Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

Trump wanted to push the button.  Just once.  

[mistertim]

9 minutes ago, Larry said:

Trump wanted to push the button.  Just once.  

 

Yeah but now he probably has a taste for it. 

[Larry]

I bet he made explosion sounds, when he did it.  

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

If you're petty and you know it clap your hands.

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think the point was that in the metaphor used, Trump is the toddler yet gets the gummy bears for dinner.  At least that is how I took it.

 

Trump gets the gummy bears only because the outdated EC gave him the presidency. An outdated system that was a sellout to slave owning states who didn't want to count slaves fully as part of their population.  They were afraid a straight up vote would give the North too much power (again since they only counted their slaves as a portion of a person). We're stuck with a piss poor candidate who can never win the popular vote but gets his EC win because...slaves. 

 

As an aside...we're also stuck with a Senate GOP majority that represents a significant smaller population than the Democratic  minority does.

 

How the **** does any of this still make sense?

 

Edit..no one in the GOP gets a pass on Trump. They let him infect their party. They let his syphilis diseased mind set it back two centuries. **** them all.

[visionary]

 

[hail2skins]

 

President Trump, I have a question.

 

If you were so unhappy with the direction of the country during President Obama's first term, why did you decide not to run against him yourself in 2012?

 

Has he ever been asked that question? I'd love to see a reporter ask it.

 

Because I think the answer is one that he would not want his supporters to hear. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Trump gets the gummy bears only because

 

Why he gets the candy is sort of irrelevant as long as he gets it. Pelosi is feckless, which is how this conversation got started.

 

 

I know the fact that republicans wanted her to go to court to get witnesses to testify makes it suspect, but, i don’t see why she didn’t do that. Especially since she knows the senate is going to shut down impeachment and wrap it up ASAP.  I don’t know why she wanted to wrap it up before the elections if she knew the outcome was acquittal. Why didn’t she get the witnesses. 

 

The opinion that it is the senates job is irrelevant if you know they won’t do their job ahead of time. So, why didn’t she drag impeachment out?

[TheGreatBuzz]

I also think Pelosi harmed her cause by sitting on the impeachment for a little bit.  If it was such an emergency that they couldn't wait for court decisions, then the charges should have been to the Senate ASAP.  I think the Dems screwed the pooch since the day trump took office.  (This is not some kind of statement endorsing anything the GOP did)

 

9 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

@TheGreatBuzz Come get your Rep.

 

I tried to get rid of the dude but well.........Florida. 

[The Evil Genius]

This is what Republicans have become. 

 

 

 

[No Excuses]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

This is what Republicans have become. 

 

 

 

Bootlicking this deranged moron is going to have generational consequences. The utter contempt for the GOP in the under-40 crowd is probably never going away. 

[The Evil Genius]

What's the old saying? When you let Trump go bareback on you, you get an STD? 

 

The GOP has an STD. 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Why he gets the candy is sort of irrelevant as long as he gets it. Pelosi is feckless, which is how this conversation got started.

 

 

I know the fact that republicans wanted her to go to court to get witnesses to testify makes it suspect, but, i don’t see why she didn’t do that. Especially since she knows the senate is going to shut down impeachment and wrap it up ASAP.  I don’t know why she wanted to wrap it up before the elections if she knew the outcome was acquittal. Why didn’t she get the witnesses. 

 

The opinion that it is the senates job is irrelevant if you know they won’t do their job ahead of time. So, why didn’t she drag impeachment out?

 

There is a very specific reason the GOP and the Trump admin wanted this to go to court (and it wasn't out of some sort of respect for the constitution): because they could drag it out for a long ass time, keep appealing after they keep losing, delay on everything, and hope it doesn't get to SCOTUS before the election. It probably wouldn't. 

 

So in the meantime the Republicans could put on a show of being exasperated because the "do nothing Dems" are just letting this impeachment sit around and are dragging it out (even though it would be the Trump admin dragging it out). And they'll hope they can get the public exasperated with it as well. It would simply shift from "why are you in such a hurry on this impeachment??" to "why can't you get this impeachment over with already?? the public is sick of it!" And if they can get the public sick of it then they could hope it would end up hurting the Dems long term like it did the Republicans with Clinton. 

 

When you have a POTUS and administration that truly believes they are 100% above the law and will simply ignore and refuse Congressional subpoenas for anything, no matter what, then you're in a tough spot. You either go through with impeachment with the evidence you have and the Republicans will **** about it being too fast, or you let it go through the court system and the Republicans will **** about it taking too long. Thing is, even if they got Bolton and Mulvaney and whoever as witnesses it wouldn't matter. Senate Republicans would simply shift their objections and still vote to acquit him. 

 

IMO there really really needs to be some sort of super fast track for this sort of real deal constitutional crisis sort of situations so it can get to SCOTUS within a month instead of within a year or two. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

15 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

There is a very specific reason the GOP and the Trump admin wanted this to go to court (and it wasn't out of some sort of respect for the constitution): because they could drag it out for a long ass time, keep appealing after they keep losing, delay on everything, and hope it doesn't get to SCOTUS before the election. It probably wouldn't. 
 

 

 

yea, but then the headlines would be “Trump looses, witnesses have to testify, trump plans to appeal”

”trump looses appeal, trump plants to go to Supreme Court”

 

that seems like a worse outcome for trump than “Trump Acquitted”...

 

 

Quote

 

So in the meantime the Republicans could put on a show of being exasperated because the "do nothing Dems" 

 

 

Has the narrative changed now that Trump has been aquitted? The “do nothing dems” still haven’t done anything of consequence and your response is “Trump!”? Sounds like “Obama!” To me.

 

 

Quote

IMO there really really needs to be some sort of super fast track for this sort of real deal constitutional crisis sort of situations so it can get to SCOTUS within a month instead of within a year or two. 

 

it sounds reasonable to me that court cases involving impeachment proceedings go straight to the supreme court.

 

[Captain Wiggles]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The “do nothing dems” still haven’t done anything of consequence and your response is “Trump!”?

 

This talking point is straight Republican BS. The Democrats in the House have passed nearly 400 bills since taking control last year. The Senate led by Mitch McConnell refuses to even look at them. So who is really doing nothing? 

[mistertim]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Has the narrative changed now that Trump has been aquitted? The “do nothing dems” still haven’t done anything of consequence and your response is “Trump!”? Sounds like “Obama!” To me.

 

 

Wait, what? I don't even know what you're saying here. I was saying the Republicans would stick to rando talking points like "do nothing Dems" and **** about it taking too long. "Look! The do nothing Dems are spending all their time on impeachment and won't focus on actual work! Please pay attention to this shiny thing instead of the fact that we have an utterly lawless POTUS who we are enabling!"

 

How can you do anything of consequence when McConnell literally refuses to even bring it to the floor of the Senate unless Trump has personally signed off on it? He's sitting on hundreds of bills passed by the House, which he refuses to even bring to the floor for debate.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I am asking you how is the narrative different now that trump has been acquitted?

[The Evil Genius]

From Jan-Nov 2019, the Dem lead House had passed nearly 400 bills. Over 80% of them were ignored by the cocaine Mitch led Senate.

 

Ans yes..many of the bills that were House passed that never got to the Senate floor because of the cocaine grim reaper were bipartisan House bills. Bills covering net neutrality,  reauthorizing the violence against women act, universal background checks, etc.

 

Again..if one party largely prefers government shutdown over anything the other party passes...then what's the expectation? 

[RedskinsFan44]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I am asking you how is the narrative different now that trump has been acquitted?

Revenge is the new narrative:

 

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I am asking you how is the narrative different now that trump has been acquitted?

 

I see what you are getting at. Hes currently the first president in history to have bi-partisan support for his removal because his actions where proved and that egregious. Thats the narrative currently. It will change by next week though. 

 

Realistically, they have put themselves in position to say 'see I told you so' when he does it again. Assuming they have the good on him again like this last time. And thats more important than anything now. 

[mistertim]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I am asking you how is the narrative different now that trump has been acquitted?

 

What narrative? Who's narrative? I honestly don't even know what you're talking about.

 

2 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Revenge is the new narrative:

 

 

Trump really is a **** ass ****. He's obsessed with being "tough" yet he's the most delicate snowflake whenever he feels like he's been victimized. Which is every day. His victim complex is quite a thing to behold. "Oh I was treated sooo horribly. Can a guy not extort a foreign nation to help his domestic election chances around here without having the PC police show up???"

 

But I can definitely see him going all out on "revenge" now. He'll be pushing the DoJ to start bringing investigations/charges against Bolton, Schiff, and whoever else he can think of. 

[Larry]

44 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

IMO there really really needs to be some sort of super fast track for this sort of real deal constitutional crisis sort of situations so it can get to SCOTUS within a month instead of within a year or two. 

Pretty sure there is. In certain for example that SCOTUS has been known to rule legislation unconstitutional the day it was signed. 
 

But SCOTUS has to invoke it. And I really don't think they want to get into this pig wrestling contest. They'd probably really prefer it if he gets voted out while they're still waiting. 

[mistertim]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

Pretty sure there is. In certain for example that SCOTUS has been known to rule legislation unconstitutional the day it was signed. 
 

But SCOTUS has to invoke it. And I really don't think they want to get into this pig wrestling contest. They'd probably really prefer it if he gets voted out while they're still waiting. 

 

Interesting. Didn't know that. So SCOTUS has a way of invoking an immediate review of new legislation? But would that also apply to something like the WH defying of Congressional subpoenas?