jaw-dropping corruption.

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) June 11, 2020

Yes, your daily-plus reminder that everything is a con.

I feel pretty good about this March 25 tweet.

House: Testify.

Mnuchin: Fuck you.

House: but the bill says...

[QuikSand]

And where are we supposed to be finding the time and energy to also be outraged about the unbelievable racist gall to schedule a Tulsa rally for Trump on Juneteenth? I mean, the strategy of overwhelming reasonable people with a tsunami of horseshit like this... it has its own brilliance. Assuming you're, like, down with evil and racism and the rest of the Trump menu.

[Ksyrup]

Seems to me like he's purposely trying to incite protesters/rioters so he can rain some LAW AND ORDER! down on their asses. Chum for his base.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The top eight stories on Foxnews.com are about CAPITOL HILL DESCENDING INTO ANARCHY!!

Yep, one headline reads:

"Seattle 'autonomous zone' has armed guards, local businesses being threatened with extortion, police say"

The actual quote in the story: "We’ve heard, anecdotally, reports of citizens and businesses being asked to pay a fee to operate within this area. This is the crime of extortion. If anyone has been subjected to this, we need them to call 911."

So basically the officer defined what extortion is vs. saying they are certain this is ongoing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And where are we supposed to be finding the time and energy to also be outraged about the unbelievable racist gall to schedule a Tulsa rally for Trump on Juneteenth? I mean, the strategy of overwhelming reasonable people with a tsunami of horseshit like this... it has its own brilliance. Assuming you're, like, down with evil and racism and the rest of the Trump menu.

I'm sure using S.S. in a tweet today was also accidental.

[Qwikshot]

I figure the next few months Trump will energize his base with rallies. Barr and Mitch will whip the sycophants to look the other way while they dismantle all remaining safeguards.

Trump will steal the election and stay in power. Some time in 2024 he'll hand the keys over to Ivanka or Don Jr. The judges up to the Supreme Court will be supportive henchmen.

I'm sure Trump will simply go to rallies keeping the faithfully ignorant in thrall while his corrupt children will continue to follow in his guidance and steal whatever they can.

It'll end when he dies, but by then most of our government will be nothing. China and Russia will have made inroads to secure all global influence.

It's the end.

[ezlee2]

I can't see a path for Trump to win now (thank god.) The way he handled COVID-19 and the protests pretty much sealed the deal IMO. I don't care how energized his base is. People are fed up and there are plenty of Republicans that are distancing themselves from him.

My biggest concern is that he will not cede power which is a very real possibility. That or he'll incite violence from his base.

[molson]

Trump won, in part, because lots of people who are not outwardly racist or far-right didn't like the cultural direction of the country. That dynamic could easily be a factor again.

I could see whatever movement is happening going too far for some peoples' comfort. It's one thing for someone who is dropping racial slurs on social media to be fired. If the definition of what's not acceptable broadens (and includes stuff like Drew Brees comments' and beyond), and if we see more cultural backtracking beyond just taking confederate statutes down (removing more movies and TV shows from circulation if they don't pass the litmus test, etc.), I could see it being too much, and people seeing Trump as a continuing defense against that kind of thing. How big is the growing pool of bad guys here, and how will that impact how those people vote?

Though on the other hand, Joe Biden is probably a great nominee to have in that situation because he's not a "scary" progressive to anyone. You can fear rapid societal change still comfortably vote for Biden.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I feel pretty good about this March 25 tweet.

How the GOP manages to make its base actually fear the Dems is perhaps its greatest feat of propaganda.

[JPhillips]

The Trump campaign has bought time on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC in the D.C. market.

Daddy needs to see happy messages.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

BUT OBUMMER AND BAILOUTS!!

SI

Won't somebody please think of HER EMAILS!!!!

[GrantDawg]

They are so incompetent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/u...-platform.html

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by molson

Though on the other hand, Joe Biden is probably a great nominee to have in that situation because he's not a "scary" progressive to anyone.

My political circle is pretty far left, so a lot of them were really bummed (and still are) by "uninspiring" moderate Joe Biden.

But I agree with you that the Dems may be very fortunate to have picked him.

The most logical attack on the Dems right now is probably some variation on "they want to replace the police with Antifa." And I think that it will be hard to make that stick with Biden.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And where are we supposed to be finding the time and energy to also be outraged about the unbelievable racist gall to schedule a Tulsa rally for Trump on Juneteenth? I mean, the strategy of overwhelming reasonable people with a tsunami of horseshit like this... it has its own brilliance. Assuming you're, like, down with evil and racism and the rest of the Trump menu.

Love the disclaimer on the registration for this rally:

"By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. ... liable for any illness or injury."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My political circle is pretty far left, so a lot of them were really bummed (and still are) by "uninspiring" moderate Joe Biden.

But I agree with you that the Dems may be very fortunate to have picked him.

The most logical attack on the Dems right now is probably some variation on "they want to replace the police with Antifa." And I think that it will be hard to make that stick with Biden.

Anyone who believes Antifa is a thing wasn't voting for a Democrat anyway.

[MrMeeseeks]

Old head here, who used to get into arguments regarding Bush's incompetence (under a different username). Surprised to see that the Trump thread here is mostly critical. Back in the aughts this place had a much more Fox-Newsish vibe.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by MrMeeseeks

Old head here, who used to get into arguments regarding Bush's incompetence (under a different username). Surprised to see that the Trump thread here is mostly critical. Back in the aughts this place had a much more Fox-Newsish vibe.

I think most of the conservative voices are still here, but very few folks want to back up Trump's words or actions on the daily. I bet the balance of discussion would look a lot different around here if there were simply a competent conservative in charge.

[Brian Swartz]

There's a lot of overlap between traditional conservatives and Trumpers, but also a not-small number of conservatives who don't like Trump, and Trump supporters who aren't conservative. Even if I held fast to my past conservative beliefs, Trump would be incompatible with them on many, probably most issues.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by molson

Trump won, in part, because lots of people who are not outwardly racist or far-right didn't like the cultural direction of the country. That dynamic could easily be a factor again.

I could see whatever movement is happening going too far for some peoples' comfort. It's one thing for someone who is dropping racial slurs on social media to be fired. If the definition of what's not acceptable broadens (and includes stuff like Drew Brees comments' and beyond), and if we see more cultural backtracking beyond just taking confederate statutes down (removing more movies and TV shows from circulation if they don't pass the litmus test, etc.), I could see it being too much, and people seeing Trump as a continuing defense against that kind of thing. How big is the growing pool of bad guys here, and how will that impact how those people vote?

Ugh, unfortunately I think you are 100% correct. I think there may also be some fear that the whole cancel culture could develop into political censorship. There really does not seem to be a lot of room for thought, discussion and differing views from these current movements and the agendas they are pushing.

[stevew]

Like legit I have a lot of far lefty friends and I have no clue why I never hear them post about being antifa. Literally the Masons have more of a presence among my acquaintances.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by stevew

Like legit I have a lot of far lefty friends and I have no clue why I never hear them post about being antifa. Literally the Masons have more of a presence among my acquaintances.

The first rule of Fight Club?

[stevew]

Yeah but we all know that the only way to grow Fight Club was to ignore the first two rules.

[Lathum]

Trump is giving the commencement speech Saturday at West Point. This is hands down his best opportunity to win back some support. I suspect he will blow it in spectacular fashion.

[kingfc22]

I really hope somebody just posts the entire Bolton book online and it gets distributed across social media so he doesn't earn a cent.

[Brian Swartz]

I believe antifa is a thing, inasmuch as I've had multiple conversations with people generally on the left endorsing them and their tactics, and people actually identifying as antifa have done things and showed up at various counterprotests and so on.

And yet I plan on voting Democrat in the next election. Huh.

[thesloppy]

My personal take on antifa, for what little it's worth: In my memory, young, masked anarchists in black have been in Portland since the 90s, and they would show up protests for any cause & throw bricks through business windows purely to cause chaos and generally rail against capitalism. I'm sure they've been around a lot longer and in other places.

Somewhere along the way they picked up the label of Antifa, and I'm not sure they collectively adopted it, so much as it was given/placed on them, since I've never seen any true organization, and their MO has never really changed. I imagine that the internet has made it possible for the 10-20% of the vocal minority that have actual principals beyond 'break shit' to better organize themselves, and mobilize the masses.

The label has served as kind of a double edged sword, in that it makes it hard for folks on the left to criticize, and gives them an air of political legitimacy and a vague cause to rally around, but it also allows critics to paint the group as a much more coordinated and politically motivated entity, and their lack of any actual leadership or organization lets their critics paint them as whatever enemy is most effective and/or convenient.

I hope MS-13 doesn't run wild in the streets while folks are distracted by Antifa.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

I really hope somebody just posts the entire Bolton book online and it gets distributed across social media so he doesn't earn a cent.

Me too

[Brian Swartz]

Because it's ok to steal from people we don't like apparently.

[kingfc22]

More like choosing profit over the oath you swore to your country. But sure.

[thesloppy]

Yeah, much like with Lindsey Graham, I think it's rather easy to restrict the case of John Bolton to John Bolton. There doesn't have to be some slippery slope of forever applying that same standard to the lowest common denominator of people that align with those folks, so much as: fuck John Bolton (and Lindsey Graham).

[JPhillips]

Dear God, don't post the whole thing, just the newsworthy parts. I have no interest in hundreds of pages of self-aggrandizement.

[Brian Swartz]

It's not a slippery slope argument, my point is if it's wrong to do something, it's wrong to do it to a 'bad' person just as it is to do it to a 'good' one. The 'bad' people have the same rights as the rest of us.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If you can't see McGrath winning (frankly the chances are so super low now) there's no way in hell Booker is going to win. However, and I'll give you this, if a progressive D can win in KY, then they are safer than someone like McGrath who ends up like a Heidkamp in ND. Someone who has to play where they can and ends up in a fight every election cycle. Still, I'd rather have anyone except Mitch. I still think McGrath has the best chance to get the disaffected former Mitch supporters to her side than Booker. If Booker can make inroads in the East and really grab support there, he might stand a chance. But either way, both would face a massive uphill battle. I'll support either one though. I still haven't voted my absentee. I might just throw it to Booker to help with momentum. McGrath has done well, her fundraising is mostly out of state money, but it's off the charts.

In terms of money, McGrath has $19.3M cash on hand, Booker has $285K and Broihier has $251K. If Booker makes it close, that could signal that McGrath is almost fully being propped up at the national level.

McConnell has $15.4M cash on hand and was outraised by McGrath by $4M since April. If they can't beat him, it won't be for lack of trying.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not a slippery slope argument, my point is if it's wrong to do something, it's wrong to do it to a 'bad' person just as it is to do it to a 'good' one. The 'bad' people have the same rights as the rest of us.

That's a load of horseshit, considering this current administration.

I would say it's just desserts for the type of people Trump places in his orbit.

[Brian Swartz]

Two problems with that. First, it's not about them; it's about what kind of people we should be and whether it's right to sink lower in response to them (no). Secondly, it's worth considering what happens when the shoe's on the other foot. Are we happy with those who have similar opinions of you/us acting that way? Just as it's been pointed out that issues such as Trump declaring an emergency vis a vis the wall on the southern border sets a precedent that other presidents could do so for health care or whatever cause du jour, the same logic applies in that if it's ok to mistreat those we don't like, it's ok for those who don't like us to mistreat us in the future.

That's why if something's wrong, it's just wrong. It's not right or wrong based on the target of the action. It's right or wrong on it's own merits, period.

[JPhillips]

It is morally obscene for that guy to make money off of a book when he could have spoken up to save the country. I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's why if something's wrong, it's just wrong. It's not right or wrong based on the target of the action. It's right or wrong on it's own merits, period.

I still think that if you want to make those 'merits' necessarily extend to some sort of lowest common denominator, legalese definition, covering all past & future, then that's on you.

I feel like I am capable of enough nuance that relishing in Graham or Bolton's misfortune doesn't somehow nullify whatever principals I've displayed in the 48+ previous years, and/or forever thereafter.

Narrator: He had not displayed any principals in the 48 years up to that point.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I feel like I am capable of enough nuance that relishing in Graham or Bolton's misfortune doesn't somehow nullify whatever principals I've displayed in the 48+ previous years, and/or forever thereafter.

There's a difference between relishing in someone's misfortune and overtly wronging them.

[thesloppy]

Well, I can't argue too far down that road....I would be happy to infringe on his copyrights in theory, but I don't actually want to read the book.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Two problems with that. First, it's not about them; it's about what kind of people we should be and whether it's right to sink lower in response to them (no). Secondly, it's worth considering what happens when the shoe's on the other foot. Are we happy with those who have similar opinions of you/us acting that way? Just as it's been pointed out that issues such as Trump declaring an emergency vis a vis the wall on the southern border sets a precedent that other presidents could do so for health care or whatever cause du jour, the same logic applies in that if it's ok to mistreat those we don't like, it's ok for those who don't like us to mistreat us in the future.

That's why if something's wrong, it's just wrong. It's not right or wrong based on the target of the action. It's right or wrong on it's own merits, period.

I'm not sure I agree with last paragraph. It's too black-and-white for me. Not making a judgement on Bolton specifically.

There are degrees of "wrong" and you need the "context" e.g. why someone did what they did. There are different levels/gradients.

It is wrong to steal.

Is it wrong to steal food if your family is starving? Yes in the legalese sense but in the big scheme of things ... it really isn't that bad just as long as you don't hurt someone or do any other major damage somehow.

Yes, thinking this way can lead to a slippery slope but IMO better than straight up black-and-white.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Two problems with that. First, it's not about them; it's about what kind of people we should be and whether it's right to sink lower in response to them (no). Secondly, it's worth considering what happens when the shoe's on the other foot. Are we happy with those who have similar opinions of you/us acting that way? Just as it's been pointed out that issues such as Trump declaring an emergency vis a vis the wall on the southern border sets a precedent that other presidents could do so for health care or whatever cause du jour, the same logic applies in that if it's ok to mistreat those we don't like, it's ok for those who don't like us to mistreat us in the future.

That's why if something's wrong, it's just wrong. It's not right or wrong based on the target of the action. It's right or wrong on it's own merits, period.

You live in a fantasy land if you think this.

People are inherently evil. They are selfish creatures that always look out for their own self-interest.

I don't think Obama was the best president, but I think he had a decency to him. I've found Trump and his supporters so devoid of humanity that I think it proves there is no god.

If you think that if someone were to leak Bolton's book as slipping down the same slope as Trump and his administration, then I'd like to see what your standards of decency are. Right now, his subversion and perversion of the truth are beyond evil. Biden would have to ride a coal cart to hell and take over to get even close.

I mean the litany of what Trump and his ilk has done morally, ethically and constant barrage on the tenants of the constitution.

Let's not forget: birtherism, putting kids in cages, killing a foreign national in a drone strike, supporting/enamored with authoritarianism, aspersion to science, perversion of religion and sanctity of marriage, constant lying, bullying, nepotism, greed, placing himself above office, zero empathy for fellow man, using racism to blame for shortcoming, rolling back environmentalism, cronyism, intimidating witnesses, promoting conspiracies, blatant racism, blatant sexism, misogyny, abuse of power, ethnic intimidation, lack of leadership or responsibility, narcissism, voter fraud, voter discrimination...etc...

But yeah, someone leaking Bolton's book, and whoah, them libs are really turning into monsters. And mind, some poster said this jokingly. All the above is actually happening.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There are degrees of "wrong" and you need the "context" e.g. why someone did what they did. There are different levels/gradients.

Sure, I don't disagree with this. I think murder and stealing are both wrong. That doesn't mean that both are equally bad or that the punishment for each should be the same. There's no reason you can't recognize that and still say that both actions are still wrong.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

If you think that if someone were to leak Bolton's book as slipping down the same slope as Trump and his administration, then I'd like to see what your standards of decency are.

I actually didn't say that at all and I've already stated I'm not making a slippery slope argument, nor does what you quoted make one. Whatever you're arguing with here, it isn't what I said.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

someone leaking Bolton's book, and whoah, them libs are really turning into monsters. And mind, some poster said this jokingly.

It's pretty obvious it wasn't a joke, esp. considering the number of people who have agreed with the sentiment and the fact that the person who posted it not only didn't ask me if my sarcasm detector was broken but in fact was among those doubling down. Not to mention that I didn't make any attack on libs in general, hold a number of liberal views myself, have a long track record of being anti-Trump, etc.

None of that impacts on the hypocrisy of being all for breaking the law vis a vis Bolton while decrying Trump's constant barrage on the constitution. Seriously, pick a worldview. Either these things matter ... or they don't. If they only matter when we agree with the cause involved, they don't matter and it's all just politics and bloodsport with no underlying standards involved. If that's the case, let's be honest about what we're really saying here and not pretend we really are about all the standards Trump et al. violate.

[albionmoonlight]

Bolton is one of the first, but there will be a fair number of people who could have prevented a lot of the pain that Trump has caused who instead helped him do it and who will then profit handsomely from it by writing Anti-Trump tell-all books that people will fall all over themselves to buy ("Look at page 93--sometimes Eric Trump forgets to wipe his butt after he poops!!! LOL LOL LOL").

Because everything is a con.

Personally, I hate that these people are going to make one red cent off of handing Trump gasoline while the country burned and then selling us all pictures of the fire.

But we shouldn't steal from them. The fact that the rule of law is important is the whole reason we are against the GOP in the first place.

So, yeah, I agree that we shouldn't let the abyss stare back. As much as we would like to.

[albionmoonlight]

We had previously scheduled our #MAGA Rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for June 19th – a big deal. Unfortunately, however, this would fall on the Juneteenth Holiday. Many of my African American friends and supporters have reached out to suggest that we consider changing the date out...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2020

That's . . . a thoughtful and reasonable response to valid criticism.

Who are you, and what have you done with the President?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

We had previously scheduled our #MAGA Rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for June 19th – a big deal. Unfortunately, however, this would fall on the Juneteenth Holiday. Many of my African American friends and supporters have reached out to suggest that we consider changing the date out...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2020

That's . . . a thoughtful and reasonable response to valid criticism.

Who are you, and what have you done with the President?

Just another con so he can come back later and point to it as another example of how much he has done for the black community.

[Lathum]

He almost sounds human until he throws in how many ticket requests he has received.

[sterlingice]

It's like standard politician craven "hey, I fixed this problem of my own making" as opposed to Trump craven "I'm going to make a racist 'unifying' speech on Juneteenth"

And, yeah, the ticket requests. That's how you know Donnie got his Twitter account back.

SI

[JPhillips]

Fox is trying sooo hard with CHAZ.

Fox News fell for a Monty Python joke on Reddit lmao pic.twitter.com/Yo34yuQvlD

— Josh Billinson (@jbillinson) June 13, 2020

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Fox is trying sooo hard with CHAZ.

My mom called yesterday to make sure we're ok and the wife's family is convinced we're living in a war zone.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

My mom called yesterday to make sure we're ok and the wife's family is convinced we're living in a war zone.

My dad texted me and said "bet you're glad you don't live in Seattle anymore"