• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency: Part 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
WilliamSeger said:
The "from us" was his personality-disordered compulsion to take credit, as if it wasn't the Kurds who captured them and who are holding them.
Click to expand...

It makes sense when you remember that he defeated IS. Therefore, the IS prisoners are, of course, his.
 
dudalb said:
But the party leaders don't matter anymore. All the matters for Trump is his base.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s probably not going to work forever. I’m surprised it’s worked for him this long. *Finally* he may be pushing Senate Republicans too far. If I were them I’d want to get Pence in position ASAP.

Most of the time I really don’t wish Trump to suffer. But now physical incapacitation would come as a relief. Even his base might be relieved - they save face and Trump is spared further persecution without ever having admitted to any wrongdoing.
 
Last edited:
autumn1971 said:
The indisputable fact that the democratic process is being destroyed by the Executive branch, a majority of the senate , a large part of the House, and hundreds of Federal Judges.

It’s past time for these corpses to be swinging in gibbets in front of state houses to warn what happens when a party does such a thing.
Click to expand...

Let's assume that Trump is not removed by the ballot box. What then is the justification for armed rebellion against a president elected as described in the Constitution. I'm not asking about him staying in power after losing the election or some maneuver to suspend or nullify the election.
 
Craig4 said:
Is it a dictatorship if Trump is not removed by the ballot?
Click to expand...

It rather depends on the quality of the election. A lot of actual, not hyperbolic, dictators held elections and amazingly won by huge landslides. Including a few where the landslide results were accidentally announced before the voting occurred.

I'm not saying that's the case with the US, I'm just pointing out that holding an election isn't necessarily proof there's not a dictatorship.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It rather depends on the quality of the election. A lot of actual, not hyperbolic, dictators held elections and amazingly won by huge landslides. Including a few where the landslide results were accidentally announced before the voting occurred.

I'm not saying that's the case with the US, I'm just pointing out that holding an election isn't necessarily proof there's not a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
A lot of people just don't get that.
people forget that Hitler came to power through perfectly legal means.
 
Craig4 said:
Let's assume that Trump is not removed by the ballot box. What then is the justification for armed rebellion against a president elected as described in the Constitution. I'm not asking about him staying in power after losing the election or some maneuver to suspend or nullify the election.
Click to expand...
You have an individual who has gained power:

- Despite losing the popular vote. (Yes, I know that was the way the American political system was set up in the first place, with the electoral college, but many see the situation as unfairly giving more political power to individuals in some states, which violates the concept of "equality".)

- With the assistance of at least one foreign government (Russia in 2016 and probably 2020, and attempts to involve Ukraine and China.)

- With the assistance of voter suppression tactics (so thousands of people were unfairly disenfranchised)

Yes, you could claim "that's all legal according to the constitution and/or the ways the laws work", but that doesn't necessarily mean people need to accept it. I mean, if Trump actually found a way to get the constitution re-written to make him king for life, the proper response would not be to say "Oh, its in the constitution. I must shut up about it". The response would be to say "whatever tactics were used to re-write the constitution were morally wrong, and it should be challenged."
 
newyorkguy said:
Wait a minute. Is that really a Tweet from the president of the United States or a post by Logger? It's incredible to me that the president of the United States -- the proverbial 'most powerful man in the world' -- communicates in almost exactly the same way as one of the dumbest people to have ever poisoned the atmosphere of this forum. At times the whole thing seems surreal. :(

To repeat, Trump is giving stupid a bad name.
Click to expand...


Logger was Trump? It all makes sense now.


ETA: Ninjad by Shemp.
 
Last edited:
shemp said:
Maybe Logger was Trump!
Click to expand...

When Donnie writes that Biden's campaign is failing why does he capitalize both words? "Joe's Failing Campaign." If I was Hunter Biden I'd starting claiming I had sex with Melania. ;)
 
Craig4 said:
Let's assume that Trump is not removed by the ballot box. What then is the justification for armed rebellion against a president elected as described in the Constitution. I'm not asking about him staying in power after losing the election or some maneuver to suspend or nullify the election.
Click to expand...

Segnosaur said:
You have an individual who has gained power:

- Despite losing the popular vote. (Yes, I know that was the way the American political system was set up in the first place, with the electoral college, but many see the situation as unfairly giving more political power to individuals in some states, which violates the concept of "equality".)

- With the assistance of at least one foreign government (Russia in 2016 and probably 2020, and attempts to involve Ukraine and China.)

- With the assistance of voter suppression tactics (so thousands of people were unfairly disenfranchised)

Yes, you could claim "that's all legal according to the constitution and/or the ways the laws work", but that doesn't necessarily mean people need to accept it. I mean, if Trump actually found a way to get the constitution re-written to make him king for life, the proper response would not be to say "Oh, its in the constitution. I must shut up about it". The response would be to say "whatever tactics were used to re-write the constitution were morally wrong, and it should be challenged."
Click to expand...

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
 
smartcooky said:
When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Indepndence is Fake News!
 
dudalb said:
A lot of people just don't get that.
people forget that Hitler came to power through perfectly legal means.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. He entered a power sharing government through legal means. He did not rise to be dictator of Germany through a legal process.
 
Craig4 said:
No he didn't. He entered a power sharing government through legal means. He did not rise to be dictator of Germany through a legal process.
Click to expand...

UH,no. Everything he did to become a dictator was perfectly legally under the constitution of the Weimar Republic, which was, obviously, a badly flawed document.
The enabling act was perfectly legal.
 
Segnosaur said:
You have an individual who has gained power:

- Despite losing the popular vote. (Yes, I know that was the way the American political system was set up in the first place, with the electoral college, but many see the situation as unfairly giving more political power to individuals in some states, which violates the concept of "equality".)

- With the assistance of at least one foreign government (Russia in 2016 and probably 2020, and attempts to involve Ukraine and China.)

- With the assistance of voter suppression tactics (so thousands of people were unfairly disenfranchised)

Yes, you could claim "that's all legal according to the constitution and/or the ways the laws work", but that doesn't necessarily mean people need to accept it. I mean, if Trump actually found a way to get the constitution re-written to make him king for life, the proper response would not be to say "Oh, its in the constitution. I must shut up about it". The response would be to say "whatever tactics were used to re-write the constitution were morally wrong, and it should be challenged."
Click to expand...

Whoa, wait a minute. I never suggested you or anyone else shut up about it. I'm specifically talking about armed insurrection.
 
dudalb said:
UH,no. Everything he did to become a dictator was perfectly legally under the constitution of the Weimar Republic, which was, obviously, a badly flawed document.
The enabling act was perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

The violence that lead up to the vote certainly was not legal.
 
Garrison said:
Time after time Trump undermines US strategic interests in the name of spite or because some dictator kissed his ass or offered to spend money with one of his companies and yet the reaction from the Republicans is a brief flurry of outrage followed by, nothing.
Click to expand...

Every single Kurd killed by the Turks will be directly attributable to Donald J Trump and his gutless enablers in the Republican Party.
 
phiwum said:
The Syrian Kurds will be glad to hear that.
Click to expand...
And the parents of children who have died in custody.

Oh, and...

It reveals a lot about people's reliance on their belief they are part of an in-group with low probability of harm when they brush aside the misery Trump has caused.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom