Is Trump really gonna get there ?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Or, maybe, since Trump is "not [Putin's] bride," he will meet with unfortunate accident, and become replaced by comrade Mikhail Eduardovich Pensky, much better party representative who opposes LGBT civil rights, immigration, health care reform, and is in favour of war, the patriot act, and wrote this paper about climate change:

    The above quote was from 2001, but, in fairness, his attitude toward climate change has not budged since then. Also, the claim that, in 2001, "the eart is actually cooler today than it was about 50 years ago" is...well, to misquote Nickelback: "Look at this ... graph"

    [​IMG]

    Pretty easy to visually compare 2000 versus 1950.

    As for "China ... would never enter into the restrictions in the treaty..." They did, in 2016, just months before Trump and Pence backed out of it.

    The fact that someone can be proven flat-out wrong on so many points and yet still stick to his guns is somehow seen by his supporters as commendable, but we need to disengage from the en vogue practice of believing that if we keep lying to ourselves, we will somehow shape reality.
     
    AxeHappy likes this.
  2. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    507
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    Fixed that for you. :lol:
     
  3. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Listen, man, that just proves how honest he is. He speaks from his heart, and from his convictions. He tells it as he sees it, he doesn't focus group test his beliefs. And if he gets them wrong once or twice, whatever, at least when he speaks you know he's saying what he believes, and he's not gonna say one thing and then do the other. Anyone telling you otherwise is just pitching you fake news, man.
     
    AxeHappy and Konfyouzd like this.
  4. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Is there any truth to the reports I'm seeing this morning that Trump threatened to destroy North Korea to the United Nations? If so, WTF? If he's really going to destroy NK, then why not just do it instead of getting them all fired up and give them the excuse to fire off all of their warheads first. And if not, then the same applies twofold.
     
  5. Konfyouzd

    Konfyouzd Dread-I Master Contributor

    Messages:
    22,892
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    "The true purpose of the president is not to wield power but to divert attention from those who do..."

    And who can do that better? :lol:

    But seriously I think I can survive 4 years of this guy worst case. I survived almost a decade of Dubya
     
  6. Konfyouzd

    Konfyouzd Dread-I Master Contributor

    Messages:
    22,892
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Does he strike you've an intelligent man?
     
    AxeHappy likes this.
  7. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    I keep telling myself that this president is better than GWB, at least in a couple of ways.
    I really don't think either are that great at logic, though.

    The guy in the cubicle next to me is now listening to Trump's speech about the Marshall plan and the USA's commitment to the UN. So far, it actually sounds measured and well-spoken. One of his key phrases actually kind of echoes your quote. He hasn't gotten to the part about destroying other nations, though. :lol:
     
    Konfyouzd likes this.
  8. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Yeah, there is. To his, ahem, small credit, he did say it in the context to the US defending themselves in response to a North Korean act of war, so he didn't add anything new to the picture - we've pretty much known that if it comes to war with North Korea, we were going to obliterate them in one way or another. However, it certainly isn't going to help de-escalate the situation.

    He also repeated his claims that the Iran nuclear deal was "one of the worst, most one-sided deals in American history," and that "the problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that it has been faithfully implemented," which he paused for several seconds afterwards, and was met with stony silence.

    The speech was written by Stephen Miller, which was probably a poor choice.
     
    AxeHappy likes this.
  9. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Interestingly enough, my office neighbour's video edited out all of the statements that were reported, or else it just happened to be obviously edited and Trump didn't say that stuff, but I have no reason to believe that is true.

    It did seem like he paused a few times, expecting applause and getting none. Maybe I misinterpreted that.
     
  10. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Coincidentally enough as I was replying to this CNBC re-ran some of the "highlights" from his speech, so the last two were transcribed word-for-word (I'd actually missed part of his remarks on Iran the first time around, but was at my desk for the Venezuela comment).
     
    bostjan likes this.
  11. jaxadam

    jaxadam SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    133
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Good thing we have a president who isn't afraid to use weapons of mass distraction!
     
  12. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    In other news, Clinton has refused to rule out contesting the outcome of the 2016 election if clear evidence of Russian interference to an extent greater than now believed emerges, in the investigation:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-trump/index.html

    As a liberal who supports rule of law, I'll merely say this - the bar for whether or not such a challenge makes sense to proceed is, to me, very, very, VERY high. I think you'd need clear and incontrovertible evidence that Russia had successfully changed the tabulation of counted votes in such a way as to change the outcome, and even then we'd be in totally unprecedented legal territory.

    I really hope we don't get to that point.
     
    bostjan and Konfyouzd like this.
  13. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Just my personal beliefs, since there is a bald spot in the laws covering election on interference of this magnitude, but I would strongly support the idea of involving the Supreme Court and Congress if the level of interference was deemed too high. I would think that the case would be more along the lines of The United States of America v. Donald J Trump and if it spun into something like Hillary Rodham Clinton v. Donald J Trump, I would imagine that the case would immediately lose half its momentum to political entropy.

    But I agree that the bar would be tremendously high on what would be considered actionable. Unfortunately, the evidence is piling up at a rate where it seems that the pile may overtake a bar of arbitrary height unless investigators stop uncovering new damning facts at the end of every lead they follow.
     
  14. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I agree in principle. In practice, for it to be The United States of America vs. Donald J. Trump, the Justice Department would have to sue to reverse the outcome of the election, which I think is a bit of a stretch. I think we might be more inclined to see a consortium of blue states Clinton won suing, as well as possibly a number of the rust belt states where any manipulation of results would likely have been concentrated, but only the ones currently with democratic executive branches, because let's be honest, the Republican party is going to push for impeachment, not a reversal of the results.

    Again... I get VERY leery of any talk of unwinding the Trump administration and retroactively naming Clinton the victor, even with fairly good evidence that the vote was manipulated. Trump won the Electoral College, and electors are not actually obligated to vote based on how their state voted even if traditionally they do, so to have the Supreme Court toss the results of the election would involve some pretty strong evidence that what happened was so beyond the pale that we need to break away from the literal instructions in the Constitution on the election of a President. It's not impossible, but it's not something I would advocate for lightly and I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where I'd get behind such a movement.

    I think for this to fly, it would probably have to be an act of Congress. I've read that technically the Speaker of the House doesn't have to be a elected member of the house - if evidence so incontrovertible came out that some sort of action was needed, Ryan temporarily stepping down, the House voting Clinton in as speaker, and then promptly impeaching Trump and Pence seems to be the least rule-bending approach. I want to stress again though that I'm not advocating this at present, and that as it would involve the GOP willingly voting to make Clinton president, it would have to be a pretty shocking revelation on the depth of the involvement of the Russians before that would become a plausible scenario.
     
    celticelk and bostjan like this.
  15. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Well said.

    I don't have any idea how it would turn out, but highly likely, there would be a stage where democrats and republicans were fighting over who took office, in the case where the legitimacy of the election was undermined by some sort of serious tampering. No way republicans would simply hand the executive branch over to the democrats.
     
  16. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Agreed. Ryan has presidential ambitions of his own; only likely way I could see Clinton being back-doored into the White House in the spirit of righting a wrong is if evidence emerges in early 2019 with a Democratic-controlled House, and he's impeached by a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans when both Trump AND Pence have been clearly implicated of collusion in a manner where the outcome of the race was directly changed by Russian intervention, and Pelosi steps aside to allow Clinton to be appointed Speaker of the House. Only way I could see the GOP doing it is if they thought their constituents also thought there had been a massive miscarriage in the electoral process, and if something DOES come out the Breitbart/Fox crowd is going to just call it "fake news" anyway.
     
    bostjan likes this.
  17. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,534
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    As much as I hate it that it's this and not something like backing out of the Paris Climate Accord or refusing to uncategorically condemn white supremacy, does anyone else think Trump might have badly miscalculated when he lashed out at the NFL over players kneeling during the anthem?

    I mean, even the Patriots are speaking out against Trump now, which their cozy relationship is something that's always made me uncomfortable as a good Bostonian. :lol:
     
  18. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Just goes to show that he's willing to go after anyone and everyone. :shrug:

    As we get closer to the brink of nuclear war with North Korea and possibly maybe even double nuclear war with North Korea and Iran, no one should really truly feel safe, I guess... :/
     
  19. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    507
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    He's certainly gotten some backlash over that decision, but I think he's just doing his standard procedure of diverting attention away from the Russia investigation and other issues he'd rather not deal with so he can fight a straw man of his choosing and look good for his supporters. His base actually likes that kind of shit.
     
  20. Randy

    Randy Ooh, Degrasse Tyson-son Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,837
    Likes Received:
    2,445
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    The /The_Donald and similar cesspool pockets of support on the internet claimed the NFL attacks were smokescreen for the fact he secretly carried out attacks destroying NK's weapons sites. That should give you an idea of how far his base will go to make excuses for him.
     

Share This Page