Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[csyphrett]

Bob Woodard's book is out and some of the pages detail the fact that Trump's lawyers won't let him sit down with the Mueller probe because he has the understanding of a sixth grader and an inability to tell the truth.

CES

[Old Man]

God that's insulting.  Sixth graders deserve a lot more credit than that.

[Sociotard]

Trump claims that he was never told Woodward wanted to interview him.  I'm not convinced that Woodward tried very hard. He didn't even tweet to Trump, and unless you can get a message on Fox and Friends, that's the way to do it.

[Pariah]

So people are offended that Nike is affiliating with Colin Kaepernick, but they're okay with Nike using sweatshops and child labor to produce their overpriced crap.

 

Got it.

[Pariah]

7 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Yeah, alienating Canada is spectacularly stupid. Alienating everyone in the world at once is even stupider.

 

Maybe the US could "win" a trade war with Canada and force its government to grovel. The US isn't going to do that to China, or the entire EU. Picking a half-dozen or more such fights at once is a plan for absolute defeat.

 

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

[Lord Liaden]

From his actions and remarks, I'm convinced Donald Trump divides the whole world into "winners" and "losers." He believes that for him to be a winner, whoever he's opposed to has to clearly lose.

 

Moreover, he's demonstrated that the only measure of victory he understands is financial. The less-quantifiable but no less important elements of international relations are clearly beyond him. I don't think he even recognizes the bridges he's burning. Maybe he will when that comes back to bite him in the ass, but I'm not betting on it.

[TrickstaPriest]

19 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

Your quote, or from something entertaining that I should read?

[death tribble]

Babylon 5. Londo Mollari.

[Pariah]

9 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Your quote, or from something entertaining that I should read?

 

It's from Babylon 5.

[Hermit]

19 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

From his actions and remarks, I'm convinced Donald Trump divides the whole world into "winners" and "losers." He believes that for him to be a winner, whoever he's opposed to has to clearly lose.

 

Moreover, he's demonstrated that the only measure of victory he understands is financial. The less-quantifiable but no less important elements of international relations are clearly beyond him. I don't think he even recognizes the bridges he's burning. Maybe he will when that comes back to bite him in the ass, but I'm not betting on it.

 

Honestly, I wonder what would happen if all the nations that he was pissing of as OUR President boycotted Trump family businesses in mass? Then again, for all I know that might be happening already.

 

 

[archer]

On 9/4/2018 at 9:09 PM, Pariah said:

So people are offended that Nike is affiliating with Colin Kaepernick, but they're okay with Nike using sweatshops and child labor to produce their overpriced crap.

 

Got it.

 

I think it's a dumb idea for Nike to be affiliated with him in particular since that one affiliation is alienating large part of their customer base. But I think companies should have the right to do stupid things. And people should have the right to protest and boycott a company when they don't like what a company is doing. "Occupy Wall Street" and "boycott Nike" were both belief-driven movements, just coming from different points of view about what problems exist and need to be addressed.

 

But if it makes you feel any better, I'm not okay with sweatshops, child labor, or slave labor thinly disguised as "re-education camps" being used to produce consumer items for import. Trying to get people interested in actually reading the US State Department's yearly report on human rights violations in countries across the world has been one (of several) of my completely unsuccessful causes.

 

If the public read just the fraction of what the State Department documents, there'd be wide-scale protests over the fact that the US does any trade at all with China and wide-scale boycotts of Chinese-made consumer products crap. Or at least that's my fervent belief since I like to think that most people tend to be good people at heart and that the problem is ignorance rather than maliciousness.

[Sociotard]

So, regarding the 'Resistance' op ed in the NYT, does this mean that the liberal wing has to acknowledge that the 'deep state' is real?

[Old Man]

I thank the gods for the Deep State multiple times a day.  But there are no West Wing "senior staffers" who are part of the Deep State.  They're all appointed by the Occupant or his direct appointees.

 

Even W wasn't so bad that his own White House literally mutinied.

[archer]

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

So, regarding the 'Resistance' op ed in the NYT, does this mean that the liberal wing has to acknowledge that the 'deep state' is real?

 

The "Deep State" are supposed Obama and Democrat party moles left over in government positions when Trump took over as president and they are using their position to thwart the president's agenda.

 

These people from the article, on the other hand, are senior officials who were appointed by Trump to high government positions. And they realize the president is a nutbar and they need to act to thwart whatever insane compulsions rise to the surface of his mind on a daily basis.

 

There's no telling if they consist of people who were members of the Republican party prior to the Trump coup, the various military officials Trump has assigned to civilian positions, various people from the private sector who Trump appointed, or a mixture of those.

 

I'd like to think that at least a good number of them were already members of the party and who've finally realized the disastrous mistake the party machine made by teaming up with the Trumpsters to blatantly ignore the party's own rules at the convention and make Trump the nominee when he hadn't earned the spot.

 

After being forced to campaign for Hillary in the 2016 general election in order to try to stop a crazy person from becoming president, I've burned too many bridges to be comfortable in going back to the GOP. But I'd like to think that not everyone who decided to remain have really drunk the Cool-Aid.

 

Quote

25th Amendment of the US Constitution

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

 

[Lord Liaden]

Vice-President Mike Pence is clearly a more skilled and disciplined politician than President Trump. However, given some of the positions Pence has publicly expressed support for, I'm not sure that would add up to a net gain should he replace Trump.

 

My best-case scenario is probably a Democrat-dominated Congress which hamstrings whichever man is in the Oval Office until the next election. That I would consider such a scenario the "best case" leaves me feeling ill.

[Grailknight]

2 hours ago, archer said:

 

I think it's a dumb idea for Nike to be affiliated with him in particular since that one affiliation is alienating large part of their customer base. But I think companies should have the right to do stupid things. And people should have the right to protest and boycott a company when they don't like what a company is doing. "Occupy Wall Street" and "boycott Nike" were both belief-driven movements, just coming from different points of view about what problems exist and need to be addressed.

 

But if it makes you feel any better, I'm not okay with sweatshops, child labor, or slave labor thinly disguised as "re-education camps" being used to produce consumer items for import. Trying to get people interested in actually reading the US State Department's yearly report on human rights violations in countries across the world has been one (of several) of my completely unsuccessful causes.

 

If the public read just the fraction of what the State Department documents, there'd be wide-scale protests over the fact that the US does any trade at all with China and wide-scale boycotts of Chinese-made consumer products crap. Or at least that's my fervent belief since I like to think that most people tend to be good people at heart and that the problem is ignorance rather than maliciousness.

 

Nike is protecting its brand. While I'd like to think that Nike was portraying some modicum of social responsibility(and they probably are secondarily), the simple explanation is that this is a move made purely for PR. 

 

The main thrust of the PR is not however the consumer, it's the group of people who perform the bulk of its advertising and promote the brand: the athletes. Nike got to the top of the heap in large part because it attracted and held the most popular athletes as clients and promoters. If LeBron , Jordan and others jumped to another company over social issues then they could count on losing big-time market share. They wouldn't fold but they could become merely Adidas or fall as far as Puma or Converse. So they back a controversial figure with a good cause and they earn some goodwill with a section of the market and get free advertising from the Protest-Hater in Chief who has pretty much killed his chances of support from the athletic community.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

With a public as polarized as Americans are today, no company will win many of them over by trying to play to both sides. Nike had to choose a position. I believe they figure the side they chose is where most of their market is: younger and more diverse.

[Grailknight]

As damning and frightening as the excerpts from Woodard's book are, I find the tweets Trump made days before even more  serious.

 

The latest rant against Sessions was basically because the Justice Department brought charges against two of his supporters after investigations from 2017.(His own administration, not Obama's) His basic reasoning for the attack: His followers were favored to hold their seats but the indictments placed them in danger of being lost to the Democrats. Not because he believes them innocent  but because he thinks that the Justice Department should protect the party in power over upholding the law.

 

Then he stated that he doesn't think people should be allowed to hold protests. WT Holy F?!?! It's almost like he didn't pay attention when he took the oath of office to that  part where he has to protect the Constitution and that First Amendment thing. Like they only apply to the people on his side.

 

That he said these things makes me fully convinced that Woodward's book is mostly true. I now have to examine my opinions of his staff members in a new light. They may should have spoken out early and often but they may be the only thing keeping this administration from coming completely unhinged and the country from chaos.

[archer]

35 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

As damning and frightening as the excerpts from Woodard's book are, I find the tweets Trump made days before even more  serious.

 

The latest rant against Sessions was basically because the Justice Department brought charges against two of his supporters after investigations from 2017.(His own administration, not Obama's) His basic reasoning for the attack: His followers were favored to hold their seats but the indictments placed them in danger of being lost to the Democrats. Not because he believes them innocent  but because he thinks that the Justice Department should protect the party in power over upholding the law.

 

Then he stated that he doesn't think people should be allowed to hold protests. WT Holy F?!?! It's almost like he didn't pay attention when he took the oath of office to that  part where he has to protect the Constitution and that First Amendment thing. Like they only apply to the people on his side.

 

That he said these things makes me fully convinced that Woodward's book is mostly true. I now have to examine my opinions of his staff members in a new light. They may should have spoken out early and often but they may be the only thing keeping this administration from coming completely unhinged and the country from chaos.

 

There's a really high threshold for removing a president from office using the 25th amendment.

 

You can remove Trump for up to 25 days if the VP and the majority of the cabinet secretaries agree to do so. That's sixteen people so you'd need nine of them to agree to temporarily remove Trump. Here's the list of sixteen:

 

VP Mike Pence

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis

Secretary of Education Elisabeth Prince DeVos

Secretary of Energy James Richard Perry

Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Benjamin S. Carson, Sr.

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke

Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao

Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie

 

I think you'd get Pence, Sessions, and Mattis to agree to removal. Perry is a maybe because he'd like to be president or VP and dumping Trump is a step in that direction. Carson is a definite "no" vote, probably along with DeVos and Pompeo. I have no feel at all for the stance of the others.  

 

If you get nine of them including the VP, Trump is removed from office for up to 25 days. Then Trump immediately appeals and it goes to the House and Senate for them to vote on. Two-thirds of them would have to vote to keep Trump out of the White House in order to stop Trump from automatically returning to power.

 

Honestly, removing Trump in that fashion is an almost guaranteed failure unless he shows his megalomania in some action of unprecedented scope.

 

If the attempt to remove him fails and Trump returns to power, he'll burn down the country if that's what it takes to get his revenge on everyone involved in trying to remove him.

 

So any attempt to remove him is going to have to be guaranteed to work, and work instantly without any leaks to Trump despite the fact that he has willing slaves among the group who would have to take the first step to remove him.

 

Given that, playing along and trying to restrain Trump's impulses might be the safest course available. I couldn't be part of his administration given how much I detest the man and the Alt-Right that he stands for, but maybe it's okay that someone can hold their noses and try to stop him from the inner circle.

[Old Man]

19 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Honestly, removing Trump in that fashion is an almost guaranteed failure unless he shows his megalomania in some action of unprecedented scope.
 

 

I'm still amazed and ashamed that he hasn't been removed already.  Nixon was forced to resign over a B&E.  Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ.  Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape and obstruction of justice on live TV.  There is also no reasonable doubt that he didn't pay off at least two former lovers (ew) to silence them before the election.  The man should have been impeached and removed ages ago, but the congressional GOP finds it expedient to cover for his crimes, and is therefore complicit.

[TrickstaPriest]

15 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

I'm still amazed and ashamed that he hasn't been removed already.  Nixon was forced to resign over a B&E.  Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ.  Trump has admitted to sexual assault on tape and obstruction of justice on live TV.  There is also no reasonable doubt that he didn't pay off at least two former lovers (ew) to silence them before the election.  The man should have been impeached and removed ages ago, but the congressional GOP finds it expedient to cover for his crimes, and is therefore complicit.

 

It's mostly the blatant disinterest in the basics of the integrity of our legal system that disturb me.  But frankly Trump's willing admission of obstruction of justice SHOULD be enough to impeach him.  It shows you just how far our government is willing to politically 'forgive' him of all faults, just because of how divided our government has become.

 

This more than anything else is showing just how big of a fight for "control" of the government is going on.  Anything is forgivable, anything is forgettable, just let "us" be on top so that if everything begins to burn down "we'll" be in control of what's left.

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

There's a really high threshold for removing a president from office using the 25th amendment.

 

You can remove Trump for up to 25 days if the VP and the majority of the cabinet secretaries agree to do so. That's sixteen people so you'd need nine of them to agree to temporarily remove Trump. Here's the list of sixteen:

 

VP Mike Pence

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis

Secretary of Education Elisabeth Prince DeVos

Secretary of Energy James Richard Perry

Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Benjamin S. Carson, Sr.

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke

Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao

Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie

 

I think you'd get Pence, Sessions, and Mattis to agree to removal. Perry is a maybe because he'd like to be president or VP and dumping Trump is a step in that direction. Carson is a definite "no" vote, probably along with DeVos and Pompeo. I have no feel at all for the stance of the others.  

 

If you get nine of them including the VP, Trump is removed from office for up to 25 days. Then Trump immediately appeals and it goes to the House and Senate for them to vote on. Two-thirds of them would have to vote to keep Trump out of the White House in order to stop Trump from automatically returning to power.

 

Honestly, removing Trump in that fashion is an almost guaranteed failure unless he shows his megalomania in some action of unprecedented scope.

 

If the attempt to remove him fails and Trump returns to power, he'll burn down the country if that's what it takes to get his revenge on everyone involved in trying to remove him.

 

So any attempt to remove him is going to have to be guaranteed to work, and work instantly without any leaks to Trump despite the fact that he has willing slaves among the group who would have to take the first step to remove him.

 

Given that, playing along and trying to restrain Trump's impulses might be the safest course available. I couldn't be part of his administration given how much I detest the man and the Alt-Right that he stands for, but maybe it's okay that someone can hold their noses and try to stop him from the inner circle.

 

Hence my comment on having to examine  my opinion of his staffers. They could be doing the best they can to avoid the iceberg even knowing they'll go down with Trump. Our best hope is to flip somebody with solid evidence of direct malfeasance. Before he makes flipping illegal that is.

[Lord Liaden]

These recent published revelations are one more example of why independent news media are essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy. And why dictators the world over hate, fear and suppress them.

[TrickstaPriest]

eh, deleted

[Cassandra]

20 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Your quote, or from something entertaining that I should read?

 

Londo Mollari.