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

BonnieSituation

Rep Boebert had a standoff with capitol Police at the metal detectors.

Honestly, there needs to be a purge of these nutters.

Call me Al

StringerBell wrote: »

I'd be confident internal polling has been carried out over the week and that the vast, vast majority of GOP voters are turned off by the scenes at the Capitol building. You have a loud fringe, and in all honesty a large fringe but a fringe element they are that has been thrust into the mainstream and amplified for years. Then you have corporate America feeling the pressure and talk of funding being pulled, plenty of reason to throw the goon under the train at this stage and bar him from ever running again to boot ensuring the end of him as a viable candidate. They have a number of years to work on a message to get the party behind, mainly hey we aint the Dems will do. Mitch has always thought long term and the GOP are not in a terrible position to rebuild from, certainly better than 06.

Appeasing this mob of lunatics GOP voters will push away the vast majority of unregistered voters without whom they have no chance of regaining power. There's a lot more of them than the extremists.

aloyisious

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Rep Boebert had a standoff with capitol Police at the metal detectors.

Honestly, there needs to be a purge of these nutters.

It seems she may have won, as its uncertain if the CPD got their requested look in her handbag after she tripped off the metal detector alarms, due it seems to fellow republicans going to her defence at the scene.

aloyisious

Rep John Katko [R] let fly with both barrels at Trump tonight in his speech supporting the impeachment, referring to Trump's speech to the insurgent mob near the Capitol last Wednesday, blaming him for what happened there.

Tell me how

aloyisious wrote: »

Rep John Katko [R] let fly with both barrels at Trump tonight in his speech supporting the impeachment, referring to Trump's speech to the insurgent mob near the Capitol last Wednesday, blaming him for what happened there.

I turned off the speeches after watching Lauren Boebert and a representative from Wisconsin who said what is needed now is unity because, after all, we are all Americans.

StringerBell

She is dead right, they should unite. The beginning of that unity is a truth and reconciliation as we have seen in other countries. You actually can't have unity without accountability either, but its just so transparent. The unmitigated gall of these people rarely fails to astound me even now.

aloyisious

Ted Cruz early on Thursday last after the Capitol insurrectionists attack on it [not him apparently] just before the reconvened Congress finally certified Biden’s victory once and for all, Cruz put out a statement declaring that even though “The attack at the Capitol was a despicable act of terrorism and a shocking assault on our democratic system,” he still had no regrets for his role in the public effort to discredit Biden’s win. “Millions of Americans who have peacefully expressed their deep concerns regarding election integrity deserve to have their voices heard. It was the right thing to do,” Cruz wrote.

This was printed in the Houston Press, which describes itself as Houston's independent source of local news and culture.

Carfacemandog

froog wrote: »

on another note, qanon hasn't posted since sometime in early december. i would imagine the FBI are looking for him right now and would love to get the various people controlling that sludge pipe. shouldn't be too hard, the sites he/they post on wouldn't exactly be hugely secure.

Jim Watkins must be shi*tting his pants. And yes, the US and Philippines do have an extradition treaty.

listermint

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Jim Watkins must be shi*tting his pants. And yes, the US and Philippines do have an extradition treaty.

According to the wiki he's in the states. And denied entry to the Philippines.

StringerBell

aloyisious wrote: »

Ted Cruz early on Thursday last after the Capitol insurrectionists attack on it [not him apparently] just before the reconvened Congress finally certified Biden’s victory once and for all, Cruz put out a statement declaring that even though “The attack at the Capitol was a despicable act of terrorism and a shocking assault on our democratic system,” he still had no regrets for his role in the public effort to discredit Biden’s win. “Millions of Americans who have peacefully expressed their deep concerns regarding election integrity deserve to have their voices heard. It was the right thing to do,” Cruz wrote.

This was printed in the Houston Press, which describes itself as Houston's independent source of local news and culture.

Rafael is one of the worst politicians in the US. Almost universally disliked by all except his constituents who vote for him seemingly. What amazes me is that his act is transparent also and you would think that his subjugation of himself to trump after all he did during the primaries would be a turn off for those same constituents.

Quin_Dub

StringerBell wrote: »

Rafael is one of the worst politicians in the US. Almost universally disliked by all except his constituents who vote for him seemingly. What amazes me is that his act is transparent also and you would think that his subjugation of himself to trump after all he did during the primaries would be a turn off for those same constituents.

No - They don't like him either , but there's an (R) beside his name on the ballot which is really all they need to see.

The oft repeated Al Franken quote is apt here.

Q - "Why do People take an instant dislike to Ted Cruz?"

A - "It just saves time"

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Seems they'll let him in if he brings his tax records to them for a looksee. I'd imagine they want to compare them to any properties he's linked with there.

I don't know where you get your "seems".

Nichola Sturgeon said he will be treated as any other citizen and be denied if he tries to enter during the current lockdown.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know where you get your "seems".

Nichola Sturgeon said he will be treated as any other citizen and be denied if he tries to enter during the current lockdown.

Not sure that Nicola Sturgeon would be able to make that call if Trump were to fly in on the 19th as Trump is not any other citizen at that point. He could just fly into any of the US air bases if he wanted and nobody from the host country of that airbase could do anything about it. OK, so Prestwick isn't a US airbase, but event so if a foreign head of state is flying in I don't think that falls under Sturgeons power to say no.

Of course come the 20th he's just a regular person, who happens to have a bunch of people with guns following him around for the rest of his life. Then Sturgeon can possibly make an argument over if he should be there or not.

Water John

If he's impeached, in the future he won't have a protection detail.

seamus

robinph wrote: »

Not sure that Nicola Sturgeon would be able to make that call if Trump were to fly in on the 19th as Trump is not any other citizen at that point. He could just fly into any of the US air bases if he wanted and nobody from the host country of that airbase could do anything about it. OK, so Prestwick isn't a US airbase, but event so if a foreign head of state is flying in I don't think that falls under Sturgeons power to say no.

Of course come the 20th he's just a regular person, who happens to have a bunch of people with guns following him around for the rest of his life. Then Sturgeon can possibly make an argument over if he should be there or not.

Yep, there was all buzz on Reddit about Scotland stopping or arresting Trump for breaching quarantine if he landed in Scotland. However in reality as a foreign Head of State I don't think there's anything anyone can do if he arrives before the 20th.

AF1 can be denied permission to land, but it can still land without clearance. And once on the ground, there's nothing anyone in the UK can do to stop him going to his golf club. Trump's position effectively gives him absolute immunity.

It would be a major diplomatic incident, obviously. But the chances of the UK arresting secret service agents or USAF pilots for following Trump's orders are non-existent. So in effect Trump can go to Scotland on the 19th if he wishes and there's nothing anyone can do about it but make noise.

Water John

What does he do then on the 20th when he's no longer President, just a US citizen, stay in Turnberry? Wait until the US issues a warrant for his arrest?

prawnsambo

Water John wrote: »

If he's impeached, in the future he won't have a protection detail.

That's actually not true. He's entitled to one as a former President. Even if he's impeached and the Senate voted to remove him from office, there's nothing that says he would lose his protection. Or his right to run in future elections. That would have to be done on a separate vote. He would lose his pension though if impeached and voted from office.

kowloon

seamus wrote: »

It would be a major diplomatic incident, obviously. But the chances of the UK arresting secret service agents or USAF pilots for following Trump's orders are non-existent. So in effect Trump can go to Scotland on the 19th if he wishes and there's nothing anyone can do about it but make noise.

I can just see him boasting about Scottish authorities having to respect him and his position on his Twitt... Maybe not

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No - They don't like him either , but there's an (R) beside his name on the ballot which is really all they need to see.

The oft repeated Al Franken quote is apt here.

Q - "Why do People take an instant dislike to Ted Cruz?"

A - "It just saves time"

Speaking of Franken, the carry on of the various Republicans who supported this violence makes his resignation sting all the more. Democrats hounded him out of office on absolutely ridiculous grounds, and lost one of their best politicians. Republicans can commit treason and hang about.

Quin_Dub

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's actually not true. He's entitled to one as a former President. Even if he's impeached and the Senate voted to remove him from office, there's nothing that says he would lose his protection. Or his right to run in future elections. That would have to be done on a separate vote. He would lose his pension though if impeached and voted from office.

If I read it right , he loses the budget/allowance that is used to cover "Security & Travel" - This is about a million a year.

Not sure if that means that he can still have a security detail , but he now has to pay for it himself though.

briany

Water John wrote: »

What does he do then on the 20th when he's no longer President, just a US citizen, stay in Turnberry? Wait until the US issues a warrant for his arrest?

I'm sure that one of millions of supporters would give him a place to stay... But seriously, it's a fascinating question, not because of where he might stay but because of how he handles the 20th. It's as good as a foregone conclusion that he'll be petty and bitter about it. My guess would be that he'll be holding a rally somewhere during the inauguration because he'll need that love to psychologically absorb the otherwise untenable blow that comes at noon of that day. And, this isn't a joke, Trump will want better ratings than the inauguration.

Brussels Sprout

Rjd2 wrote: »

Considering it from a purely political POV impeach Trump.

What's the point of playing nice with him? He is going to **** around in 2022 and 2024 regardless so try to somewhat neutralise him now when he is at his weakest without his microphone.

A lot of Republicans congressmen and a majority of senators, would love nothing better than to impeach & remove Trump. They just don't want to have to pay the future consequences for casting a vote against him.

It's a lot easier for the Congressmen since they know that they can have it both ways. They can vote against impeachment safe in the knowledge that the Democrat majority will vote to impeach him.

That's why I'm particularly impressed with the stance of Liz Cheney. She represents the entire state of Wyoming which voted for Trump by a whopping 43 point margin. She will almost certainly be primaried from the right in her next election next year as a result of that vote.

Quin_Dub

briany wrote: »

I'm sure that one of millions of supporters would give him a place to stay... But seriously, it's a fascinating question, not because of where he might stay but because of how he handles the 20th. It's as good as a foregone conclusion that he'll be petty and bitter about it. My guess would be that he'll be holding a rally somewhere during the inauguration because he'll need that love to psychologically absorb the otherwise untenable blow that comes at noon of that day. And, this isn't a joke, Trump will want better ratings than the inauguration.

Prior to last week , he was absolutely going to hold a rally on the 20th, rambling on about the stolen election etc. etc.

He would still probably love to do that , but you'd have to guess that his legal team are expending a huge amount of effort to talk him out of that now.

If he does (and he probably will, because he's a petulant child) he will expose himself to even further charges of sedition and incitement.

And , if he holds the rally and someone somewhere does something dangerous , which is sadly a near certainty then he'll be responsible for that too.

L1011

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If I read it right , he loses the budget/allowance that is used to cover "Security & Travel" - This is about a million a year.

Not sure if that means that he can still have a security detail , but he now has to pay for it himself though.

And with his propensity to stay in his own hotels etc, much of that would be pushed towards his pockets if he got to use it.

Quin_Dub

L1011 wrote: »

And with his propensity to stay in his own hotels etc, much of that would be pushed towards his pockets if he got to use it.

True - But to be fair , they all do that once out of office.

Biden rents the "granny flat" at his house to the Secret Service for his detail to stay in.

Can't remember the exact figure , but he's not charging budget rates.

Similar thing for Clinton and Obama.

Him charging them while he was in office is a whole other thing though.

briany

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Prior to last week , he was absolutely going to hold a rally on the 20th, rambling on about the stolen election etc. etc.

He would still probably love to do that , but you'd have to guess that his legal team are expending a huge amount of effort to talk him out of that now.

If he does (and he probably will, because he's a petulant child) he will expose himself to even further charges of sedition and incitement.

And , if he holds the rally and someone somewhere does something dangerous , which is sadly a near certainty then he'll be responsible for that too.

While holding a rally on the day of your political successor's swearing-in is a move of classlessness way beyond anything we've seen in modern American presidential politics, would it be an act that is seditious/inciteful by its nature or just by what he could say? Because if it's not by its nature a legally dodgy move then I think it's odds-on that Trump will hold it. Psychologically, Trump may need to hold one - the alternative would be having to vacate a Presidential residence which he would find humiliating. It would be bad enough for him leaving a residence to go do the rally and then having to go to a private residence afterward.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Not sure that Nicola Sturgeon would be able to make that call if Trump were to fly in on the 19th as Trump is not any other citizen at that point. He could just fly into any of the US air bases if he wanted and nobody from the host country of that airbase could do anything about it. OK, so Prestwick isn't a US airbase, but event so if a foreign head of state is flying in I don't think that falls under Sturgeons power to say no.

Of course come the 20th he's just a regular person, who happens to have a bunch of people with guns following him around for the rest of his life. Then Sturgeon can possibly make an argument over if he should be there or not.

If he flies into a US Air Base on the 19th then of course she can't stop him.

What happens on the 20th or 21st when he fancies some golf is the question.

Quin_Dub

briany wrote: »

While holding a rally on the day of your political successor's swearing-in is a move of classlessness way beyond anything we've seen in modern American presidential politics, would it be an act that is seditious/inciteful by its nature or just by what he could say? Because if it's not by its nature a legally dodgy move then I think it's odds-on that Trump will hold it. Psychologically, Trump may need to hold one - the alternative would be having to vacate a Presidential residence which he would find humiliating. It would be bad enough for him leaving a residence to go do the rally and then having to go to a private residence afterward.

It's not holding the rally - As you say , that's just utterly classless, but not illegal.

It's the fact that no matter what script he's handed , he will absolutely veer off and rant about Corruption and how the Presidency was stolen etc. etc.

He will also not be able to stop himself talking about "keeping up the fight" or similar language.

briany

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's not holding the rally - As you say , that's just utterly classless, but not illegal.

It's the fact that no matter what script he's handed , he will absolutely veer off and rant about Corruption and how the Presidency was stolen etc. etc.

He will also not be able to stop himself talking about "keeping up the fight" or similar language.

Apparently, aggressively promoting a lie that the election was stolen is not illegal, based on the fact that Trump has been doing it for *checks watch* about two months now. Not only him, but Republican politicians under him.

But, yes, double-entendres will be a big feature of any inauguration day speech. He will insist his words are about peaceful struggle, though.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

If he flies into a US Air Base on the 19th then of course she can't stop him.

What happens on the 20th or 21st when he fancies some golf is the question.

Tbh, it doesn't really matter.

One way or another he will still be a former President and entitled to a diplomatic passport.

The UK (or any other European country) is not going to try to arrest or deport him on some petty charge like breaching quarantine. The US will still defend the dignity of the Presidential office even if it's already a clown show.

They may go to the U.S. embassy and ask them to do something about it, but aside from bringing AF1 and their security agents home, the U.S. isn't going to do anything unless he gets charged with something serious at home.

These are all amusing "can you imagine it" scenarios, but it's fantasy IMO.