Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

He went on to talk about how he won't let the left wing media use one thing to tarnish ALLL the good work they did together and blah blah

Just too bad for him that that one bad thing included a concerted effort by Trumps converts to bring his political career to a sudden end. If he hasn't come to a signed and notarised deal with Trump securing his future in the GOP, he's toast unless those in his audience last night turn out to be a split faction in the GOP. It would really be nice if Pence's audience issued a public statement in a regular GOP rag making it clear they want to dump Trump. I expect Trump to respond to Pence's speech even if its via a GOP put-down mouthpiece.

blackcard

aloyisious wrote: »

From MSNBC. Former Vice President Mike Pence returned to the campaign trail last night, headlining a fundraising dinner in New Hampshire ahead of a likely 2024 presidential campaign. One point he made clear during his speech is a difference of opinion he's had with Trump about the Capitol building attack. "January 6 was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol," Pence said. "But thanks to the swift action of the Capitol Police and federal law enforcement, violence was quelled, the Capitol was secured, and that same day we reconvened the Congress and did our duty under the Constitution and the laws of the United States." - [pause in speech] - Reading from a prepared text, Pence added, "You know, President Trump and I have spoken many times since we left office. And I don't know if we'll ever see eye to eye on that day."

On one level, I would love to see Trump and Pence debating in the Republican Primary for 2024 just to see them have a go at each other. On another level, I wouldn't like to see either of them within a million miles of becoming president

EltonJohn69

blackcard wrote: »

On one level, I would love to see Trump and Pence debating in the Republican Primary for 2024 just to see them have a go at each other. On another level, I wouldn't like to see either of them within a million miles of becoming president

Mmm... that is actually a fairly likely scenario... it would be another sh1t show, just like the previous Republican debates were.

aloyisious

Looking at why Trump shut down his blog-site, I'm left wondering if it's because of others lack of interest [readership] in it or because he's the lead in what others show an interest in on it, making him a possible legal target because of what he put's on what's an "open to the public forum", all voluntarily of course. That probably hurt him ego-wise, having to close it down. With Facebook extending it's ban on him using it as a platform, he seems to be running out of platforms to speak and raise funds for his aims and intents.

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

There is definitely no Rear Adm. Jack Meehoff

But perhaps a private Seymour Butts

Oh I'm not arguing that some were definitely fake, just haven't found anything saying that it was completely fake. Odds are that some retired high ranking personal would feel the premise of the letter was correct given that the majority of their armed services officer level would be gop voters.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Looking at why Trump shut down his blog-site, I'm left wondering if it's because of others lack of interest [readership] in it or because he's the lead in what others show an interest in on it, making him a possible legal target because of what he put's on what's an "open to the public forum", all voluntarily of course. That probably hurt him ego-wise, having to close it down. With Facebook extending it's ban on him using it as a platform, he seems to be running out of platforms to speak and raise funds for his aims and intents.

Jokes already going around that the free hosting period was about to expire.

Don't know about lack of interest, some posters on here were claiming that it was the best thing since sliced bread when first launched.

aloyisious

Don McGahn [former White House counsel] is to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about the Russia inquiry [and report] carried out by Robert Mueller. It's being suggested that he will be asked if Trump tried to obstruct the inquiry. Jerry Nadler and Madeleine Dean are the committee Chair & V/chair with Jim Jordan as ranking member for the GOP, Louis Gohmert & Matt Gaetz lesser members. It'll probably turn out to be a GOP "points of order" show which is a pity as the counsel probably could tell what the other Don did.

aloyisious

In GOP news on what may be a surprise move, Texas GOP party chair Allen West quit the office saying he may primary Greg Abbott, the GOP state governor. West is apparently a QAnon supporter using it's slogans to benefit himself. This may be the first time a GOP member has gone for a senior political position [outside congress] carrying with him QAnon baggage and may be a sign of how Trump has assisted QAnon to become a major player in GOP politics at state level. It seems that a few days ago retired General Mike Flynn had endorsed West for the Governor's job.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

The military can at its discretion yank him back to active duty to face court martial

Yes, but I suspect only for crimes committed whilst on active service. I don't know if there is a regulation to that effect, but I cannot think of a single incidence of a retiree being successfully brought back to face charges stemming from post-service incidents. Larrabee v Braithwaite is currently working its way through the federal courts, the Federal District Court ruled last year that the military could not bring Larrabee back for a court-martial on charges of sexual assault committed after his retirement, even though he technically was still in one of the reserves of the military.

Guys, the talk of a coup is hyperbole. Even a sedition attempt is highly unlikely.

Unfortunately the N/G to some degree has been [after a fashion] suborned by Trump's antics in respect to alleged future loss of their civil rights. They believe his lies.

Wait, what? You want to substantiate that at all? I mean, sure, there are probably some misguided folks, but the NG is a segment of the population as a whole, with all the good and bad which comes of it. And especially do you want to substantiate that it will affect our actions as instructed by lawful authority?

Doesn't the command of the National Guard in DC go via the president rather than any state governor? Think it was Pence who gave the instruction on the day.

As I recall, the decision to move the DC Guard was made by the Secretary Defense. Operation of the DC Guard is routinely delegated to him (And normally further delegated to Sec Army) from the senior executive. He can be overruled, but I don't recall it ever having been done. However, the gist is correct that the top of the chain is the President, not a Governor or (in this case), Mayor

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, but I suspect only for crimes committed whilst on active service. I don't know if there is a regulation to that effect, but I cannot think of a single incidence of a retiree being successfully brought back to face charges stemming from post-service incidents. Larrabee v Braithwaite is currently working its way through the federal courts, the Federal District Court ruled last year that the military could not bring Larrabee back for a court-martial on charges of sexual assault committed after his retirement, even though he technically was still in one of the reserves of the military.

Wait, what? You want to substantiate that at all? I mean, sure, there are probably some misguided folks, but the NG is a segment of the population as a whole, with all the good and bad which comes of it. And especially do you want to substantiate that it will affect our actions as instructed by lawful authority?

I'll respond to yours above if it doesn't cause offense.

1. I think the notion of recalling General Flynn to military service for the purpose of bringing any charge related to sedition or similar act would NOT be legal and would be struck down by the USSC or federal apeals court if a case was brought there by his lawyer that the military were acting in bad faith in any recall-to-duty act. I think Biden would be like-minded in over-ruling any such move by the military.

2. As I mentioned there were N/G members involved in the attack on the Capitol on 06 Jan and the poster you are responding to may have meant it as a response to my post. Due to the statements [and orders some issued to others in the attack] they made on that day while present and active in the attack, it was made plain they were there with the intent on participating in the attack voluntarily and that their presence was premeditated on their part. The courts they may face will be the best judge of whether they were misguided souls. They were not [as has recently been posited by a GOP senator who was one of the people under attack] the same as tourists merely touring the Capitol. I totally agree with you that, by and large, the loyalty of both the regular military and the N/G is with observing their obligations under the constitution and country they swore an oath to - edit - and not to a former president.

aloyisious

In breaking news, Tom Paxton, Texas AG, has stated that Trump would have lost the vote in that state in the 2020 election if his [Paxton] office hadn't blocked counties there from sending out mail-in voting applications to voters there.

frag420

aloyisious wrote: »

In breaking news, Tom Paxton, Texas AG, has stated that Trump would have lost the vote in that state in the 2020 election if his [Paxton] office hadn't blocked counties there from sending out mail-in voting applications to voters there.

Fake news, obvs...:P

gimli2112

The US elections have a lot more in common with those in Putin satellite states and African banana republics than I realised.

aloyisious

gimli2112 wrote: »

The US elections have a lot more in common with those in Putin satellite states and African banana republics than I realised.

Under the last president it had all the signs of tending towards that, despite his mention of Africa in a bad light as against the shining light he was in the US.

Tell me how

gimli2112 wrote: »

The US elections have a lot more in common with those in Putin satellite states and African banana republics than I realised.

It was said on here many times last year that if the lead up to elections in a country in Africa or South America had been surrounded with the same concerns about the attempts to influence the result as we saw in the US, the UN and America itself would have been talking about sending observers to ensure everything was above board.

That is where America has gotten itself and while one man is the figure head for this, he is at the head of an ugly machine of manipulation, false narratives and sustained efforts to do similar over the last several years.

Tell me how

Just read there that at the Republican State Convention in North Carolina, which Trump attended and spoke at, he was introduced as 'Our President' by the North Carolina Republican Party Chairman.

The Republican party should be utterly ashamed of itself.

Cody montana

Tell me how wrote: »

Just read there that at the Republican State Convention in North Carolina, which Trump attended and spoke at, he was introduced as 'Our President' by the North Carolina Republican Party Chairman.

The Republican party should be utterly ashamed of itself.

He’s getting roasted on Twitter over his appearance anyway.

Tell me how

Cody montana wrote: »

He’s getting roasted on Twitter over his appearance anyway.

I'd settle for both Twitter and the Republican party stopping talking about him, full stop.

Cody montana

Tell me how wrote: »

I'd settle for both Twitter and the Republican party stopping talking about him, full stop.

Most certainly.

The general vibe being he was deranged and deluded.
Then he gave the speech.

pixelburp

I recall opining that if and when Trump was defeated, there'd be a mass volume of Republicans conducting very public Roads to Damascus, performative acts of hindsight that of course, they always knew that Trump fella was sketchy. Utterly self-serving but at least reflective that reality would move on from such a vulgar demeaning of democratic norms.

I can't believe how wrong I got it: still find it bewildering there are still prominent members of the GOP simply doubling down on support, indulging and normalising in the worst kind on conspiracy. To call it "Shameless" seems almost trite at this stage, yet what else can it be called? The internal polling must say to them, yes, indulge these ... ... well. Deplorables. It was idiotic for Clinton to debase the voting public at the time but at this stage there's a little bit of vindication at play here.

Tell me how

pixelburp wrote: »

I recall opining that if and when Trump was defeated, there'd be a mass volume of Republicans conducting very public Roads to Damascus, performative acts of hindsight that of course, they always knew that Trump fella was sketchy. Utterly self-serving but at least reflective that reality would move on from such a vulgar demeaning of democratic norms.

I can't believe how wrong I got it: still find it bewildering there are still prominent members of the GOP simply doubling down on support, indulging and normalising in the worst kind on conspiracy. To call it "Shameless" seems almost trite at this stage, yet what else can it be called? The internal polling must say to them, yes, indulge these ... ... well. Deplorables. It was idiotic for Clinton to debase the voting public at the time but at this stage there's a little bit of vindication at play here.

I thought that the day he was clear that he was beaten, that the GOP would cut him loose like a rotten piece of fruit.

But maybe because of the nature of his defeat in that 74M still voted for Trump and it took 4 days for Biden to be declared the winner forcing people to still keep talking like he was their guy and then everything that went on in the weeks and months after that it created a position where he became something they couldn't cut loose without alienating these people.

Detritus70

Tell me how wrote: »

I thought that the day he was clear that he was beaten, that the GOP would cut him loose like a rotten piece of fruit.

But maybe because of the nature of his defeat in that 74M still voted for Trump and it took 4 days for Biden to be declared the winner forcing people to still keep talking like he was their guy and then everything that went on in the weeks and months after that it created a position where he became something they couldn't cut loose without alienating these people.

They're obviously looking at the numbers and calculating how much manipulation and perversion of the rules they need to get him on the throne in 2024.
That has got to be the aim. The ultimate revenge, the ultimate fcuk you to half of America.
All motivated by greed, spite and malice.

jamule

Trump will not run again, he is ****ed physically and cognitively. He won't be let out like last night again in a hurry.
But the gop will keep it rumbling until 2024, its all about cultivating the cult for the gop.

Tell me how

Detritus70 wrote: »

They're obviously looking at the numbers and calculating how much manipulation and perversion of the rules they need to get him on the throne in 2024.
That has got to be the aim. The ultimate revenge, the ultimate fcuk you to half of America.
All motivated by greed, spite and malice.

They want him on the seat not as a FU or any sort of revenge, but they know he would be extremely favourable to trying to push through every hairbrained GOP initiative they can think of going forward. Image the damage he'd have done with a House and Senate majority also?

jamule wrote: »

Trump will not run again, he is ****ed physically and cognitively. He won't be let out like last night again in a hurry.
But the gop will keep it rumbling until 2024, its all about cultivating the cult for the gop.

I'm inclined to agree with you. He'll keep everyone waiting on tender hooks expecting he'll run but then he could be key in selecting a stand in should Fr Time or the SDNY AG step in and prevent him from running.
Could yet see a Donald Trump on the Ballot in 2024 except not this guy but the one who is much less intelligent if you can imagine that.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Guys, the talk of a coup is hyperbole. Even a sedition attempt is highly unlikely.

It's not normal, and it needs to be censured. That type of talk gets my back up, frankly, and puts the 2nd amendment on my table. Talk like that is a threat to our national security.

Wait, what? You want to substantiate that at all? I mean, sure, there are probably some misguided folks, but the NG is a segment of the population as a whole, with all the good and bad which comes of it. And especially do you want to substantiate that it will affect our actions as instructed by lawful authority?

I think they're referring to the fact the National Guard had to background check everyone in DC back in January. As a result a guardsman or two iirc was removed from duty/reassigned I should say 'out of an abundance of caution' not a prosecution of guilt.

As I recall, the decision to move the DC Guard was made by the Secretary Defense. Operation of the DC Guard is routinely delegated to him (And normally further delegated to Sec Army) from the senior executive. He can be overruled, but I don't recall it ever having been done. However, the gist is correct that the top of the chain is the President, not a Governor or (in this case), Mayor

I'm not getting into the minutiae of what happened that day right now, but can I just say it is infuriating that we still even have to have debates on the finding of facts, conversations are had online everywhere still, and its not based on a common set of established facts, it's this - it's 'as I recall' it's 'some people are saying' or 'I read the other day that' 'I heard earlier,' etc. ? How are there not enough centrists in government to get a commission passed so we can move forward and have conversations about this that substantively matter, by getting on board with a bipartisan consensus on what happened that day? It's like they actively want Americans to break out into Civil War because they can't even agree on who the gd President is supposed to be, much less agree on everything that happened on January 6.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, but I suspect only for crimes committed whilst on active service. I don't know if there is a regulation to that effect, but I cannot think of a single incidence of a retiree being successfully brought back to face charges stemming from post-service incidents. Larrabee v Braithwaite is currently working its way through the federal courts, the Federal District Court ruled last year that the military could not bring Larrabee back for a court-martial on charges of sexual assault committed after his retirement, even though he technically was still in one of the reserves of the military.

Guys, the talk of a coup is hyperbole. Even a sedition attempt is highly unlikely.



Wait, what? You want to substantiate that at all? I mean, sure, there are probably some misguided folks, but the NG is a segment of the population as a whole, with all the good and bad which comes of it. And especially do you want to substantiate that it will affect our actions as instructed by lawful authority?



As I recall, the decision to move the DC Guard was made by the Secretary Defense. Operation of the DC Guard is routinely delegated to him (And normally further delegated to Sec Army) from the senior executive. He can be overruled, but I don't recall it ever having been done. However, the gist is correct that the top of the chain is the President, not a Governor or (in this case), Mayor

This is the Donald Trump thread. The man incited one (bad) coup attempt and believes another will put him back into power in a few months. It is still relevant.

Itssoeasy

I don’t understand how the GOP in their heart of hearts think having Donald trump back out talking is a good idea. If he was capable of staying on message that’d be one thing, but we know he’s utterly incapable of doing that. And we saw during the Georgia senate run offs last January that trump talking hurt the GOP turnout and if the GOP keep the line that there was concerns about voting then they are likely to hurt their own voters turn out, because why would they vote in elections they are being told are corrupt and not on the level ?

briany

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I don’t understand how the GOP in their heart of hearts think having Donald trump back out talking is a good idea. If he was capable of staying on message that’d be one thing, but we know he’s utterly incapable of doing that. And we saw during the Georgia senate run offs last January that trump talking hurt the GOP turnout and if the GOP keep the line that there was concerns about voting then they are likely to hurt their own voters turn out, because why would they vote in elections they are being told are corrupt and not on the level ?

The GOP have not proffered a single political candidate who can take over from Trump. There are a litany of people in the party who appear to be positioning themselves for this but none of them have the full suite of Trumpian attributes - one's crazy, one is not politically correct, one panders to the lowest common denominator, another's a former successful businessman, another has a brand beyond politics, etc. etc. Trump is a perfect storm that a more obedient replacement cannot just usurp because that person does not yet exist. Given the cult of personality that Trump has managed to create, the Republican heads are too scared not be seen to publicly support him, lest they lose a massive chunk of voters and/or get primaried.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not getting into the minutiae of what happened that day right now, but can I just say it is infuriating that we still even have to have debates on the finding of facts, conversations are had online everywhere still, and its not based on a common set of established facts, it's this - it's 'as I recall' it's 'some people are saying' or 'I read the other day that' 'I heard earlier,' etc. ? How are there not enough centrists in government to get a commission passed so we can move forward and have conversations about this that substantively matter, by getting on board with a bipartisan consensus on what happened that day? It's like they actively want Americans to break out into Civil War because they can't even agree on who the gd President is supposed to be, much less agree on everything that happened on January 6.

Well, in this case, it was because I was working from memory, not having taken a few minutes before posting to verify that my memory was correct. Not least because Pence was not in the chain of command and had no authority on the matter anyway.

However, given it's caused you some consternation, I've now done my fact-checking, it turns out my recollection is indeed correct, and I can now remove the qualification.

EltonJohn69

briany wrote: »

The GOP have not proffered a single political candidate who can take over from Trump. There are a litany of people in the party who appear to be positioning themselves for this but none of them have the full suite of Trumpian attributes - one's crazy, one is not politically correct, one panders to the lowest common denominator, another's a former successful businessman, another has a brand beyond politics, etc. etc. Trump is a perfect storm that a more obedient replacement cannot just usurp because that person does not yet exist. Given the cult of personality that Trump has managed to create, the Republican heads are too scared not be seen to publicly support him, lest they lose a massive chunk of voters and/or get primaried.

It’s Don jr time. With Sr. As vice