Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[archer]

Trump fires Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

 

Esper had already announced he was leaving after the election but apparently Trump didn't want to let him tender his resignation with dignity.

 

Trump has announced Christopher Miller , the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, to be Acting Secretary of Defense.

 

Miller had been unanimously confirmed to that post by the Senate in August 2020 so is as much of an uncontroversial pick as anyone could have expected of Trump at this point.

 

He was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense from January through August. Ha has a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies from the Naval War College and is a graduate of the Naval College of Command and Staff and the Army War College.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/524728-trump-fires-defense-chief-esper

 

Firing Esper and starting over again with a new SecDef is going to unnecessarily roil the defense establishment which has already been reeling over Trump's abrupt announcements, troop withdrawals, and policy changes.

 

Trump's fourth acting Defense secretary in less than two years.

[TrickstaPriest]

25 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

The personnel director is threatening to fire anyone looking for other jobs.

 

Didn't hear about this.  Any information on it?

 

6 minutes ago, archer said:

Trump fires Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

 

That... why?

[Old Man]

34 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

That... why?

Esper wouldn’t deploy the national guard against antifa back in July, that’s why. 

[unclevlad]

Because it's Trump, that's why.  This is no different from HOW many similar such actions?  

 

EDIT:  twisted thought.  Trump's notion of a 'concession speech' might be firing Dr. Fauci.  He'd have to construct grounds, and it wouldn't hold up in the end according to most..but for spite, he can do it.  One reason he hasn't, IMO, is it would've sent a major shock to the stock market, and it likely would've cratered for a bit.

 

But now?  The market's already figuring Trump's out the door, and that nothing significant is going to be done before Biden.  So firing Fauci is simply a continuation of the "there's nothing wrong, it's all going away very soon now" fantasy.  As long as Trump is out the door in January, it's meaningless.

[archer]

1 hour ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

That... why?

 

Explanations have varied. 

 

After Trump getting rid of various SecDef's who stood up to him, Espy went out of his way to be deferential when he could. Reportedly, that made Trump think he was a wimp.

 

Espy did stand up to Trump about deploying the military to quell protests. Also he didn't want uniformed military personnel to be backdrop at campaign events.

 

I figure that Trump thinks Espy is going to write a tell-all book like most of the rest of the people who've left the administration. It'll be easier to dismiss him as a disgruntled employee if Trump fires him than if he left on his own terms.

[Ragitsu]

 

^ This is the flavor of competency we are going to lose .

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Imagine what it would be like to have something like this coming from an actual competent campaign?  The whole country would be in pieces in a single term.  Trump has pretty much laid the groundwork for that.

 

Just a reminder of a suggestion for anyone thinking of working elements of that into a game: The Sutherland Presidency.

[archer]

19 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

^ This is the flavor of competency we are going to lose .

 

But this gives Trump that real "man of the people" vibe.

 

"Incompetent and held at a place where beer and BBQ wouldn't be out of place" is reaching out to his base.

 

If they'd set up beer and BBQ, it would have actually come off better.

[Starlord]

 

 

[Pariah]

Like rats deserting a sinking ship:

 

Fox News cuts away from Trump campaign press conference: 'Can't in good countenance continue showing this'

[TrickstaPriest]

8 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Like rats deserting a sinking ship:

 

Fox News cuts away from Trump campaign press conference: 'Can't in good countenance continue showing this'

 

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, I just think we have to be very clear," Cavuto said, referring to McEnany's statements. "She's charging the other side is welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting. Unless she has more details to back that up, I can't in good countenance continue showing you this."

 

Uhm.  Yeah.  Trump asking his voters to vote twice.

 

I really hope that wasn't illegal in the two states he did it in.

[archer]

15 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Like rats deserting a sinking ship:

 

Fox News cuts away from Trump campaign press conference: 'Can't in good countenance continue showing this'

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/countenance

 

The dictionary offers these possible definitions:

 

LOOK, EXPRESSION

mental composure

calm expression

bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction 

 

So he's either trying to say that he can't keep a straight face and is about to start laughing at her or that he can't look on in a way that offers approval for what she's saying.

 

Or possibly both.

6 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, I just think we have to be very clear," Cavuto said, referring to McEnany's statements. "She's charging the other side is welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting. Unless she has more details to back that up, I can't in good countenance continue showing you this."

 

Uhm.  Yeah.  Trump asking his voters to vote twice.

 

I really hope that wasn't illegal in the two states he did it in.

 

It was illegal in North Carolina. In Pennsylvania, it isn't: they just cancel the duplicate vote if you vote absentee then at the polls on election day.

[TrickstaPriest]

4 minutes ago, archer said:

It was illegal in North Carolina. In Pennsylvania, it isn't: they just cancel the duplicate vote.

 

I knew it wasn't illegal in at least one of the states.  So in the other, he directly asked for fraudulent voting behavior on national news.

 

Credibility, thy name is Trump.

 

Open an investigation?  Sure.  But I wouldn't give Trump the credibility to run it.

[Lord Liaden]

I found this to be quite thought-provoking, well beyond what the title implies.

 

 

[unclevlad]

The Fox News *anchors* have been a little more independent, as I understand.  The Kool-Aid brewers have tended to be the talking heads.  This is also of a pattern, IMO, with Fox's Arizona projection...I might argue it was premature too, based on the still-narrow margin, but that wasn't what the criticism was about so much as "how dare you present bad news!!!"

 

Both current Georgia Senators are whining about the *Republican* Secretary of State because they're going into a runoff, and basically echoing Trump's fraud charges.  This is the Trump legacy...toxicity and hate.

[TrickstaPriest]

I did honestly want to give the current administration (mostly Pence) credit for the vaccine, but apparently it's unrelated.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/countenance

 

The dictionary offers these possible definitions:

 

LOOK, EXPRESSION

mental composure

calm expression

bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction 

 

So he's either trying to say that he can't keep a straight face and is about to start laughing at her or that he can't look on in a way that offers approval for what she's saying.

 

Or possibly both.

 

It was illegal in North Carolina. In Pennsylvania, it isn't: they just cancel the duplicate vote if you vote absentee then at the polls on election day.

 

 

Sorry; this tripped me up.

 

It's an expression I've heard my entire life, and it never occurred to me that anyone else wouldn't have.

 

It's that last part: bearing expression that offers approval or sanction, but it's more than that.  It's Face.  As in "saving face" and "loosing face."

 

"I can't in good countenance do X" is "I can't do/condone  X without loosing face to you and to myself. "

 

It's one of those expressions where the specific definition is one-hundred-percent literal, but refers to a metaphor.

 

Language kind of sucks like that.

 

 

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled celebrating.

 

 

[TrickstaPriest]

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/09/politics/william-barr-voting-irregularities/index.html

 

Pretty much why I've been a doomer since the beginning. 😕

 

This could literally tear the country in two completely.

[Iuz the Evil]

December 14, 2020 the Electoral College votes. Then it's all over but the hand wringing.

[TrickstaPriest]

8 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

December 14, 2020 the Electoral College votes. Then it's all over but the hand wringing.

 

This is also true.

 

What worries me is that this is a pretext to have multiple states with a generally Republican-run administration to just... ignore the voter results and have the electorates go for Trump.

 

Despite not yet submitting any serious accounting of the widespread fraud, and apparently trying to pull investigations out of thin air.

 

The court cases so far I've seen have been items like... a package of 50 ballots that was left unattended, and people weren't sure if they arrived late or had been counted or not.

 

But that's not enough to overturn the state.

 

The suggestion of more might allow the pretext to do so.

 

And then what happens?

 

😕

[Old Man]

[TrickstaPriest]

16 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

😕

 

Like, literally this is why I can't agree with any of this.  An investigation is fine.  But Trump, Barr, and a lot of his appointees literally don't know what they are talking about.  They are trying to build an appearance of impropriety so they can tear down everything in their way.

[DShomshak]

I thought the proper expression was, "I can't in good conscience do X," but the guy substituted a similar but incorrect word. Sort of like how many people speak of "flaunting the law" when they mean "flouting."

 

As for Republican state legislatures sending pro-Trump electors despite the popular vote in their state, I actually don't think it's that likely. Much as gthey might want to keep Trump in office, Republicans seem to be good at playing the long game -- and with their state house victories, they can gerrymander additional states in the upcoming redistricting, which gives a good chance of taking the House in 2022. Then in 2024 they run Trump again, or someone like Mike Pompeo who's studied the playbook but has more discipline. As long as they have at least one house of Congress, they can hamstring Biden, but can also blame every problem on him.

 

The dire thought in my mind is how much damage Republicans will deliberately inflict in order to create problems they can blame on Biden. Block any coronavirus relief or economic help, so more Americans die suffer from poverty? I would not like to think anyone would choose such a monstrous path... but I cannot bring myself to rule it out.

 

Dean Shomshak

EDIT: Oh, right, there's also "I can't countenance this." Apparently the Fox guy got the two expressions mixed up.

[TrickstaPriest]

3 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

Then in 2024 they run Trump again, or someone like Mike Pompeo who's studied the playbook but has more discipline.

 

I mean, this is problem #3.  If we go way back on this board, way back, I think I compare Trump to Boris Yeltsman more than once.

 

He was Putin's relatively incompetent precursor.

 

4 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

As for Republican state legislatures sending pro-Trump electors despite the popular vote in their state, I actually don't think it's that likely.

 

I think it is at least somewhat likely (in some areas) for the same reason as we are seeing some of the most ridiculous court cases I've ever seen.  The Republican party is drowning, young people are less religious and more inclined to vote democrat than ever (whatever your suggestion is for this), so the entire party is throwing the kitchen sink to seize as much power as possible.

 

That's literally why they've been behaving this way for over ten years now.  They are nakedly afraid of losing the Presidency forever, and who cares about completely destroying the country otherwise?  As long as they figure they can literally attempt a coup on every level without even the smallest consequence, they can and will continue to do this.

[Starlord]

I don't think Mitch McConnell and friends are actually as upset as some might think to have a moderate Democrat as POTUS.