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

briany · 18-09-2020 5:20pm

PropJoe10 wrote: »

As I said a few days ago, Trump could come out and take a massive dump on live TV and it would make no difference to his voter base. This is the most remarkable thing about this Trump cult. The brainwashing is so extensive that there is literally nothing that could take him down in their opinions.

I wouldn't quite go that far. The reason Trump has his cult is because he openly cheerleads the darker tendencies of the Republican base such as xenophobia and paranoia about the media and big government in a way that no modern, mainstream politician has done before him. But if Trump started chanting 'let them in' instead of 'build the wall', his base would shrink considerably.

relax carry on · 18-09-2020 5:57pm

briany wrote: »

I wouldn't quite go that far. The reason Trump has his cult is because he openly cheerleads the darker tendencies of the Republican base such as xenophobia and paranoia about the media and big government in a way that no modern, mainstream politician has done before him. But if Trump started chanting 'let them in' instead of 'build the wall', his base would shrink considerably.

It would depend on how he would spin it. Let them in could be along the lines of they'll do all those nasty jobs that are beneath us. They will undermine our enemies in some way. They'll build the wall for us etc.

amandstu · 18-09-2020 6:11pm

Even I would join his fan base if he was to start saying "Let me out"

TomOnBoard · 18-09-2020 6:30pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That story broke back in February in one of the earlier extradition court appearances.

It didn't make a difference then , it won't make a whole lot of difference now.

Actually, I reckon it may make a big difference now, not in terms of changing any intentions of US voters, but in terms of influencing the UK Courts to accept that Assange's extradition to the USA is politically motivated and therefore would be in contravention of principles underpinning Human Rights in Europe.

As a result, Assange would be freed, and while he could never enter USA again for fear of prosecution, UK and much of Europe would be available to him.. I think he'd take that!

amandstu · 18-09-2020 8:05pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Actually, I reckon it may make a big difference now, not in terms of changing any intentions of US voters, but in terms of influencing the UK Courts to accept that Assange's extradition to the USA is politically motivated and therefore would be in contravention of principles underpinning Human Rights in Europe.

As a result, Assange would be freed, and while he could never enter USA again for fear of prosecution, UK and much of Europe would be available to him.. I think he'd take that!

That's a good point if they can prove that he was in fact made that offer.

Personally ,I would have little doubt that that offer was actually made and suggested by Trump.

It fits in with his behaviour vis a vis Ukraine where all our worst suspicions about the man were shown to be true even if his compliant party found every possible excuse to look the other way.

Leroy42 · 18-09-2020 8:07pm

briany wrote: »

I wouldn't quite go that far. The reason Trump has his cult is because he openly cheerleads the darker tendencies of the Republican base such as xenophobia and paranoia about the media and big government in a way that no modern, mainstream politician has done before him. But if Trump started chanting 'let them in' instead of 'build the wall', his base would shrink considerably.

Doubt it. Remember they were all behind Trump in his disregard of masks, then he came out and said wearing masks was patriotic, so that is what the 'reality' became.

They would either just accept the new reality or say it was all taken out of context

TomOnBoard · 18-09-2020 8:37pm

amandstu wrote: »

That's a good point if they can prove that he was in fact made that offer.

Personally ,I would have little doubt that that offer was actually made and suggested by Trump.

It fits in with his behaviour vis a vis Ukraine where all our worst suspicions about the man were shown to be true even if his compliant party found every possible excuse to look the other way.

The lawyer who was a witness at the meeting testified to that fact today and the US side accepted the testimony without any cross examination.

The Congressman has already said he discussed it with John Kelly who was Trump's COS at the time after the meeting with Assange. So, now it might be time for Kelly to be called as a witness, and even if he wont show up to a British court, it adds weight to the Assange case that extradition should be denied.

amandstu · 18-09-2020 10:55pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The lawyer who was a witness at the meeting testified to that fact today and the US side accepted the testimony without any cross examination.

The Congressman has already said he discussed it with John Kelly who was Trump's COS at the time after the meeting with Assange. So, now it might be time for Kelly to be called as a witness, and even if he wont show up to a British court, it adds weight to the Assange case that extradition should be denied.

If all this is true ,or strongly suggested as such it begs the question of how firm the UK is prepared to be in the face of US's demands whilst the government is so dependent on at least the prospect of a favourable trade deal with the US to counterbalance their attempted hardball in the on going negotiations with the EU.

TomOnBoard · 18-09-2020 11:17pm

amandstu wrote: »

If all this is true ,or strongly suggested as such it begs the question of how firm the UK is prepared to be in the face of US's demands whilst the government is so dependent on at least the prospect of a favourable trade deal with the US to counterbalance their attempted hardball in the on going negotiations with the EU.

The US position seems to be that:

1. Rohr* and the fella with him did make the offer
2. They made the offer without prior White House knowledge or instruction
3. Therefore they were not acting for/on behalf of the White House

However, Rohr* has previously said he discussed the meeting with John Kelly after the event.

So, now Kelly needs to be asked:

1. Did he have a meeting/call with Rohr* after the Assange meeting on this matter?
2. If not, was Rohr* lying?
3. If so, what was discussed?
4. Had Kelly known of this beforehand?
5. What did Trump know and when?
6. What did anyone else know and when?

At the time, Rohr* was a Member of Congress from the Presidents Party. He made the offer. The Ecudorians believed he was acting as an emissary of the US Government. Rohr* was acting entirely in a political capacity. From that, it is clear that the process was entirely political. It was designed to get Assange to save his own ass by falsely testifying that
Wikilinks got the hacked content from Ukraine rather than Russia. Blatantly political. The UK Court is going to find it very hard to ignore these political shennanigans.

Jack1985 · 19-09-2020 12:38am

RBG has died, Supreme Court could now become conservative led for generations should Trump secure a nominee.

TomOnBoard · 19-09-2020 12:40am

Jack1985 wrote: »

RBG has died, Supreme Court could now become conservative led for generations should Trump secure a nominee.

RIP

Dreadful news... now watch Mc Connell break his own Merritt Garland 'principle'

Jack1985 · 19-09-2020 12:44am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

RIP

Dreadful news... now watch Mc Connell break his own Merritt Garland 'principle'

2020 has truly been an utter disaster and we are 9 months in.

aloyisious · 19-09-2020 12:45am

The value of the U.S Latino vote is obviously being estimated higher each day nearer 03 Nov by his administration, with Trump saying yesterday he's the best thing that's happened for Puerta Rico coincidental with the releasing of relief funding [to the tune of $11.6 billion] for it three years after the Hurricane Maria disaster there and his previous comments over the same years about not providing funding to Puerta Rico.

Sierra Oscar · 19-09-2020 12:45am

Jack1985 wrote: »

RBG has died, Supreme Court could now become conservative led for generations should Trump secure a nominee.

RIP

Looks like she made a statement on her deathbed requesting that her replacement not be named until after the election.

This will be some ****show.

https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1307100933231464449

Itssoeasy · 19-09-2020 12:46am

just seeing the RBG news. This election in November now has even more importance than it normally has. I hope the democrats use every senate rule to stop Mitch McConnell rushing through a new Supreme Court justice. Merritt Garland got shafted by McConnell and it can’t happen again.

AbusesToilets · 19-09-2020 12:57am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

just seeing the RBG news. This election in November now has even more importance than it normally has. I hope the democrats use every senate rule to stop Mitch McConnell rushing through a new Supreme Court justice. Merritt Garland got shafted by McConnell and it can’t happen again.

They have no power, Republicans will absolutely push a candidate through. Just in time to make any decisive rulings after Nov 4th.

2020's writers pulling out the stops for award season

extra gravy · 19-09-2020 1:00am

https://twitter.com/LATSeema/status/1307102250318340101?s=19

Terrible news. Let's see how quickly he goes back on his previous statement.

Itssoeasy · 19-09-2020 1:04am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They have no power, Republicans will absolutely push a candidate through. Just in time to make any decisive rulings after Nov 4th.

2020's writers pulling out the stops for award season

Well then Mitch McConnell is a hypocrite then. He said on the record he didn’t think that a judge should be voted on before an election.

AbusesToilets · 19-09-2020 1:06am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well then Mitch McConnell is a hypocrite then. He said on the record he didn’t think that a judge should be voted on before an election.

I doubt he will give a ****e. Once in a lifetime opportunity to cement a Republican advantage for decades probably

Larbre34 · 19-09-2020 1:08am

**** just got real.

Itssoeasy · 19-09-2020 1:10am

And given how the upcoming election and the potential Supreme Court involvement in it like 2000, how does an equal court rule ?

TomOnBoard · 19-09-2020 1:17am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And given how the upcoming election and the potential Supreme Court involvement in it like 2000, how does an equal court rule ?

Its not an equal Court. A 5-4 Court has just become 5-3.

So, if theres an election related SCOTUS battle, Biden's chances of being declared as a result of any SCOTUS decision just went into the toilet!!

[Deleted User] · 19-09-2020 1:23am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

RIP

Dreadful news... now watch Mc Connell break his own Merritt Garland 'principle'

Pretty sure I remember at the time they were pushing the fact that Obama was definitely going at the end of his term as the reason. Though I think we're past the stage that they would even be bothered to do the mental gymnastics to explain it away.

[Deleted User] · 19-09-2020 1:25am

At 5-4 I still would have said Biden would have a chance if it was really egregious. Kavanaugh has made a few decisions that make it look like he's trying to get some of the stank off of him.

TomOnBoard · 19-09-2020 1:27am

As I see it, Trump has already put his list of possible nominees out there as additions to the previous one. Biden is on the back foot here, as he hasn't put a list out yet. There must be some tactic involved there, as his team would have known that RBG wouldn't last.

Trump will make this another election issue. He has been gifted another means of energising conservative undecideds or waverers. Theyll be told to vote for Trump and a Republican Senate to put another strong Conservative onto the Court, maintaining a 6-3 advantage for decades. Amy Barrett will be the front runner for replacement of RBG.

If the Reps retain the Senate majority and White House, they'll put Barrett in and thats done and dusted for more than a decade.
If they lose the Senate majority and/or White House, Barrett will be pushed in before the end of the year. Thomas may also be asked to retire and another Rep will be put in to replace him. That's the politically sensible Mc Connell play.

TomOnBoard · 19-09-2020 1:31am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At 5-4 I still would have said Biden would have a chance if it was really egregious. Kavanaugh has made a few decisions that make it look like he's trying to get some of the stank off of him.

It would really depend on whether they decided to act as esteemed and honourable Justices rather than political hacks.

I live in hope of the former, but pray that it will be so clearly a Democrat rout that the SCOTUS wont even be involved.

Overheal · 19-09-2020 1:33am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

If the Reps retain the Senate majority and White House, they'll put Barrett in and thats done and dusted for more than a decade.
If they lose the Senate majority and/or White House, Barrett will be pushed in before the end of the year. Thomas may also be asked to retire and another Rep will be put in to replace him. That's the politically sensible Mc Connell play.

You are utterly correct.

AbusesToilets · 19-09-2020 1:35am

The value of term limits has never been more desperately apparent

[Deleted User] · 19-09-2020 1:37am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

As I see it, Trump has already put his list of possible nominees out there as additions to the previous one. Biden is on the back foot here, as he hasn't put a list out yet. There must be some tactic involved there, as his team would have known that RBG wouldn't last.

Trump will make this another election issue. He has been gifted another means of energising conservative undecideds or waverers. Theyll be told to vote for Trump and a Republican Senate to put another strong Conservative onto the Court, maintaining a 6-3 advantage for decades. Amy Barrett will be the front runner for replacement of RBG.

If the Reps retain the Senate majority and White House, they'll put Barrett in and thats done and dusted for more than a decade.
If they lose the Senate majority and/or White House, Barrett will be pushed in before the end of the year. Thomas may also be asked to retire and another Rep will be put in to replace him. That's the politically sensible Mc Connell play.

Unfortunately this just again shows that the GOP are willing to play the game while the Democrats aren't. Hopefully if Biden wins Breyer will have the cop on to resign on Inauguration Day. Small potatoes at the end of the day though.

dinorebel · 19-09-2020 1:37am

Overheal wrote: »

You are utterly correct.

Murkowski and Romney have committed to not confirming until after Inauguration Day

*from Twitter so not confirmed

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

Comments