Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

banie01 · 14-05-2021 9:25am

Cody montana wrote: »

Didn’t he say he’d leave the country if Biden wins?

He'll shortly be declaring Mar e Lago's succession and his election as president for life

ZeroThreat · 14-05-2021 9:50am

banie01 wrote: »

He'll shortly be declaring Mar e Lago's succession and his election as president for life

Surely you mean secession.

Tell me how · 14-05-2021 2:30pm

Field east wrote: »

BUT Trump lost even having held a lot of advantages going into the election , such as:-
- up against a very weak and , as some would say, doddery candidate
-an old and not very energetic candidate
- Biden held practically no rallies as against Trump holding numerous ones
-Biden had a number of failed bids to become president
-Biden had poor record of achievement in his long political career.
-The republicans were in control in a lot of states but still managed to lose them
-Trump was the outgoing peseident so was in pole position.
He apparently knew what the Democrats were apparently up to re trying to get enough votes to win the election so why did the GOP not do the same thing ‘whatever that was’

AND STILL HE LOST

Trump said at one stage that Biden was such a weak candidate that he was wondering would he get any votes at all or words to that effect

I can't believe some of the retrospective of what went on in last years election. and all of what you have written is fine if you consider his Presidency as being 17, 18, 19 and that the election was possibly held it Jan 2020. But it wasn't 2020 was one of the most significant years for a US Presidency, in history.

First off, Trump himself is no stranger to being viewed as old, or doddery.
But, the absolutely GIGANTIC elephant in the room, which you have completely discounted is Covid.
His reaction to it, in dismissing it, ignoring masks, wanting to prioritize the economy, shifting blame, stealing supplies on their way to other countries, telling the states they were on their own, giving false information on treatment options, undermining medical professionals, threatening to fire Fauci, being focused on the ratings at his press conferences and flat out refusing to take responsibility for it.
All of that before it emerged he made a conscious decision to downplay it at a time when they had the opportunity to get ahead of it in preparation, contracted it himself and then still continued to hold rallies in that environment.
Secondly, the also large, but small in comparison to the beast above, was his response to the BLM protests that erupted last summer. He used it as a political weapon to try to blame Democrats for instigating the protests and he practically begged state Governors to utilize the national guard and to get very tough with people who were attending them.
And several other younger but still large elephants running around the place including his attempt to cancel some members of the White House Press Corp, the 215 indictments tied to his administration, him being impeached, him only paying $750 in tax a couple of years while in the White House, his 'LIBERATE' tweets which emboldened extreme conservatives to plan to kidnap and kill a state Governor as well as storm a number of state houses and to a lesser degree, his regressive policies in relation to the Climate and Iran, his attempt even ahead of the election to detrimentally influence the electoral process with the placement of DeJoy at the head of the USPS who started to try to slow down the receipt and acceptance of postal votes. And finally, in this respect, that he never broached 50% satisfaction rating while in Office.

All that aside, Biden conclusively won the debates with the rules being changed in how they were carried out as it was evident Trump could not control himself.
Biden was very smart in not holding large rallies because A, it showed his respect and awareness of the dangers from mass gatherings, and B it drastically reduced the Trump campaign from utilising doctored videos from the rallies to make him appear weak.

And with all this being said, and as has been pointed out a number of times, he still came within 0.06% of the total ballots cast in being returned (approx 100K out of 155M) if these 100K had been in particular states.

And this is why, looking forward towards 2024, if he is there, I'm not hopeful that he will get the embarrassing hiding he deserves in spite of adding to the mix his undermining democracy, inciting an insurrection and being a total see you next Tuesday in how he handled the transition.

Manic Moran · 14-05-2021 2:33pm

Field east wrote: »

Trump said at one stage that Biden was such a weak candidate that he was wondering would he get any votes at all or words to that effect

The problem is that whatever about Trump saying that Biden was a weak candidate, would anyone say that Trump was, himself, a particularly strong candidate?

Yes, he has a base which is very loyal to him. but not all those 75million Trump voters actually liked him. There is still a very strong element of "anti-Democrat" in the US which is not going to be countered next time around by "I can't vote for Trump". Unless, of course, he gets the 2024 nomination, I guess.

Christy42 · 14-05-2021 3:10pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem is that whatever about Trump saying that Biden was a weak candidate, would anyone say that Trump was, himself, a particularly strong candidate?

Yes, he has a base which is very loyal to him. but not all those 75million Trump voters actually liked him. There is still a very strong element of "anti-Democrat" in the US which is not going to be countered next time around by "I can't vote for Trump". Unless, of course, he gets the 2024 nomination, I guess.

What else can they do but put him forward? They have 0 policies outside of what he says. They no longer have an identity outside of Trump. Anyone who disagrees with him is purged so you have Trump or a Trump proxy by definition. No one who disagrees is allowed inside the Republican party. Any moderates who have not yet been found will be thrown out or made to swear allegiance.

Not Trump is not a big threat to Democrats. Anti voting laws are where the next election will be lost and won. Trump came close this time around and the gop have stepped up their game since he lost.

banie01 · 14-05-2021 3:12pm

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Surely you mean secession.

I did, and do!
Damn autocorrect!

listermint · 14-05-2021 3:17pm

Christy42 wrote: »

What else can they do but put him forward? They have 0 policies outside of what he says. They no longer have an identity outside of Trump. Anyone who disagrees with him is purged so you have Trump or a Trump proxy by definition. No one who disagrees is allowed inside the Republican party. Any moderates who have not yet been found will be thrown out or made to swear allegiance.

Not Trump is not a big threat to Democrats. Anti voting laws are where the next election will be lost and won. Trump came close this time around and the gop have stepped up their game since he lost.

The biggest question is how the GOP think they can expand their voter base pursuing policies of alienating other voters and in many ways pushing out people that had a distaste for trumpism but would identify as being pragmatic conservatives.

Is a trump only wagon a valid ticket to get majority votes.

Leroy42 · 14-05-2021 4:45pm

Tell me how wrote: »

I can't believe some of the retrospective of what went on in last years election. and all of what you have written is fine if you consider his Presidency as being 17, 18, 19 and that the election was possibly held it Jan 2020. But it wasn't 2020 was one of the most significant years for a US Presidency, in history.

First off, Trump himself is no stranger to being viewed as old, or doddery.
But, the absolutely GIGANTIC elephant in the room, which you have completely discounted is Covid.
His reaction to it, in dismissing it, ignoring masks, wanting to prioritize the economy, shifting blame, stealing supplies on their way to other countries, telling the states they were on their own, giving false information on treatment options, undermining medical professionals, threatening to fire Fauci, being focused on the ratings at his press conferences and flat out refusing to take responsibility for it.
All of that before it emerged he made a conscious decision to downplay it at a time when they had the opportunity to get ahead of it in preparation, contracted it himself and then still continued to hold rallies in that environment.
Secondly, the also large, but small in comparison to the beast above, was his response to the BLM protests that erupted last summer. He used it as a political weapon to try to blame Democrats for instigating the protests and he practically begged state Governors to utilize the national guard and to get very tough with people who were attending them.
And several other younger but still large elephants running around the place including his attempt to cancel some members of the White House Press Corp, the 215 indictments tied to his administration, him being impeached, him only paying $750 in tax a couple of years while in the White House, his 'LIBERATE' tweets which emboldened extreme conservatives to plan to kidnap and kill a state Governor as well as storm a number of state houses and to a lesser degree, his regressive policies in relation to the Climate and Iran, his attempt even ahead of the election to detrimentally influence the electoral process with the placement of DeJoy at the head of the USPS who started to try to slow down the receipt and acceptance of postal votes. And finally, in this respect, that he never broached 50% satisfaction rating while in Office.

All that aside, Biden conclusively won the debates with the rules being changed in how they were carried out as it was evident Trump could not control himself.
Biden was very smart in not holding large rallies because A, it showed his respect and awareness of the dangers from mass gatherings, and B it drastically reduced the Trump campaign from utilising doctored videos from the rallies to make him appear weak.

And with all this being said, and as has been pointed out a number of times, he still came within 0.06% of the total ballots cast in being returned (approx 100K out of 155M) if these 100K had been in particular states.

And this is why, looking forward towards 2024, if he is there, I'm not hopeful that he will get the embarrassing hiding he deserves in spite of adding to the mix his undermining democracy, inciting an insurrection and being a total see you next Tuesday in how he handled the transition.

The problem Trump will face is that he was still in a position to claim that nobody could do any better.

Biden, so far, is proving that a complete fabrication. It is one thing to stick with what you know for fear of something new, entirely different proposition to what to change what is clearly working for someone that proved a failure in the past.

You are correct that had the election been in Jan 2020 Trump would have won, but it is also fair to say that up until that point Trump hadn't faced a significant test. The economy was doing well, no major incidents in the world etc. The 1st few problems he was faced with he failed, that is a hard stain to wash away.

Trump is now a loser and a failure. The veneer of 'the bestest businessman ever' has been shown to be false.

He ran in 2016 as a new broom, in 2020 as a chance to continue. He lost 2020 because people now know him and didn't like what they saw. And between now & 2024 how is he going to solve that problem?

Tell me how · 14-05-2021 5:35pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem Trump will face is that he was still in a position to claim that nobody could do any better.

Biden, so far, is proving that a complete fabrication. It is one thing to stick with what you know for fear of something new, entirely different proposition to what to change what is clearly working for someone that proved a failure in the past.

You are correct that had the election been in Jan 2020 Trump would have won, but it is also fair to say that up until that point Trump hadn't faced a significant test. The economy was doing well, no major incidents in the world etc. The 1st few problems he was faced with he failed, that is a hard stain to wash away.

Trump is now a loser and a failure. The veneer of 'the bestest businessman ever' has been shown to be false.

He ran in 2016 as a new broom, in 2020 as a chance to continue. He lost 2020 because people now know him and didn't like what they saw. And between now & 2024 how is he going to solve that problem?

I think the crux of what I am saying is that American politics is so tribal, that many many people vote a particular almost devoid of any analysis of the candidate and the victory is frequently determined by which side motivated more people to vote.

Everything that you say about Trump is true, and that Covid was a once in a lifetime pandemic, but, he still got 74M people to vote for him with both these facts being very much in the public arena. And yes, we can add to that his behaviour around the election results but I expect that the number of people who were willing to ignore the first two topics but would become so repulsed by the display of the 3rd, that they would switch their allegiance to vote for a Democrat is so small as to be insignificant.

I think many patriotic Republicans would have been repulsed by his behavior and they might not vote in 2024 (should he be on the ticket) but not that they would switch sides.
And this brings me back to the high turnout of 2020, and the likely drop for 2024 and if Trump loses ten million 'patriots' because of his action but Biden loses 11M (without any of these 21M switching their votes to the other side) voters because they think there is no way Trump will win, then we could once again be looking at 'How did this happen' headlines.

And this is why I hope we continue to see the Justice Dept or SDNY progress with meaningful action against him but as I cautioned before, we are not far from those investigations being 'delayed' because of claims that they are politically motivated and Republicans in positions to halt them or throw them out will act forcefully to do so.

14-05-2021 5:51pm

WhomadeGod wrote: »

If its Trump v kamala Harris in 2024 how does that one play out?

It's 3 years away, so it's pretty impossible to guess. Depends on how America fares post covid. I would say the uncontroversial administration is something a lot of people will find more refreshing than the last few years.

Tell me how · 14-05-2021 5:51pm

WhomadeGod wrote: »

If its Trump v kamala Harris in 2024 how does that one play out?

No matter who is on either ticket in 2024, none of us know for sure how it will play out.

I strongly hope that Trump is nowhere near the ticket and that if he is, that he is unequivocally beaten. And that is the case whether he might be running against Biden, Harris or An Other.

If Harris assummed the Presidency after 2022 midterms and 2023 and early 2024 were calm and there was a secure economy, I would favour her to win. If she does not assume it, before being nominated as the candidate and the economy is in trouble or there is a significant military or racial topic at that time, I expect she would lose.

Irrespective of the economy, her position at the time of the campaign, if he ends up competing against her, he will combine all his previous misogny and racial prejudice in to yet another vitriolic campaign.

Itssoeasy · 14-05-2021 6:43pm

Seems like the January 6th commission is going to happen. I assume the GOP will want Hunter Biden to testify for some bizarre reason.

Itssoeasy · 15-05-2021 11:32am

Just reading parts of the agreement that Joel Greenberg signed with the government. If I was Matt Gaetz and his lawyers were any bloody good they’d tell him to shut up.

Leroy42 · 15-05-2021 12:24pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Just reading parts of the agreement that Joel Greenberg signed with the government. If I was Matt Gaetz and his lawyers were any bloody good they’d tell him to shut up.

Tell who, Matt? Because what can they say to to get Joel to stay quiet?

It is clear that he is cutting a deal, getting reduced time or whatever. What can Matt offer him?

Joel is out to look after himself, now that he is in a hole.

Itssoeasy · 15-05-2021 2:15pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Tell who, Matt? Because what can they say to to get Joel to stay quiet?

It is clear that he is cutting a deal, getting reduced time or whatever. What can Matt offer him?

Joel is out to look after himself, now that he is in a hole.

Yes the congressman because he’s not going to help himself. Sorry I’ve read my post back and I can see how it could be read a different way. No to be clear from the 86 page court filling if Joel Greenberg wants to get the reduced sentence he’s going to have to sign like an Avery full of canaries and that will likely include Matt gaetz and all he knows about him.

Here’s the filling if anyone wants to read it.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20708965/greenberg-plea.pdf

aloyisious · 15-05-2021 2:48pm

The report from the Rachel Maddow Show and from MSNBC that some public servants from Palm Beach County are allegedly looking at ways and means that the county can use to avoid having to comply with a legal extradition request from a NYC prosecutor for the extradition of former President Trump from Florida may show how things are going on behind the scenes. While it may never happen except in the planning and research area, the notion that Trump would be taken into custody in Florida for the purpose of extradition to NYC must give cause to others from his cohort more likely to suffer the same procedure reason to worry.

It seems there are differing opinions as to the legality of any decision by a Florida Governor to refuse a NYC Prosecutor's request for the former Presidents extradition there, whatever about it being useful on one's political C.V that one successfully gave the bird to NYC.

Itssoeasy · 17-05-2021 5:30pm

In news that I’m sure will shock us all, it appears that Donald trump six days after the election ordered the withdrawal of American troops from several areas around the world before January 20th.

EltonJohn69 · 17-05-2021 9:20pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

In news that I’m sure will shock us all, it appears that Donald trump six days after the election ordered the withdrawal of American troops from several areas around the world before January 20th.

Did someone from Russia give him the order ???

Itssoeasy · 17-05-2021 11:14pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Did someone from Russia give him the order ???

Russia ? Sure it’s as good a suggestion as any.

Jelle1880 · 18-05-2021 8:38am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yes the congressman because he’s not going to help himself. Sorry I’ve read my post back and I can see how it could be read a different way. No to be clear from the 86 page court filling if Joel Greenberg wants to get the reduced sentence he’s going to have to sign like an Avery full of canaries and that will likely include Matt gaetz and all he knows about him.

Here’s the filling if anyone wants to read it.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20708965/greenberg-plea.pdf

Seems he's already had his charges dropped from 33 to 6. So he's 100% cooperating and if that's true then Gaetz should get very worried.

Tell me how · 18-05-2021 1:42pm

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Seems he's already had his charges dropped from 33 to 6. So he's 100% cooperating and if that's true then Gaetz should get very worried.

I'm not so sure. Surely the GOP have an inside line on what is happening and would have pulled Gaetz from public view if they thought something serious was going to happen.

Nody · 18-05-2021 2:26pm

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Surely the GOP have an inside line on what is happening and would have pulled Gaetz from public view if they thought something serious was going to happen.

The GOP are not exactly Gaetz fans though now are they? They don't seem him as a true R but rather as someone using the position to catapult himself into a TV show.

Quin_Dub · 18-05-2021 4:01pm

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Surely the GOP have an inside line on what is happening and would have pulled Gaetz from public view if they thought something serious was going to happen.

The GOP have nothing to gain/lose from protecting Gaetz so why would they?

If anything they gain if he's convicted.

Depending on the level/severity of the conviction or findings they get to either blame it on a "Leftist conspiracy" or they can claim the higher ground by being able to say that they didn't go to bat for him.

He's on his own here.

Itssoeasy · 18-05-2021 5:27pm

Nody wrote: »

The GOP are not exactly Gaetz fans though now are they? They don't seem him as a true R but rather as someone using the position to catapult himself into a TV show.

No they aren’t. Minority leader Kevin McCarthy has said that they’ll wait and see what comes about so it’s not a full throated endorsement of the congressman gaetz but nor was it a jettisoning of him. I mean because McCarthy the only other GOP members I know have come out in defence of him are Marjorie Taylor greene and Jim Jordan which says it all.

And the GOP might try to say it’s a liberal conspiracy or whatever, but the issue is this investigation of Matt gaetz was started under Donald trump’s justice dept, but those pesky facts don’t matter.

Rjd2 · 18-05-2021 7:55pm

Nody wrote: »

The GOP are not exactly Gaetz fans though now are they? They don't seem him as a true R but rather as someone using the position to catapult himself into a TV show.

A little more complicated than that.

They know he is mad about the fame , but plenty of them are and are in the good books of those in power. Gaetz from all accounts has burned a lot of bridges with people over various things and also does clash with them over issues.

He is actually ok on climate change, drug legislation and forever war compared to the neocons which oddly hurts him with those whose political POV has not evolved over last few decades.

Its district is a safe Republican hold no matter who they would choose to replace him, so it wouldn't make a lot of tactical sense to go to bat for him .

aloyisious · 18-05-2021 9:18pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The GOP have nothing to gain/lose from protecting Gaetz so why would they?

If anything they gain if he's convicted.

Depending on the level/severity of the conviction or findings they get to either blame it on a "Leftist conspiracy" or they can claim the higher ground by being able to say that they didn't go to bat for him.

He's on his own here.

Reckon so, they've made a decision to steer away from any upcoming court trials, holding their peace until the big one [Don] or second biggest one [Rudy] as one's worth defending.

aloyisious · 18-05-2021 10:18pm

Albert Watkins, the lawyer for Jacob Chansley [the shaman] today described his client as being on the Autism spectrum and the other insurrectionists as being "short-bus people" with no previous criminal history subjected to four-plus years of propaganda the like the world has not seen since Hitler. He included the "F" word several times in his statement, before the term "Short-Bus People" and the last named historical person.

For the record, I have no idea what the term "short-bus people" means but assume it's a put-down derogatory expression.

Just realised that with the commission coming up, the statement would be one way of getting a clients angle in first.

gimli2112 · 18-05-2021 10:21pm

for those of you curious I typed it into google and got this

A short bus is U.S. slang for a smaller school bus usually used for transporting disabled students.

Timberrrrrrrr · 18-05-2021 10:22pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Albert Watkins, the lawyer for Jacob Chansley [the shaman] today described his client as being on the Autism spectrum and the other insurrectionists as being "short-bus people" with no previous criminal history subjected to four-plus years of propaganda the like the world has not seen since Hitler. He included the "F" word several times in his statement, before the term "Short-Bus People" and the last named historical person.

For the record, I have no idea what the term "short-bus people" means but assume it's a put-down derogatory expression.

In America kids get the yellow school bus to school, the "special" kids had a different shorter bus, hence the term "short bus people"

amandstu · 19-05-2021 4:40am

Are we there yet?

"New York state AG says probe of Trump Organization now criminal"

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0519/1222476-trump-organisation-under-criminal-investigation/

Brian? · 19-05-2021 9:49am

gimli2112 wrote: »

for those of you curious I typed it into google and got this

A short bus is U.S. slang for a smaller school bus usually used for transporting disabled students.

It's exactly that, very similar to how people use "windowlickers" in Ireland.

Brian? · 19-05-2021 9:50am

amandstu wrote: »

Are we there yet?

"New York state AG says probe of Trump Organization now criminal"

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0519/1222476-trump-organisation-under-criminal-investigation/

I have very little hope he'll end up being charged with anything at this stage.

serfboard · 19-05-2021 1:26pm

amandstu wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0519/1222476-trump-organisation-under-criminal-investigation/

From that article:

RTE wrote:

Some Republicans fear that failing to reject Mr Trump's rhetoric about voter fraud could hurt the party, even if a major key to high voter turnout is to motivate Mr Trump's fiercely loyal base.

This is what I don't get.

Why should Republicans bother voting anymore if the election results are going to be fraudulent?

And of course, there is also the ridiculous situation that you have people in Congress who were "elected" in the same fraudulent election in which Trump was defeated? If Biden is not legitimately in office, how come they are?

amandstu · 19-05-2021 1:33pm

serfboard wrote: »

From that article:

This is what I don't get.

Why should Republicans bother voting anymore if the election results are going to be fraudulent?

And of course, there is also the ridiculous situation that you have people in Congress who were "elected" in the same fraudulent election in which Trump was defeated? If Biden is not legitimately in office, how come they are?

Sure, but if there is any chance that this cult of Trump that has parasitized the Republic Party (it was ready and willing to be taken over inthat way) one should exercise extreme caution and prepare for the worst eventuality when the stakes are so high.

I doubt the GOP is recoverable now .It is like some kind of political Frankenstein creature the directionless steps of which are very difficult to predict.

Nody · 19-05-2021 2:09pm

serfboard wrote: »

From that article:

This is what I don't get.

Why should Republicans bother voting anymore if the election results are going to be fraudulent?

And of course, there is also the ridiculous situation that you have people in Congress who were "elected" in the same fraudulent election in which Trump was defeated? If Biden is not legitimately in office, how come they are?

Because brave patriotic republican forces stopped the simp cancel culture Libs from stealing the election in those locations of course (and if they lost the Libs successfully stole it by "insert conspiracy theories here"). You can read it straight out from Q culture approach for the explanation and that's assuming you even want to apply logic to the question (see the stop the vote / continue the vote chants in various states by the same group of people depending on if Trump was ahead or not). This is simply a repeat of Brexit vote where people think feelings = facts and reject any information that don't align with their world view no matter how inconsistent that ends up being.

Itssoeasy · 19-05-2021 5:56pm

Shock horror that Kevin McCarthy is against the January 6th commission. It’s not a shock because he would likely be called to testify seeing as we have an on the record(from the impeachment) description of his conversations with the former president.

Tell me how · 19-05-2021 6:06pm

What is needed for an investigative commission to go ahead? Is it a straight majority vote in both House and Senate or does it need more in senate?

Itssoeasy · 19-05-2021 6:09pm

Tell me how wrote: »

What is needed for an investigative commission to go ahead? Is it a straight majority vote in both House and Senate or does it need more in senate?

I assume it’s just a straight forward vote. I’ve no idea if forming of committees are different but I assume it is because we’d have heard of it being different. The senate may be where it dies.

Itssoeasy · 19-05-2021 6:20pm

I see Donald trump is calling the investigation into his business is corrupt. It still his go to phrase when ever something he/his company gets called out for being less than on the up and up.

amandstu · 19-05-2021 7:09pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see Donald trump is calling the investigation into his business is corrupt. It still his go to phrase when ever something he/his company gets called out for being less than on the up and up.

I'd say,given a choice between Trump's interests and corruption I might opt for corruption (the devil you know and all that)

Itssoeasy · 19-05-2021 11:33pm

The vote for the January 6th commission is happening now and as it stands there’s 29 republicans voting yes with the democrats. So Kevin McCarthy didn’t get his conference in lock step it seems.

Itssoeasy · 19-05-2021 11:55pm

So the bill passed and 35 republicans voted with the democrats. So presumably it’s needs ten GOP senators in the senate for it to pass there which is doubtful being honest.

amandstu · 20-05-2021 1:35am

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So the bill passed and 35 republicans voted with the democrats. So presumably it’s needs ten GOP senators in the senate for it to pass there which is doubtful being honest.

They need more than a plain majority in the Senate?
Has to be 60/40?

Tell me how · 20-05-2021 2:49am

amandstu wrote: »

They need more than a plain majority in the Senate?
Has to be 60/40?

That seems to be the case.

They'll get a couple Romney, Cheney, Murkowski maybe but that'll probably be it.

Ramasun · 20-05-2021 3:38am

They're going to be investigating the Trump presidency for decades.

Brian? · 20-05-2021 6:54am

amandstu wrote: »

They need more than a plain majority in the Senate?
Has to be 60/40?

60/40? What a ridiculous system.

41 of the senators could represent about 20% of the US population.

Quin_Dub · 20-05-2021 9:54am

Brian? wrote: »

60/40? What a ridiculous system.

41 of the senators could represent about 20% of the US population.

It's a double dose of Minority rule.

Because each State gets 2 Senators regardless of size , you have more than half the Senators representing only about 30% of the people.

Then you layer the filibuster on top of that and a small cabal of maybe a dozen or so Senators can hold the entire legislative system to ransom.

It's an insane system.

StringerBell · 20-05-2021 10:13am

It will be kicked back to just a house investigation, led by democrats so that fox/oann/trump/pot/whoever else can just label it an illegitimate witch hunt and poo poo any findings that come out if it.

Greatest democracy on earth folks.

Tim Ryan summed it up pretty well after the voter I thought.

amandstu · 20-05-2021 12:43pm

They can poo poo interpretations but not actual new evidence.

They can also highlight contradictory statements from the likes of McCarthy and O'Connel with the aim of consigning their and others' reputation to the gutter of history.

StringerBell · 20-05-2021 1:28pm

Of course they can, but will it matter?

Also, they will certainly refuse to engage with any evidence just citing it as a partisan witchunt, a continuation of the same one the "radical left" has been driven made by, consumed by, for the last 4 or 5 years at this stage.

What I am interested in actually is that the investigation has become a criminal matter into the trump organisation, for them to involve that team and go beyond the civil remedies (which are potentially stiff enough like) they must feel there is something there they can nail.

Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Comments