Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[Weave]

Ugh.  Chris Collins pardoned today.  One big piece of ***** pardons another.

[SABRES 0311]

I wouldn’t have pardoned Papadopoulos. He was on a 12 month supervised released. While not a crime, the guy is an idiot. I watched a show about him and seems he thought he was some international man of mystery. 

[LGR4GM]

18 days left of Donald Nero Trump. 

[drnkirishone]

so what exactly happens when members of the house and the senate dispute the results of a states electoral college vote? I only ask because it seems assured that it will happen now with asshat Cruz at work.

[SwampD]

24 minutes ago, drnkirishone said:

so what exactly happens when members of the house and the senate dispute the results of a states electoral college vote? I only ask because it seems assured that it will happen now with asshat Cruz at work.

Like every other concern we have had,… nothing.

The banks have their stress tests. Donald Trump was our Constitution's stress test.

Looking good so far.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, drnkirishone said:

so what exactly happens when members of the house and the senate dispute the results of a states electoral college vote? I only ask because it seems assured that it will happen now with asshat Cruz at work.

2hr debate limit for each vote challenge.  It certainly delays things a bit.

In theory if one member of the house and one member of the senate agrees with the protest, the protest gets debated and voted upon.  The vote needs to be a smiple majority in both houses for the electoral college votes for that state to be thrown out.  But with a Dem majority in the house is is really, really unlikely that there would be a majority vote in both houses.

 

41 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Like every other concern we have had,… nothing.

The banks have their stress tests. Donald Trump was our Constitution's stress test.

Looking good so far.

I don't think we're done yet.  I'm expecting Republican leadership to continue the assault well into Biden's term.

[drnkirishone]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

2hr debate limit for each vote challenge.  It certainly delays things a bit.

In theory if one member of the house and one member of the senate agrees with the protest, the protest gets debated and voted upon.  The vote needs to be a smiple majority in both houses for the electoral college votes for that state to be thrown out.  But with a Dem majority in the house is is really, really unlikely that there would be a majority vote in both houses.

 

I don't think we're done yet.  I'm expecting Republican leadership to continue the assault well into Biden's term.

the only positive I can see from the ***** show that is the trump republic party is it has exposed how deeply flawed and easy it is to break our delicate democracy. I hope we learn from it and work to fix/strengthen or election system

[Weave]

21 hours ago, drnkirishone said:

the only positive I can see from the ***** show that is the trump republic party is it has exposed how deeply flawed and easy it is to break our delicate democracy. I hope we learn from it and work to fix/strengthen or election system

I would love to see the issues related to actual democracy that have been shown to be deeply flawed, fixed.  But right at this moment one side benefits from those flaws.  There won't be enough traction to get them actually fixed.

And McConnell has come right out and literally said that he will not allow one win for Biden in the next 4 years.  So, at best we'll see stagnation.

[drnkirishone]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

I would love to see the issues related to actual democracy that have been shown to be deeply flawed, fixed.  But right at this moment one side benefits from those flaws.  There won't be enough traction to get them actually fixed.

And McConnell has come right out and literally said that he will not allow one win for Biden in the next 4 years.  So, at best we'll see stagnation.

McConnell is just setting the stage for the next time they are in a position to sabotage our elections. I have no doubt in my mind that if the republican party controlled both the house and the senate they would go all out to overturn the election.

[SABRES 0311]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

I would love to see the issues related to actual democracy that have been shown to be deeply flawed, fixed.  But right at this moment one side benefits from those flaws.  There won't be enough traction to get them actually fixed.

And McConnell has come right out and literally said that he will not allow one win for Biden in the next 4 years.  So, at best we'll see stagnation.

What do you want to get fixed? Serious question, not trying to be a ****.  IMO the system of government isn’t the problem.  The problem is how those charged with executing it are doing so. 

Trump is out in a couple weeks but I think the problems will still be there after him, after Biden and so on.  I’ve been going over just the last 25 years and it’s amazing.

[drnkirishone]

1 minute ago, SABRES 0311 said:

What do you want to get fixed? Serious question, not trying to be a ****.  IMO the system of government isn’t the problem.  The problem is how those charged with executing it are doing so. 

Trump is out in a couple weeks but I think the problems will still be there after him, after Biden and so on.  I’ve been going over just the last 25 years and it’s amazing.

I agree that the problem is the people charged with doing the job. The issue is the whole system is designed to give the illusion that your vote matters. An individuals vote gets filtered thru so many systems that allow the systems to say nope we don't want that.

I understand that many of the systems are in place because we needed to make sure that an extremist was not able to take over the government. However the system does not work when you have partisan politics.

 

I also don't agree with the idea that it is just the normal progression of partisan politics. if the politics of our government was like a staph infection Trumpism has mutated it to MRSA

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, drnkirishone said:

I agree that the problem is the people charged with doing the job. The issue is the whole system is designed to give the illusion that your vote matters. An individuals vote gets filtered thru so many systems that allow the systems to say nope we don't want that.

I understand that many of the systems are in place because we needed to make sure that an extremist was not able to take over the government. However the system does not work when you have partisan politics.

 

I also don't agree with the idea that it is just the normal progression of partisan politics. if the politics of our government was like a staph infection Trumpism has mutated it to MRSA

I think quite a few conservative voters would agree with you actually.  From their perspective election tampering negated a fair election.  Not trying to debate the validity of those claims just articulating their point if view and a generic commonality.

What makes me roll my eyes is when the right accuses the left of something and then the left accuses the right of the same or similar.  Meanwhile Americans argue with each other about whose politicians are more/less screwed up.  If we see wrongdoing on both sides but keep voting for the same people or same type of people then whose to blame?  

On the surface it looks like partisan politics but deeper its bipartisan.  In the last 25 years both sides have had bad justice reform, targeting of citizens by government agencies (Intel and IRS), mismanaged foreign policy, fiscal irresponsibility, and self imposed security breaches.  

 

[Weave]

48 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

What do you want to get fixed? Serious question, not trying to be a ****.  IMO the system of government isn’t the problem.  The problem is how those charged with executing it are doing so. 

Trump is out in a couple weeks but I think the problems will still be there after him, after Biden and so on.  I’ve been going over just the last 25 years and it’s amazing.

We've seen that a Justice Dept. beholden to a President is dangerous in that it will protect that President.  Appointment of the US Attorney General needs to somehow become a bipartisan process.  Trump also showed you can eliminate Congressional oversight of Cabinet positions merely by appointing interim Cabinet heads.  Eliminate that.  There needs to be tighter control over enforcement of the Emoluments Clause.  There needs to be tighter controls regarding the hiring and firing of the various Inspectors General as well.  We've seen that Trump bullied his way by firing the controls that were supposed to reign him in.  And the system appeared unwilling or unable to stop it.

Really, most of what Trump has been accused of doing would be contained with a powerful Justice Dept.  The President and Congress used to fear the FBI.  I'm comfortable with that.  Make a strong Justice Dept, not beholden to any one group or party, and we are much, much less likely to see justice obstruction, brazen profiteering, soliciting of foreign governments for political assistance, violation of campaign finance laws, and many of the other things Trump has been involved in.

And from my view the situation has very rapidly degraded since the Supreme Court's Citizens Untied decision.  Dark money and unlimited spending has resulted in an election system heavily skewed towards ultrawealthy individuals and corporations.  I've mentioned before in this thread that the curtain is now thrown back and the Wizard is there for all to see.  They don't need to hide it, and they don't need to put up a front.  Now we get things like Mitch McConnell saying that he won't allow a single Biden win.  He doesn't have to fake things.  He can just put up a wall and let things burn because he'll back the ultrawealthy donors and they'll make sure he stays in office.  Democracy is unsustainable when one side has a logarithmic edge in influence.

[Weave]

40 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I think quite a few conservative voters would agree with you actually.  From their perspective election tampering negated a fair election.  Not trying to debate the validity of those claims just articulating their point if view and a generic commonality.

What makes me roll my eyes is when the right accuses the left of something and then the left accuses the right of the same or similar.  Meanwhile Americans argue with each other about whose politicians are more/less screwed up.  If we see wrongdoing on both sides but keep voting for the same people or same type of people then whose to blame?  

On the surface it looks like partisan politics but deeper its bipartisan.  In the last 25 years both sides have had bad justice reform, targeting of citizens by government agencies (Intel and IRS), mismanaged foreign policy, fiscal irresponsibility, and self imposed security breaches.  

 

1.  How do you define tampering?  In all of the cases that the Trump election team went after, the states had their election laws in place well before the election.  In most of those cases it was with the blessing of state GOP.  Are states not allowed to set and manage their own elections?  If not, when did that become a conservative thing?  What happened to state's rights?  This whole thing is awfully convenient in its timing.  Noone lifted a finger to challenge these rules until Trump lost.  And now with a coalition looking to challenge specific states, state's rights are even further in jeopardy than they already were.  Ted Cruz and crew are setting up a precedent whereby Congress gets to ultimately appoint the President by approving/disapproving an individual state's duly performed election.  If you really want tampering, there it is in a nutshell.

2. We keep voting for the same people because that is all the two parties will put before us to vote upon.  You can't blame the voters when they have no say in who is up for election, and no transparency about the candidates.  See my thoughts re: Citizen's United.  It was bad before that Supreme Court case.  It is much, much worse now.  Once you leave county politics and enter state level politics ability to raise money determines whether you'll get any party support at all, and let's face it, without party support you're done.  You don't get invited to debates, you don't get a team to do the leg work and PR work, and you don't get any money.

[Weave]

One other point regarding "election tampering".  This isn't my point.  I stumbled across it and am repeating it in my own words.

The coalition that is challenging the swing states election results aren't claiming fraud, they are claiming allegations of fraud.  Let's see.  It started with allegations of fraud by Trump's team, preemptively (how convenient).  Then they spread the propaganda of fraud.  Then they staged rallies and publicity stunts to give these allegations an air of credibility.  And now they are citing their own disinformation as a call to action.  All this with no evidence and no legal backing.  And zero independent support.

It's a grand circle jerk.  Literally.  And members of Congress are using this circle jerk as the foundation for a protest. 

Like I said, all this is setting precedent for Congress to take over the right for states to conduct their own elections.  And the end result is going to be violence I am afraid.

[SABRES 0311]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

1.  How do you define tampering?  In all of the cases that the Trump election team went after, the states had their election laws in place well before the election.  In most of those cases it was with the blessing of state GOP.  Are states not allowed to set and manage their own elections?  If not, when did that become a conservative thing?  What happened to state's rights?  This whole thing is awfully convenient in its timing.  Noone lifted a finger to challenge these rules until Trump lost.  And now with a coalition looking to challenge specific states, state's rights are even further in jeopardy than they already were.  Ted Cruz and crew are setting up a precedent whereby Congress gets to ultimately appoint the President by approving/disapproving an individual state's duly performed election.  If you really want tampering, there it is in a nutshell.

2. We keep voting for the same people because that is all the two parties will put before us to vote upon.  You can't blame the voters when they have no say in who is up for election, and no transparency about the candidates.  See my thoughts re: Citizen's United.  It was bad before that Supreme Court case.  It is much, much worse now.  Once you leave county politics and enter state level politics ability to raise money determines whether you'll get any party support at all, and let's face it, without party support you're done.  You don't get invited to debates, you don't get a team to do the leg work and PR work, and you don't get any money.

1. All I said was both left and right have a current issue with voting.  While neither side agrees on the validity of the other’s case they share a basic commonality in that the application of the voting system is wrong.  

2. We get the same people/same type over and over because American citizens don’t demand better.  I think we are to the point of voting against someone rather than voting for someone.  That’s on us.  Politicians will always do what they think they can get away with.  

[Weave]

Just now, SABRES 0311 said:

1. All I said was both left and right have a current issue with voting.  While neither side agrees on the validity of the other’s case they share a basic commonality in that the application of the voting system is wrong.  

2. We get the same people/same type over and over because American citizens don’t demand better.  I think we are to the point of voting against someone rather than voting for someone.  That’s on us.  Politicians will always do what they think they can get away with.  

My #1 point was a direct reply to your first paragraph, which was expressed by you as a conservative perspective.  Yes, both sides don't like the application of the voting laws.  Only one side thinks there are too many votes.

Regarding your second point.  Bull *****.  You show me an avenue to better choices and I'm walking the first steps down that path yesterday.  We cannot demand what we cannot control.  How do you demand better choices?  How do you force a private entity (GOP and Dem parties) to change their operating rules?  How is this even possible when you don't have the influence (money) to change their ways?  And if the election process is set up to specifically work for GOP and Dems, how do you vote for an alternative?  You get filtered choices already vetted for ability to raise money in primary, and you get even more filtered choices in the election.  The filter is the problem, not the people doing the voting.  By the time it gets to them free choice is a sham.

[SABRES 0311]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

My #1 point was a direct reply to your first paragraph, which was expressed by you as a conservative perspective.  Yes, both sides don't like the application of the voting laws.  Only one side thinks there are too many votes.

Regarding your second point.  Bull *****.  You show me an avenue to better choices and I'm walking the first steps down that path yesterday.  We cannot demand what we cannot control.  How do you demand better choices?  How do you force a private entity (GOP and Dem parties) to change their operating rules?  How is this even possible when you don't have the influence (money) to change their ways?  And if the election process is set up to specifically work for GOP and Dems, how do you vote for an alternative?  You get filtered choices already vetted for ability to raise money in primary, and you get even more filtered choices in the election.  The filter is the problem, not the people doing the voting.  By the time it gets to them free choice is a sham.

The two parties have no incentive to give quality because there is no meaningful demand for it from the people.  No matter how loud a group yells or protests there will be another to counter.  Throw in agitators and media spin and we become more divided on the direction of the country.  A divided citizenry leaves no incentive for politicians to simply be better.  Rather I think it emboldens corrupt people because whose going to notice what’s in one hand if we are distracted by the other.

Reminds me of the movie Braveheart.  William Wallace tells the Scottish nobles they’re so busy fighting over scraps they miss there chance for something better.  
 

 

[drnkirishone]

automatic voter enrollment needs to be a thing. A vote from new york should count the same as one from montana and either should count as much as a vote from ohio. It should not be election day, it should be election week. Or make election day a federal holiday and give incentives to businesses to be closed for it.

Just some simple things that should make sense to both sides. Ironically I bet just those 3 things would send voter turn out thru the roof and encourage both right and left to come closer to the middle

[SABRES 0311]

3 minutes ago, drnkirishone said:

automatic voter enrollment needs to be a thing. A vote from new york should count the same as one from montana and either should count as much as a vote from ohio. It should not be election day, it should be election week. Or make election day a federal holiday and give incentives to businesses to be closed for it.

Just some simple things that should make sense to both sides. Ironically I bet just those 3 things would send voter turn out thru the roof and encourage both right and left to come closer to the middle

I think businesses should give the day off as well.  

[Weave]

6 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The two parties have no incentive to give quality because there is no meaningful demand for it from the people.  No matter how loud a group yells or protests there will be another to counter.  Throw in agitators and media spin and we become more divided on the direction of the country.  A divided citizenry leaves no incentive for politicians to simply be better.  Rather I think it emboldens corrupt people because whose going to notice what’s in one hand if we are distracted by the other.

Reminds me of the movie Braveheart.  William Wallace tells the Scottish nobles they’re so busy fighting over scraps they miss there chance for something better.  
 

 

I ask again, by what mechanism can voters demand better candidates?

[Weave]

6 hours ago, drnkirishone said:

automatic voter enrollment needs to be a thing. A vote from new york should count the same as one from montana and either should count as much as a vote from ohio. It should not be election day, it should be election week. Or make election day a federal holiday and give incentives to businesses to be closed for it.

Just some simple things that should make sense to both sides. Ironically I bet just those 3 things would send voter turn out thru the roof and encourage both right and left to come closer to the middle

Agreed on automatic voter registration.

I think its been made perfectly clear over the last 2 election cycles that there is a disincentive on the GOP side to maximize voter turn out.  Consequently,  any changes that increase  voter participation will be met with extreme resistance.

[LGR4GM]

We want to talk about Trump blatant abuse of power or not so much? 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/donald-trump-brad-raffensperger-call-washington-post/index.html

[Weave]

52 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

We want to talk about Trump blatant abuse of power or not so much? 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/donald-trump-brad-raffensperger-call-washington-post/index.html

I am amazed at the loyalists thanking Trump for standing up for "freedom" instead of recognizing it for what it really was, an attempt to strong arm an election he didn't win.  I don't understand it at all.  He said in plain speech that he wants GA to "find" enough votes to change the results, not find the fraud.  Find the votes.  This is surreal.

Where the hell are Republicans in Congress speaking out regarding this?  Either come out of the shadows and show your support for it or denounce it for what it is.  Spineless.

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

I am amazed at the loyalists thanking Trump for standing up for "freedom" instead of recognizing it for what it really was, an attempt to strong arm an election he didn't win.  I don't understand it at all.  He said in plain speech that he wants GA to "find" enough votes to change the results, not find the fraud.  Find the votes.  This is surreal.

Where the hell are Republicans in Congress speaking out regarding this?  Either come out of the shadows and show your support for it or denounce it for what it is.  Spineless.

I said it before but I will say it again. The US Republic died and has been replaced by a semi-representative oligarchy.