Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

PopePalpatine

fullstop wrote: »

Has to be some sort of financial incentive for them to be sticking by him. It’s pathetic.

Does job security beyond the 2022 primaries count as a financial incentive?

aloyisious

abff wrote: »

Yes, I expect he feels that they have been extremely disloyal and ungrateful.

He never does anything for anyone without expecting some kind of payback, so it must have come as an awful shock to him that they didn’t just roll over and allow him to steal the election.

It seems that the plank relied on in the Texan lawsuit was that the other states legislatures/legislators were not consulted on the way the state admins handled the voting and the vote result, allegedly making it unconstitutional. However, when the Texan state admin decided to extend it's voting period by 5 days due to the pandemic, none of it's legislators objected to or filed suit on that "unconstitutional" action.

Carfacemandog

Tell me how wrote: »

Now who's in the bunker?

It was literally Trump in the bunker to begin with.

banie01

In one of the early incarnations of this thread I floated an extreme possibility of some state seceding.
I had thought that it would be the coastal states likely led by California.
Now even when I floated that idea, it was as an unlikely possibility but one that would be led by a reaction to Trump's steal and his right wing populist heartland plays not really catching on with the wealthier and more educated states.

Turns out, it will be the Trumpist's who tear the US apart!
In order to better follow the constitution. The chair of the Texas GOP has floated the idea.
Absolutely mental. Imagine being so blindly partisan.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/529926-texas-gop-chair-appears-to-suggest-secession-after-scotus-rejects

fullstop

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Does job security beyond the 2022 primaries count as a financial incentive?

Something a bit more immediate I’m thinking. I mean, they had to know it was destined to fail, and there’s hundreds of millions coming in from idiots/donors at this time.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please don't just paste tweets here. Posts deleted.

EltonJohn69

Looks like Bill Barr has betrayed Trump and cost him the election.

Igotadose

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Looks like Bill Barr has betrayed Trump and cost him the election.

Wow. Two points in one sentence, both completely untrue! *MAGA*

Barr betrayed no one. He told the truth. That's not betrayal.

Trump lost long before we reached the point where Barr answered the question about interference

26000 Elephants

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems that the plank relied on in the Texan lawsuit was that the other states legislatures/legislators were not consulted on the way the state admins handled the voting and the vote result, allegedly making it unconstitutional. However, when the Texan state admin decided to extend it's voting period by 5 days due to the pandemic, none of it's legislators objected to or filed suit on that "unconstitutional" action.

Hypocrisy is never in short supply with Trumps lackeys.

Water John

Really hope the Dems win the two GA Senate seats and Mitch also becomes a nobody.

aloyisious

banie01 wrote: »

In one of the early incarnations of this thread I floated an extreme possibility of some state seceding.
I had thought that it would be the coastal states likely led by California.
Now even when I floated that idea, it was as an unlikely possibility but one that would be led by a reaction to Trump's steal and his right wing populist heartland plays not really catching on with the wealthier and more educated states.

Turns out, it will be the Trumpist's who tear the US apart!
In order to better follow the constitution. The chair of the Texas GOP has floated the idea.
Absolutely mental. Imagine being so blindly partisan.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/529926-texas-gop-chair-appears-to-suggest-secession-after-scotus-rejects

Rush Limbaugh is of similar opinion to Allen West. On his show last Wednesday [days prior to the USSC ruling] he said “I actually think — and I’ve referenced this, I’ve alluded to this a couple of times because I’ve seen others allude to this — I actually think that we’re trending toward secession,” “It can’t go on this way," he continued. "There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.” He' s putting the blame on RINO's who want to maintain the membership of the Washington establishment and keep the perks and opportunities for their kids.

Rudy Giuliani was on the Hannity show on Friday after the court's ruling was declared saying Trump's legal team isn't done with its electoral challenges, that the court should have given it a hearing to present it's facts.

IMO, Limbaugh's use of the words "cannot be a peaceful coexistence" shouldn't be treated lightly or blithely.

duploelabs

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Looks like Bill Barr has betrayed Trump and cost him the election.

Barr just did what he did to salvage some kind of career in a post trump world, he knows where this is going.
But don't forget, Barr also wound up the Mueller investigation early, produced that 'summation' of the investigation which clearly was a misrepresentation of its findings, and then had a very heavy hand in the impeachment inquiry.
He deserves no plaudits

StringerBell

Barr is one of the worst characters in this sordid tale. That can't be changed now, his deeds are tattooed on him and that won't wash away.

aloyisious

It's very fortuitous that the president was out of the White House yesterday, the day there was a rally in Washington protesting about the "stealing of the election" from him because the leader of the Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio visited the White House by what he posted on Parler was a last minute invite to an undisclosed location. President Trump tweeted from the helicopter about the rally with words to the effect that he didn't know it was to happen. The rally was attended by General Flynn who commented on the president taking a joyride by helicopter around Washington,
The White House issued a statement that Mr Tarrio had not been invited there and had not met the president. It seems that General Flynn did not inform President Trump about the planned rally.

StringerBell

Theres a pretty good argument to be made that those 120+ cowards and traitors who signed on to the lawsuit should not be allowed be seated in Congress.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment stipulates that: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof…”

A representative from NJ has actually made this request to the Democratic leadership, they could by majority vote exclude members from the Congress (which has been USSC tested) citing the above in a letter where simply stated he argues

Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress. These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each Member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the Rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid Members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber.

Consequently, I call on you to exercise the power of your offices to evaluate steps you can take to address these constitutional violations this Congress and, if possible, refuse to seat in the 117th Congress any Members-elect seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.

Now I know it won't happen, but a lot of things won't happen not because they should not happen (like the Texan GOP leader who made seditious comments about forming a new Union among states who have leadership who worship The Donald over the Constitution or their oath of office being arrested or at the very least removed from office) but because there would be too much blowback if they were to happen unfortunately.

Water John

It's up to the 126 to publicly acclaim that they respect as final the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue. To not do so and give any credence to Trump's assertions that the SC and its members weren't up to the job, would certainly be treason.
Let's see do any more GOP step up to the plate on Tuesday after the EC vote.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

It's up to the 126 to publicly acclaim that they respect as final the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue. To not do so and give any credence to Trump's assertions that the SC and its members weren't up to the job, would certainly be treason.
Let's see do any more GOP step up to the plate on Tuesday after the EC vote.

I can see the vote-result opposers and Rudy trying to present a lawsuit to the USSC that they were unconstitutionally blocked from getting state legislators to change the Electoral College members before Monday's vote and they'll blame secret "deep staters". They'll probably use that to get the Trump-fan base to hassle the legislators everywhere to interfere with the college between now and Jan 05th, just for the chance that their lies might be given a semblance of credibility before a court somewhere, anywhere.

Re the USSC refusing to even hear the lawsuit and the comments made by the bench in respect to the attempt, it seems Chief Justice Roberts has a history of telling-off people trying to present similar lawsuits to the USSC, [same as Friday] giving the claimants a message to go the state and lower federal courts route first. The comments made by him in the refusal to Trumps campaign in respect to overturning the Pennsylvania count certification, in respect to giving it "Safe Harbour" shows he and the majority of the USSC had a traditional view of protecting the result certification constitutionally inviolable.

Re the 106, there's a facebook page backing a campaign against them [with a buzzfeddnews.com list of the 106] using the term "un-american" in reference to them.

Igotadose

Worst economic performance by any post-WWII president. More winning. Where's RIGOLO when you need a regurge of how great the economy was under the #IMPOTUS?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/trump-economy-record/index.html
"Alone among the 13 presidents since World War Two, Trump will exit the White House with fewer Americans employed than when he started. He will have overseen punier growth in economic output than any of the previous 12 presidents."

Water John

Igotadose wrote: »

Worst economic performance by any post-WWII president. More winning. Where's RIGOLO when you need a regurge of how great the economy was under the #IMPOTUS?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/13/politics/trump-economy-record/index.html
"Alone among the 13 presidents since World War Two, Trump will exit the White House with fewer Americans employed than when he started. He will have overseen punier growth in economic output than any of the previous 12 presidents."

But, But, the stock market?

ExMachina1000

Trump has doubled down on his threat to veto the "740 billion national defense authorization act" which has been passed by both houses of Congress.

"Trump objects to the fiscal 2021 NDAA because it does not repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects technology companies like Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Inc's Google, Twitter Inc (NYSE:TWTR) and Facebook Inc (NASDAQ:FB) from liability for what appears on their platforms"

Midlife

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trump has doubled down on his threat to veto the "740 billion national defense authorization act" which has been passed by both houses of Congress.

"Trump objects to the fiscal 2021 NDAA because it does not repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects technology companies like Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Inc's Google, Twitter Inc (NYSE:TWTR) and Facebook Inc (NASDAQ:FB) from liability for what appears on their platforms"

I 100% agree with him on that.

namloc1980

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Trump has doubled down on his threat to veto the "740 billion national defense authorization act" which has been passed by both houses of Congress.

"Trump objects to the fiscal 2021 NDAA because it does not repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects technology companies like Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Inc's Google, Twitter Inc (NYSE:TWTR) and Facebook Inc (NASDAQ:FB) from liability for what appears on their platforms"

He's basically having a hissy fit because people on social media have been taking the piss out of him. Interesting to see Republicans again looking to assault basic rights like free speech.

ExMachina1000

namloc1980 wrote: »

He's basically having a hissy fit because people on social media have been taking the piss out of him. Interesting to see Republicans again looking to assault basic rights like free speech.

He has been saying for a long time now that these social media companies and tech giants have an anti conservative bias.

I would have to agree with him on that. Iv seen many conservative channels on YouTube disappear for example. Ones with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Some came back but their content was never in the suggestions again. Youd have to go look for them.

Definitely a personal grudge going on there too

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

He has been saying for a long time now that these social media companies and tech giants have an anti conservative bias.

I would have to agree with him on that. Iv seen many conservative channels on YouTube disappear for example. Ones with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Some came back but their content was never in the suggestions again. Youd have to go look for them.

Definitely a personal grudge going on there too

Care to give some examples of such pages? Cause invariably they tend to get removed for pushing things like hate speech. These rarely if ever occur because a page is simply conservative...

Christy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

He has been saying for a long time now that these social media companies and tech giants have an anti conservative bias.

I would have to agree with him on that. Iv seen many conservative channels on YouTube disappear for example. Ones with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Some came back but their content was never in the suggestions again. Youd have to go look for them.

Definitely a personal grudge going on there too

Do you know if they broke the terms of service of those providers? I know Zuckerberg is on record that they have to be nicer to right wings due to the amount of rules that they tend to break.

You can see the likes of Bannon calling for heads on spikes etc.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Care to give some examples of such pages? Cause invariably they tend to get removed for pushing things like hate speech. These rarely if ever occur because a page is simply conservative...

Way of the world was one.

Although after the ban and reintroduction he went full on loopy. The stuff he puts out now is worthy of censorship.
Possibly because he never recovered 100k or more subs so is gone a bit extreme to win them back

banie01

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I hope he does veto it

Without Facebook, Twitter and fox trump wouldn’t be where he is today

Having them moderate would mean no oxygen for future demagoguery from wannabe trumpets in waiting

He can't Veto it though AFAIK the bill passed both houses with a supramajority that prevents presidential veto.

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Way of the world was one.

Although after the ban and reintroduction he went full on loopy. The stuff he puts out now is worthy of censorship.
Possibly because he never recovered 100k or more subs so is gone a bit extreme to win them back

BUt before the initial ban it was all perfectly fine?

Brian?

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

He has been saying for a long time now that these social media companies and tech giants have an anti conservative bias.

I would have to agree with him on that. Iv seen many conservative channels on YouTube disappear for example. Ones with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Some came back but their content was never in the suggestions again. Youd have to go look for them.

Definitely a personal grudge going on there too

Some social media companies have a pro truth bias, not an anti conservative bias. Find me one conservative voice silenced for telling the truth and you win a shiny new donkey.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/Bing_Chris/status/1338194409779834885?s=19

It's a good job he didn't fire the entire leadership at the Cyber and Infrastructure Agency a few weeks ago and install inexperienced replacements. Oh.