nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 23/9/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
lawrencesummers
RIGOLO

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Faugheen

https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1316488136139042817?s=21

1st of all, Harris sets this up beautifully.

2nd - this woman is way more unqualified that I thought she was if she calls climate change a public policy and politically contentious issue.

Igotadose

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Quite the opposite I'd suggest.

The whole story reeks of disinformation.

Read the details from the alleged repair shop - It's all over the place.
He doesn't know who dropped off the system - apparently because he has "a medical condition that means he couldn't see the person dropping the system off"

He called the FBI

No they called him

No he called Rudi

He was afraid he was going to get murdered so he took a copy of the hard drive (he thinks Seth Rich was murdered)

The FBI asked him to help them access the drive - Not their own techs , the pc repair shop guy. For a Drive that he'd already accessed and copied.

Rudi got the drive and didn't give it to the Grassley Senate Investigation but instead decided to give it to the NY Post

It's laughably inept , but absolutely consistent with Rudi Guiliani desperate attempts to get Ukraine dirt on Biden

Well, as we know, this administration can't decently do conspiracies. "I want you to do me a favor though..."

Foxtrol

StringerBell wrote: »

It doesn't need to enter her statements though tbh. Nobody is going to have their mind changed here, the GOP will be voting to confirm, the Democrats don't even need to be there. They didn't need to take part in the charade at all in fact and there is an argument to made for them to have made a protest of sorts by not taking part at all but its very rare you will see a politician give up some TV time.

Dems are doing as much as they can, they are trying to make the GOP hurt at the ballot box by highlighting issues that a large majority of voters are for keeping and that are under risk now with this appointment rammed through, the ACA and Roe v Wade. That is much better than a symbolic not attending the hearing, which could potentially be twisted as a negative against Dems and Biden.

No matter her lack of answers, it seems like it is to some extent working given some responses from the GOP and Trump

Leroy42

Harris did a great job today. SHe set up her obvious catch questions to make sure that she did actually get a response by ending it about climate change. ACB said tht she wouldn't get involved in a politically charged issue.

This will create quite an issue in only 3 or 4 weeks. How can she adjudicate on any supreme court challenge brought after the election based on this response? Of course she will, but it a stick to already start beating her with.

She had done well the last few days by basically refusing to answer anything, Harris did a really good job of forcing her out of the position.

pixelburp

What's the timeline we're talking about here? Even with a Trump defeat, it won't be 'til January that Biden would be sworn in; what about the Senate? Do seat changes take effect immediately after the senatorial elections? Does the senate go on recess until inauguration?

Cos presumably the intention of the GOP is to fast-track the hell out of this, putting it to the Senate floor within the next week or so. I've ignored most of the hearings and general blather because it's such a transparent panicked exercise in rubber-stamping and an ideological putsch, I simply don't have the stomach for it all. Is there even a remote possibility the hearings lead to nothing?

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

What's the timeline we're talking about here? Even with a Trump defeat, it won't be 'til January that Biden would be sworn in; what about the Senate? Do seat changes take effect immediately after the senatorial elections? Does the senate go on recess until inauguration?

Cos presumably the intention of the GOP is to fast-track the hell out of this, putting it to the Senate floor within the next week or so. I've ignored most of the hearings and general blather because it's such a transparent panicked exercise in rubber-stamping and an ideological putsch, I simply don't have the stomach for it all. Is there even a remote possibility the hearings lead to nothing?

The only thing that look like they could potentially slow this down is that they've found things that ACB didn't disclose, including meetings. I don't think it'll be enough to cause a serious delay as the GOP will ram it through.

If for some reason they didn't get it through by the election they could do it during a lame duck session, the gap before the new senators come in. It becomes slightly more difficult if the Dems win the election for McCain's seat (I think) as he'd get seated nearly straight away so the GOP would be down one vote (though I'd expect the GOP to still make it).

Leroy42

pixelburp wrote: »

What's the timeline we're talking about here? Even with a Trump defeat, it won't be 'til January that Biden would be sworn in; what about the Senate? Do seat changes take effect immediately after the senatorial elections? Does the senate go on recess until inauguration?

Cos presumably the intention of the GOP is to fast-track the hell out of this, putting it to the Senate floor within the next week or so. I've ignored most of the hearings and general blather because it's such a transparent panicked exercise in rubber-stamping and an ideological putsch, I simply don't have the stomach for it all. Is there even a remote possibility the hearings lead to nothing?

ACB will be confirmed this week, I think it is this week, maybe next. She will be sworn in straight after. It has nothing to do with the election, but the GOP are making sure, for good and obvious reasons, to get this done prior to any election in case they don't win.

This result, 6-3 SCOTUS, will paper over any election result. No matter what happens in early NOvember, the GOP and more particularly the conservative religious right, will have control over the laws of the land for the next 20 years

Faugheen

Leroy42 wrote: »

ACB will be confirmed this week, I think it is this week, maybe next. She will be sworn in straight after. It has nothing to do with the election, but the GOP are making sure, for good and obvious reasons, to get this done prior to any election in case they don't win.

This result, 6-3 SCOTUS, will paper over any election result. No matter what happens in early NOvember, the GOP and more particularly the conservative religious right, will have control over the laws of the land for the next 20 years

That 6-3 means very little outside of theoretical value. Roberts cares a lot about his and the Court’s reputation and is very much a swing Justice who holds a lot of worth in precedent.

Also, Kavanaugh votes with Roberts more than any other Justice, even if it means voting with the liberal wing.

Roberts won’t allow the Court to lose favourability with the public, especially if there is precedent. It’s his Court so therefore his name will always be attached to it.

I don’t think the ACB nomination will be as bad as it has the potential to be. It just means Roberts has a lot of work to do to bring somebody over to the liberal wing with him in contentious issues. In theory it is frightening but I don’t think it will play out that way.

aloyisious

Fox News and other US news sites have reported that a new Bipartisan Christian SuperPAC, Not Our Faith, was formed two days to oppose Trumps election by targeting Michigan and Pennsylvania Catholic and Evangelical Christian Republican voters. Seeing as Fox News have run the story, I'd have to be cautious about it's reliability but the presence of other news sites running with the story might indicate it has some strength, even at this late stage in the campaign given the import of catholic Christians on it. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/520750-christian-group-launching-ads-charging-trump-used-christianity-for-his-own

Ref the USSC nominee, the jury is still out on the possibility of a House impeachment of a sitting USSC judge on several grounds, including perjury, wrongdoing and malfeasance, though the chances of success in the venture may be slim.

Quin_Dub

Faugheen wrote: »

That 6-3 means very little outside of theoretical value. Roberts cares a lot about his and the Court’s reputation and is very much a swing Justice who holds a lot of worth in precedent.

Also, Kavanaugh votes with Roberts more than any other Justice, even if it means voting with the liberal wing.

Roberts won’t allow the Court to lose favourability with the public, especially if there is precedent. It’s his Court so therefore his name will always be attached to it.

I don’t think the ACB nomination will be as bad as it has the potential to be. It just means Roberts has a lot of work to do to bring somebody over to the liberal wing with him in contentious issues. In theory it is frightening but I don’t think it will play out that way.

I disagree - It radically moves the "centre" of the court to the right , the fact that Roberts is now considered the swing vote shows just how far to the right it is shifting.

And critically , the one area that the Roberts court has been incredibly weak on is Election integrity and security.

Every challenge to GOP silly-buggers at state level has been shot down in the Supreme court so far. Not to mention Citizens united , the root of so many of the evils of current US politics.

Tell me how

This guy highlighting the point to which the US political system has gotten to.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1316735951700361224

He makes a valid point, the purpose of the hearings are to determine the candidates views, what do you do when the candidate refuses to express any views?

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

He makes a valid point, the purpose of the hearings are to determine the candidates views, what do you do when the candidate refuses to express any views?

That's not relevant re Biden packing the court though, no?..

She was saying it would depend on the case..

Faugheen

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I disagree - It radically moves the "centre" of the court to the right , the fact that Roberts is now considered the swing vote shows just how far to the right it is shifting.

And critically , the one area that the Roberts court has been incredibly weak on is Election integrity and security.

Every challenge to GOP silly-buggers at state level has been shot down in the Supreme court so far. Not to mention Citizens united , the root of so many of the evils of current US politics.

I do understand what you’re saying, but Roberts knows a 6-3 in the circumstances it was achieved is bad news for him in the court of public opinion, which is something he values.

He’s very self-absorbed. He wouldn’t like the idea of his Court being the one that lost the confidence of the public and/or led to reforms (term limits, stacking the Court etc).

I know my musings are more speculative than yours, but I honestly think Roberts will do all he can to bring Gorsuch or Kavanaugh over with him on the likes of Obamacare, Roe etc.

Although I think you said you live in the US? I’m sure you’d have a much more informed opinion based on what’s going on on the ground than I would.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not relevant re Biden packing the court though, no?..

She was saying it would depend on the case..

It's relevant in the context that on all specific questions, she refused to express a view, and the purpose of such hearings is to determine a candidates views.

Faugheen

Tell me how wrote: »

It's relevant in the context that on all specific questions, she refused to express a view, and the purpose of such hearings is to determine a candidates views.

Harris got her to say that climate change is a politically contentious issue, which is more than enough for me..

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's not relevant re Biden packing the court though, no?..

She was saying it would depend on the case..

Biden doesn't have to pack he court. If they get the senate they can push term limits.

And term limits are the fairest way to deal with the justice system for all parties. The current setup is a scandal.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's not relevant re Biden packing the court though, no?..

She was saying it would depend on the case..

And further to this nonsense about biden packing the court.

The GOP spent the last 6 years packing the courts. Starting with the obama blocking and all the way to today.

Scumbaggery at its finest.

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

This guy highlighting the point to which the US political system has gotten to.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1316735951700361224

He makes a valid point, the purpose of the hearings are to determine the candidates views, what do you do when the candidate refuses to express any views?

It is quite incredible. In essence, this should be a job interview (I know it isn't as she is getting the gig no matter what) but that is what the original purpose of these hearings was.

But apparently, she is unable to give an answer to many pretty standard legal questions. I do wonder how hard legal exams can be if one can simply claim that one cannot answer in the hypothetical and only answer on a real case.

Must be a doddle to pass them on that basis.

[Deleted User]

I'm really not expecting the current effort at an October surprise to have any influence on the election tbh

eire4

listermint wrote: »

And further to this nonsense about biden packing the court.

The GOP spent the last 6 years packing the courts. Starting with the obama blocking and all the way to today.

Scumbaggery at its finest.

Yes I do have to laugh every time I hear Republicans crying that the Democrats are going to stack the court. Maybe they will if they win big next month but I doubt they will. That would require Democrats to have a spine which they very rarely show they have.
But I laugh when the Republicans cry foul about what Democrats might do considering they have been and are stacking the courts as we speak. About 25% of the federal appeals court and now a full 33% of the Supreme Court will have come from the current president all right wing appointments who will lurch the US even further to the right. Continuing to do the bidding of big business at the expense of most Americans and now all in for doing the bidding of the big government social agenda of the Republican religious zealots.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking at times..

As is your whataboutery

amandstu

eire4 wrote: »

Yes I do have to laugh every time I hear Republicans crying that the Democrats are going to stack the court. Maybe they will if they win big next month but I doubt they will. That would require Democrats to have a spine which they very rarely show they have.
But I laugh when the Republicans cry foul about what Democrats might do considering they have been and are stacking the courts as we speak. About 25% of the federal appeals court and now a full 33% of the Supreme Court will have come from the current president all right wing appointments who will lurch the US even further to the right. Continuing to do the bidding of big business at the expense of most Americans and now all in for doing the bidding of the big government social agenda of the Republican religious zealots.

If the Supreme Court does not reflect the will of the electorate in the years to come there may be a price to pay for those who will be seen as responsible.

It also risks bringing the legal system into disrepute if the top judges (and many lower ones) are seen as "hitmen" for crooked politicians.

eire4

amandstu wrote: »

If the Supreme Court does not reflect the will of the electorate in the years to come there may be a price to pay for those who will be seen as responsible.

It also risks bringing the legal system into disrepute if the top judges (and many lower ones) are seen as "hitmen" for crooked politicians.

You would hope so but this is the US. This IMHO is not a country that is a Democracy already certainly not a functioning one. But rather an oligarchy where the majority of the political representatives are bought and paid for thanks to decisions already made by the current and past supreme courts. Then we have the utter joke that is the current AG and all he has done to make a mockery of his position and the US so called department of Justice.

The one thing I would say about your last line is the supreme court judges are not and will not be hit men for politicians they are and Barrett will cooper fasten it be hit men and women for the big business and big government social agenda paymasters that fund the politicians and groups like the federalist society and Justice Crisis network.

Tell me how

More on Rudy.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1316941956711391234

This attempt at an October surprise tells me 2 things at this point.
1 - This is second year at college levels of planning in to the story around the 'sourcing and release' of this information. They can't even lie convincingly at this point.
2 - They have very few friends left if it needed Rudy getting involved in this to get it out there.

amandstu

eire4 wrote: »

The one thing I would say about your last line is the supreme court judges are not and will not be hit men for politicians they are and Barrett will cooper fasten it be hit men and women for the big business and big government social agenda paymasters that fund the politicians and groups like the federalist society and Justice Crisis network.

That is interesting . I am not sure where I stand on that (since it clearly contains truth and nowhere better exemplified than in the last 4 years).

I used to think that "corrupt politicians" was a description that applied more in faraway countries than closer to home (and Ireland can be seen as a tributary of the USA to quite a degree now)

Ireland has obviously had its share of ,shall we say "venial" politicians but it always felt that ,with the country being so small they couldn't have delusions of grandeur or lose the run of themselves.

With the States it feels now that it is the far West for political corruption (a new Gold Rush)

amandstu

Tell me how wrote: »

More on Rudy.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1316941956711391234

This attempt at an October surprise tells me 2 things at this point.
1 - This is second year at college levels of planning in to the story around the 'sourcing and release' of this information. They can't even lie convincingly at this point.
2 - They have very few friends left if it needed Rudy getting involved in this to get it out there.

Just guessing Trump shrugged it off because he was already in-or just outside- the loop and was reacting to additional unnecessary information the CIA was providing him ("thanks guys")

Is there a sarcasm emoji somewhere?

Water John

Seems Donald came a poor second best to the moderator Savannah Guthrie last night. She fact checked him regularly.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/savannah-guthrie-trump-town-hall-moderator

kowloon

Trump didn't want to say whether it was true or false that the Democrats are a cult of satanist pedophiles? This happened?

aloyisious

kowloon wrote: »

Trump didn't want to say whether it was true or false that the Democrats are a cult of satanist pedophiles? This happened?

Its almost like he, or some-one on his campaign team, had a critical look at QAnon, and realised he couldn't afford to give it further credibility.

VinLieger

aloyisious wrote: »

Its almost like he, or some-one on his campaign team, had a critical look at QAnon, and realised he couldn't afford to give it further credibility.

But still want to dog whistle enough to keep its support