General US Politics

[Thane]

11 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

It had been corroborated with other news sites shortly after, but Trump himself basically admitted it earlier today in an attempt to defend himself, contradicting what McMaster said.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-says-wanted-to-share-with-russia-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

"As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety," Trump tweeted. "Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

Quite a few people apparently didn't get the memo, still calling it "fake news" even though Trump has already said this and condemned the leakers. How they could hold two contradictory positions is baffling.

The president tried to move the focus to government leaks, tweeting, "I have been asking Director Comey & others, from the beginning of my administration, to find the LEAKERS in the intelligence community."

The other defense from his supporters is pretty much what Trump said, in that he is not breaking any laws by disclosing that, and he's correct (as far as I know), but it's on the same level as his supporters being content that he can technically start a nuclear war, it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

And, lest we forget, if Obama or Clinton did this, there would be calls for their heads on a pike from conservatives, never mind impeachment.

I actually just read that. I'm actually struggling to come up with anything to say. The sheer hypocrisy and unpredictability coming from the White House is deeply concerning.

[Res]

On 5/9/2017 at 11:06 PM, Mortarion said:

If things continue at this rate, we'll have to take the title of Teflon President off of Reagan.

I think this week alone has earned him that title.

1 hour ago, Thane said:

I actually just read that. I'm actually struggling to come up with anything to say. The sheer hypocrisy and unpredictability coming from the White House is deeply concerning.

I'm seeing general political fatigue everywhere, including in this thread. The Trump supporters simply don't care (or, if they've changed their views, they're keeping it private) and the non-Trump supporters are simply gobsmacked.

 

 

[Time the Crestfallen]

Just when I think the bottom of the barrel has been found
https://www.bustle.com/p/trump-supporters-have-a-database-of-anti-trumpers-personal-information-report-59322
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/trump-supporters-have-built-a-document-with-the-addresses?utm_term=.aiDkLzXVG#.aqgZv07e8

[Moblin Major General]

1 hour ago, Mortarion said:

Just when I think the bottom of the barrel has been found
https://www.bustle.com/p/trump-supporters-have-a-database-of-anti-trumpers-personal-information-report-59322
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/trump-supporters-have-built-a-document-with-the-addresses?utm_term=.aiDkLzXVG#.aqgZv07e8

Trump's barrel has no bottom. I'm surprised someone is still looking for it. Trump is tricking people into digging into an abyss of shady shit.

[Radiant head]

lmao.  supervillain metaphors don't even work anymore. 

[Shoblongoo]

On 5/16/2017 at 5:18 AM, Cerberus87 said:

How are the rules in America? This early into Trump's term, in the unlikely event that he's impeached, Mike Pence would take over, right?

I saw some people speculating that Pence is a fallback plan because he's a template Republican. However, this is extremely unlikely to happen unless Trump does some seriously whacked crap and there's strong evidence against him.

 

It goes to Pence if Trump is impeached. If both Trump and Pence are impeached, it goes to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

The reason this is extremely unlikely to happen (at least this early) is that the House by majority vote must approve the filing of articles of impeachment, to begin impeachment proceedings, and then the Senate needs to vote to convict + remove the president from office.

The House and Senate are both currently controlled by Republicans, who seem hellbent on protecting the president and keeping him in office. So one of 3 things needs to happen for Trump to be impeached:

1) Republicans have a change of heart, and decide they're going to put holding a blatantly corrupt and unqualified president accountable for his actions above party loyalty. (not going to happen)

2) Something so damning comes out that Republicans in office, fearing for their own careers, turn on the president. Because they face so overwhelming a demand to do so from their constituents that they believe they too will be removed from office, by voters, if they continue to protect Trump. (given that they're STILL running protection after Trump demanded that the FBI end its investigation + publicly declare there was no evidence that Trump or any of his associates had colluded with Russia, fired the FBI director for refusing, then met in secret with Russian officials the very next day to tell them that "the pressure was off" and give them code-word classified information...its hard to imagine at this point that there's ANYTHING Trump's loyalists and defenders won't turn a blind eye to)

3) Republicans are voted out of office in 2018. Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate. THEN we get serious talk of impeachment.

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Time the Crestfallen]

11 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

The House and Senate are both currently controlled by Republicans, who seem hellbent on protecting the president and keeping him in office. So one of 3 things needs to happen for Trump to be impeached:

My fear is that the US will do exactly what my country did; Tony Abbot was an absolute cretin and managed to piss off pretty much the entire country other than the far-right nutjobs and when he got sacked, the LNP successfully sold Malcolm Turnbull as a true moderate candidate, only for them to continue doing the exact same shit that Abbot got up to when they got re-elected.

Yes, Trump is awful and needs to be removed, but the GOP is still nearly as awful and obviously either agree with his policies or care more about party-loyalty then the good of the country.

[Res]

The proposed budget is a nightmare, so many cuts to education. :( Keep the upcoming voters stupid, seems to be the idea...

[Time the Crestfallen]

2 hours ago, Res said:

The proposed budget is a nightmare, so many cuts to education. :( Keep the upcoming voters stupid, seems to be the idea...

And the arts, and the sciences, and social services...

Pretty much the only things that aren't getting cut are the things that give the xenophobes a stiffie.

EDIT: Also; yet another promise broken.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Mortarion

[Shoblongoo]

8 hours ago, Res said:

The proposed budget is a nightmare, so many cuts to education. :( Keep the upcoming voters stupid, seems to be the idea...

The American budget is like a 1st grader playing Oregon Trail.

Spends all his money on guns and bullets, thinking the most important thing is to at all times be able to shoot anything that moves. Doesn't buy medicine or upgrade his wagon.

Then wonders why halfway through the game--the wheels are falling off and everyone is dying of dysentery.

[eclipse]

22 hours ago, Mortarion said:

My fear is that the US will do exactly what my country did; Tony Abbot was an absolute cretin and managed to piss off pretty much the entire country other than the far-right nutjobs and when he got sacked, the LNP successfully sold Malcolm Turnbull as a true moderate candidate, only for them to continue doing the exact same shit that Abbot got up to when they got re-elected.

Yes, Trump is awful and needs to be removed, but the GOP is still nearly as awful and obviously either agree with his policies or care more about party-loyalty then the good of the country.

I hope it doesn't come to that.  IIRC, the people of Indiana weren't happy about Pence, and I'm a bit worried if he becomes President.

17 hours ago, Mortarion said:

And the arts, and the sciences, and social services...

Pretty much the only things that aren't getting cut are the things that give the xenophobes a stiffie.

EDIT: Also; yet another promise broken.

I'm beginning to think that the people who run this country have the mentality of a scared child.

[Skynstein]

11 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

The American budget is like a 1st grader playing Oregon Trail.

Spends all his money on guns and bullets, thinking the most important thing is to at all times be able to shoot anything that moves. Doesn't buy medicine or upgrade his wagon.

Then wonders why halfway through the game--the wheels are falling off and everyone is dying of dysentery.

More proper comparison would be like playing Civilization. On Easy difficulty. :D

[Res]

16 hours ago, eclipse said:

I'm beginning to think that the people who run this country have the mentality of a scared child.

'Evil' comes to mind a lot lately.

Betsy DeVos's maniacal grin as she essentially agreed to discriminate against students with LGBT families? Or the glee with which some Republicans have lately been talking of arresting and prosecuting reporters? 

[Shoblongoo]

36 minutes ago, Res said:

'Evil' comes to mind a lot lately.

Betsy DeVos's maniacal grin as she essentially agreed to discriminate against students with LGBT families? Or the glee with which some Republicans have lately been talking of arresting and prosecuting reporters? 

Sooooooooooo. How about that Montana race?


http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/24/media/montana-gop-greg-gianforte/

[Lord Raven]

my favorite is how the GOP made damn sure that people suffering from mental disorders have guns but god help them if they need health insurance!

[Tryhard]

21 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Sooooooooooo. How about that Montana race?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/24/media/montana-gop-greg-gianforte/

for reference for one of the things this guy has said before:

people who rant about creeping Sharia Law in the US seem to be missing the forest for the trees as Republicans have been trying and in some ways succeeding to deliver Christian theocracy for years, which if anything is the far greater threat

[eclipse]

13 hours ago, Tryhard said:

for reference for one of the things this guy has said before:

people who rant about creeping Sharia Law in the US seem to be missing the forest for the trees as Republicans have been trying and in some ways succeeding to deliver Christian theocracy for years, which if anything is the far greater threat

This is why I want my government to be equally indifferent about all religions (including the lack thereof).  Religion should be a personal choice.

Unfortunately, this puts me at odds with a LOT of people who I shouldn't be arguing with. ;/

[Shoblongoo]

On 5/25/2017 at 2:25 PM, Tryhard said:

for reference for one of the things this guy has said before:

people who rant about creeping Sharia Law in the US seem to be missing the forest for the trees as Republicans have been trying and in some ways succeeding to deliver Christian theocracy for years, which if anything is the far greater threat

It's less troubling that it happened, and more troubling how many rightwingers felt  a tribal, brand-loyalty need to justify and excuse it. As though they were defending a debate gaffe, or an off-color remark at a rally. We've reached a point now where we trivialize assaults on journalists as a matter of partisan hackery; once upon a time this was the kind of thing that would have drawn universal scorn and condemnation and ended a political career. 

[Black_Knight]

On 5/23/2017 at 9:14 AM, Shoblongoo said:

3) Republicans are voted out of office in 2018. Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate. THEN we get serious talk of impeachment.

The odds of the Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2018 are extremely slim even if this is a tidal wave year for the Democrats. That's because they have to defend a whopping 23 seats compared to the Republican's 9. To add to that, the two independents in Senate who caucus with the democrats are also up for reelection so that brings the amount of seats that Democrats need to defend up to 25. Then taking into account where democrats have to defend themselves in red or purple states like Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia and Florida, and that this is a midterm where along with Republican voter suppression laws that are going to be pushed even harder, democratic turnout tends to be more suppressed. Is it still possible? Yes, but it would be improbable like Trump winning. Reacting the House, which is still a difficult feat because of how Republicans have gerrymandered so many house districts in their favor. Possible to retake? Certainly in comparison to the Senate. Although there are still a lot of variables in play. Such as the Democrats deciding they should readopt Howard's Dean 50 state strategy that they abandoned after Obama took over the party and oversaw crushing losses in the local and state levels of government, not just Congress.

As for the even seriously entertaining impeachment, even if Democrats take both houses of congress, that would still not be enough. Impeachment requires a simple majority to pass in the House. That only moves it to triall in the Senate which requires 2/3rds to vote in vote favor conviction to remove the president from office. (This is where the Republican's attempt to remove Bill Clinton failed.) So it's going to weigh heavily on Special Prosecutor Mueller's report on Trump's collusion with the Russians in regards to their attack on the US election to force Republicans to put the country ahead of their party.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Black_Knight

[Lord Raven]

13 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

It's less troubling that it happened, and more troubling how many rightwingers felt  a tribal, brand-loyalty need to justify and excuse it. As though they were defending a debate gaffe, or an off-color remark at a rally. We've reached a point now where we trivialize assaults on journalists as a matter of partisan hackery; once upon a time this was the kind of thing that would have drawn universal scorn and condemnation and ended a political career. 

in which country?

Also I would like to point out: I really question the sanity of those who think creeping Sharia Law is a thing considering legal abortions and gay marriage being recently legalized. It's also kind of strange too when white people complain about that, considering they were the benefactors of wiping out entire cultures for their own gain. I'm not saying it would be karma, but it's not something that a race is innocent of.

Also, if Muslims really wanted to take over the world, they'd have done it already.

[Time the Crestfallen]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Also I would like to point out: I really question the sanity of those who think creeping Sharia Law is a thing considering legal abortions and gay marriage being recently legalized. It's also kind of strange too when white people complain about that, considering they were the benefactors of wiping out entire cultures for their own gain. I'm not saying it would be karma, but it's not something that a race is innocent of.

It's hypocrisy in its purest form. Go on Stormfront or the Manosphere and you'll see that their Muslim strawmen are within arms reach of their own beliefs. I guarantee you that a society created by the /pol/ and r/RedPill types would be virtually indistinguishable from Saudi Arabia.

EDIT: Also, remember when Hillary was reckless because of her e-mail server?

Edited May 31, 2017 by Mortarion

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Quote

It's also kind of strange too when white people complain about that, considering they were the benefactors of wiping out entire cultures for their own gain. I'm not saying it would be karma, but it's not something that a race is innocent of.

Every race has done that at one point or another, whites just happen to be the perpetrators of the most recent atrocities in regards to large-scale genocide.

 

Quote

Also, if Muslims really wanted to take over the world, they'd have done it already.

I find that unlikely considering their constant infighting after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which itself lost WW1).

[Shoblongoo]

14 hours ago, Black_Knight said:

The odds of the Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2018 are extremely slim even if this is a tidal wave year for the Democrats. That's because they have to defend a whopping 23 seats compared to the Republican's 9. To add to that, the two independents in Senate who caucus with the democrats are also up for reelection so that brings the amount of seats that Democrats need to defend up to 25. Then taking into account where democrats have to defend themselves in red or purple states like Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia and Florida, and that this is a midterm where along with Republican voter suppression laws that are going to be pushed even harder, democratic turnout tends to be more suppressed. Is it still possible? Yes, but it would be improbable like Trump winning. Reacting the House, which is still a difficult feat because of how Republicans have gerrymandered so many house districts in their favor. Possible to retake? Certainly in comparison to the Senate. Although there are still a lot of variables in play. Such as the Democrats deciding they should readopt Howard's Dean 50 state strategy that they abandoned after Obama took over the party and oversaw crushing losses in the local and state levels of government, not just Congress.

As for the even seriously entertaining impeachment, even if Democrats take both houses of congress, that would still not be enough. Impeachment requires a simple majority to pass in the House. That only moves it to triall in the Senate which requires 2/3rds to vote in vote favor conviction to remove the president from office. (This is where the Republican's attempt to remove Bill Clinton failed.) So it's going to weigh heavily on Special Prosecutor Mueller's report on Trump's collusion with the Russians in regards to their attack on the US election to force Republicans to put the country ahead of their party.

...pretty much...yeah...

The legal grounds for impeachment have already been laid. Just on whats public knowledge at this point--regardless of whether or not they can further substantiate any of the underlying collusion allegations--the sum total of the Comey firing, the meetings preceding the Comey firing, the meeting with the Russians in the White House next day + statement that the "pressure is off," and the admissions Trump made about his intent at the time of the firing in his interview with Lester Holt get you to an Obstruction of Justice charge.

Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense. That's what forced Nixon out when all was said-and-done, not the underlying conduct of the Watergate burglary. It was his efforts to shutdown the INVESTIGATION into the Watergate burglary--efforts that were correctly surmised (and later confirmed) to be evidence of guilt in the underlying matter.

...because men who are confident that they will be exonerated when the truth comes out generally don't go about trying to shutdown federal investigations...

But while legally that's enough--politically--something more is needed. Because today's Republicans are not the Republicans of the Nixon era. They are more partisan, more hackish, and less beholden to a sense of civic duty. And well past the point where Republicans turned against Nixon; after Nixon fired the man in charge of investigating his White House and began ranting that the Watergate Investigation was a fake story perpetuated by lying liberal journalists, who were the enemy of his administration and for whom the American people should have no respect, Republicans were done with him. He had no friends left in Congress and support for impeachment was bipartisan once he went down that road. That was a level of open criminality and disrespect for rule-of-law that no body of lawmakers, Democrat or Republican, would tolerate.

Now lawmakers will continue to excuse all manner of misconduct and even echo Trump's line that it is the fault of the press for reporting his bad behavior, rather than Trump's fault for doing the things they are reporting.  They will continue to say "...But what about when Hillary did [w/e]," and justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

...unless and until something bigger comes out. Its a shame, really. They shouldn't need something bigger. Whats already out there is Nixonian. But something new and shocking even in light of whats already come to light needs to come out of the Mueller investigation, to get Republicans to thinking THIS cannot be overlooked or excused.

Agreed--as much as Democrats are hoping to capitalize on an anti-Trump wave in 2018, they are not competitive in enough of the Red States up-for-grabs to make it happen. (i.e. Montana. FFS; we just had an election where the Republican physically assaulted a reporter for asking him a question on healthcare, and he still won)

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Res]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Agreed--as much as Democrats are hoping to capitalize on an anti-Trump wave in 2018, they are not competitive in enough of the Red States up-for-grabs to make it happen. (i.e. Montana. FFS; we just had an election where the Republican physically assaulted a reporter for asking him a question on healthcare, and he still won)

Not only did he win, but 9% of people polled after the election said the physical assault was what prompted them to vote for him! An actual blatant disregard for the first amendment (not the lack of free speech people whine about).

The withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement sounds like bad news...

[Lord Raven]

11 hours ago, Camus The Dark Knight said:

I find that unlikely considering their constant infighting after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which itself lost WW1).

That's the point lol, if they really wanted to take over Western countries they would've done it, but as it stands they \are unable to.