• 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.

Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's sad to see so many Americans more concerned with their own lives, and not focused on keeping the economy great in order to ensure President Trump gets re-elected.
 
shemp said:
They probably wouldn't, but some of the idiot meathead armed-to-the-teeth followers might, not enough to take over, but perhaps enough to cause trouble and maybe kill some innocent people.
I don't really think Trump would try that. He's more likely to pardon himself for anything he might have done, then go home and try to rally his followers for another run in 2024.
Click to expand...

THAT is entirely possible. He's got some real crrrraaaaaazzy cult followers.
 
Cain said:
It's sad to see so many Americans more concerned with their own lives, and not focused on keeping the economy great in order to ensure President Trump gets re-elected.
Click to expand...

So many Democrats spreading the Corona virus hoax just in order to tank Wall Street. Sad! #demhoaxwitchhunt
 
Stacyhs said:
You are talking civil freaking war. Revolution. As much as I detest McConnell, Graham, and their ilk, they are not going back a civil war in order to keep Trump in office. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

...Honestly? It's hard to say. As Rove outlined long ago, the goal is to put the US under permanent Republican control. A dictatorship, in effect, one way or another. As long as they end up with the power, why would they care about how they got it?

It's true that it's more likely that the "Boogaloo" will likely just involve a bunch of terrorist actions, though.

Back to coronavirus, though. It's likely worth a reminder, given all these accusations of coronavirus being hyped up as a means to hurt Trump... that Republicans literally did that to Obama, especially Limbaugh (but Trump too!), with Ebola. Scum.

Also, that presser hastily scheduled after the first confirmed coronavirus death in the US was... WTF?

Cutting through the distractions, though the response of this administration is...

Absolutely the only steps they’re adding is a “travel restriction” on Iran, that does nothing. And two “advisories” to people traveling to Italy and South Korea.
Click to expand...

Man. If only we had Warren. Or an administration that was willing to pay attention. She had a decent plan to work with shortly after coronavirus came to our attention.
 
Last edited:
The Left going "Okay politics isn't working so we're going to fight the Right like the Wolverines in Red Dawn" is like me not being able to beat Mike Tyson at chess so I just start punching him, I've just shifted the conflict into something where I'm even more disadvantaged.

An armed conflict is probably the only thing the Left could against the Right that would be less effective then what they are doing now.

Half of my Facebook feed is full of people who can't order pizza over the phone because of their "crippling social anxiety" talking about they are going Bajorian on the Cardassians if 2020 goes South.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
The Left going "Okay politics isn't working so we're going to fight the Right like the Wolverines in Red Dwn" is like me not being able to beat Mike Tyson at chess so I just start punching him, I've just shifted the conflict into something where I'm even more disadvantaged.



An armed conflict is probably the only thing the Left could against the Right that would be less effective then what they are doing now.
Click to expand...
The left? Who? When?
 
Trebuchet said:
The Trump administration has made a deal with the Taliban. Can you imagine the outcry if Obama did that?
Click to expand...

You know... if that didn't apply to about half the things that the Trump Administration does or more, it might be more impactful. As I've said before, though, the stuff that Trump did in the first month or two alone would have been enough for the Republicans to impeach him if he was a Democrat - and Democrats would probably have supported such. Things have gone downhill from there.

Just about everyone in the US is being harmed by the Trump Administration, in one way or many now, after all, and pretty much all our allies have been harmed by the Trump Administration.
 
Aridas said:
...Honestly? It's hard to say. As Rove outlined long ago, the goal is to put the US under permanent Republican control. A dictatorship, in effect, one way or another. As long as they end up with the power, why would they care about how they got it?

It's true that it's more likely that the "Boogaloo" will likely just involve a bunch of terrorist actions, though.

Back to coronavirus, though. It's likely worth a reminder, given all these accusations of coronavirus being hyped up as a means to hurt Trump... that Republicans literally did that to Obama, especially Limbaugh (but Trump too!), with Ebola. Scum.

Also, that presser hastily scheduled after the first confirmed coronavirus death in the US was... WTF?

Cutting through the distractions, though the response of this administration is...



Man. If only we had Warren. Or an administration that was willing to pay attention. She had a decent plan to work with shortly after coronavirus came to our attention.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see exactly what Rove said. Can you provide it?

There may be some in the GOP who would like to take permanent control, but I do believe that most would not support such a takeover. Nor do I think the American people, GOP or not, would support such a move. Not even most Trumpers.

I like Warren. As it looks like a Bide/Sanders race, I'd love to see Warren as VP...preferably a Biden-Warren ticket.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The Left going "Okay politics isn't working so we're going to fight the Right like the Wolverines in Red Dawn" is like me not being able to beat Mike Tyson at chess so I just start punching him, I've just shifted the conflict into something where I'm even more disadvantaged.

An armed conflict is probably the only thing the Left could against the Right that would be less effective then what they are doing now.

Half of my Facebook feed is full of people who can't order pizza over the phone because of their "crippling social anxiety" talking about they are going Bajorian on the Cardassians if 2020 goes South.
Click to expand...

No wonder you have strange notions of "The Left" if you believe your "Facebook feed" (whatever that is) is representative of it. Perhaps you shouldn't take an internet thing for teenagers seriously?

And second, the Bajorans achieved nothing against the Cardassians, it took a war with the Federation to free Bajor, they'd never have done it alone. And even then it was Federation protection that kept it free, and Federation intervention that freed it again from its dalliance with the Dominion.
 
Stacyhs said:
I'd like to see exactly what Rove said. Can you provide it?
Click to expand...

To be more fair on that than I probably need to be, this was around the turn of the century, with Rove officially trying to do it in a more democratic way - by building a ideological small government coalition that was a significant majority in size. Less officially, Rove and the rest of those he was working with *knew* that that would be a pipe dream while people still liked things like, say, social security. So a permanent Republican majority would fairly certainly have to be achieved via suppressing the votes of undesirable voters again, like, for example, African Americans and women had been for... most of the time that the US has existed. For context, IIRC, in Virginia at the time of school desegregation, to have a pretty much permanent majority required gaining about... 10-20% of the official potential vote.

Stacyhs said:
There may be some in the GOP who would like to take permanent control, but I do believe that most would not support such a takeover. Nor do I think the American people, GOP or not, would support such a move. Not even most Trumpers.
Click to expand...

I think that you might be surprised, then, at the numbers. "Most," maybe. Yet, even so, a far, far too significant minority, though, and a population that is far too influenced by the right-wing disinformation machine. Going further, the constant, strategic, and sustained utter misuse of words like "coup" by Trump and the GOP should be particularly concerning, given their history of accusing Democrats of all kinds of things that they turn around and then do themselves with no consequences at all and a ready "Democrats are hypocrites, dismiss them" defense once the outrage dies down.

Stacyhs said:
I like Warren. As it looks like a Bide/Sanders race, I'd love to see Warren as VP...preferably a Biden-Warren ticket.
Click to expand...

I'm... okay with Warren being VP. Not as good as her being President, of course, but a Biden/Warren ticket would likely be relatively unifying.
 
Stacyhs said:
I'd like to see exactly what Rove said. Can you provide it?...
Click to expand...

I recall reading about that. That the Republicans would win such substantial majorities that they'd work to institute one party rule. Either Rove or Gingrich spoke about that, how it would really benefit this society. Be so much more efficient. I don't have a reference either, and I looked recently. Probably not something the GOP wants to discuss much in public. Related-

Trump supporter Rupert Murdoch believed authoritarian states can work. That I have a cite for. A New Yorker magazine piece from twenty-five years ago:

In April of 1994, Murdoch removed the BBC from the Star network in China and replaced it with Chinese-language films. “The BBC was driving them nuts,” Murdoch says. “It’s not worth it.” The Chinese government is “scared to death of what happened in Tiananmen Square,” he says. “The truth is—and we Americans don’t like to admit it—that authoritarian countries can work. There may have been human-rights abuses in Chile. But that country under Pinochet raised living standards. And now it has a democracy. The best thing you can do in China is engage the Chinese and wait.” Link
Click to expand...
 
Aridas said:
To be more fair on that than I probably need to be, this was around the turn of the century, with Rove officially trying to do it in a more democratic way - by building a ideological small government coalition that was a significant majority in size. Less officially, Rove and the rest of those he was working with *knew* that that would be a pipe dream while people still liked things like, say, social security. So a permanent Republican majority would fairly certainly have to be achieved via suppressing the votes of undesirable voters again, like, for example, African Americans and women had been for... most of the time that the US has existed. For context, IIRC, in Virginia at the time of school desegregation, to have a pretty much permanent majority required gaining about... 10-20% of the official potential vote.



I think that you might be surprised, then, at the numbers. "Most," maybe. Yet, even so, a far, far too significant minority, though, and a population that is far too influenced by the right-wing disinformation machine. Going further, the constant, strategic, and sustained utter misuse of words like "coup" by Trump and the GOP should be particularly concerning, given their history of accusing Democrats of all kinds of things that they turn around and then do themselves with no consequences at all and a ready "Democrats are hypocrites, dismiss them" defense once the outrage dies down.



I'm... okay with Warren being VP. Not as good as her being President, of course, but a Biden/Warren ticket would likely be relatively unifying.
Click to expand...

My problem with your link is that it does not define what they mean by a "strong leader". They do say this:

According to a March 13 poll from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, one in four Americans think it would be good to have a “strong leader” who does not have to bother with Congress and elections.
Click to expand...

Yet nowhere in the article is the highlighted part included in a "strong leader" definition. In fact, no definition of what they mean by that term is given. The polls only say "strong leader" with no mention of that leader being an authoritarian. A "strong leader" can be anything from a very pro-democratic, Constitution supporting person of strong character and leadership abilities to a dictator. When I think of a strong leader, an authoritarian/dictator does not come to mind.

I'd prefer Warren at the top of the ticket, too, but that isn't going to happen. Chances are it's going to be Sanders or Biden. I don't like Sanders at all.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
We don't know if Fauci has "caved in." We don't know if Pence et al. have told him what to say or prevented him from telling the truth, only that they want his public remarks cleared first, which is not all that unusual in a government bureaucracy. Fauci is about as close to a hero as the medical world has produced. Chances are he sees his role as trying to do good in a crisis despite obstacles. For him to quit in protest would only mean that a Repub hack would be put in his place. Not good for the country, and he knows it.

And I note that he didn't have any problem contradicting Trump directly about how long it will take to produce a vaccine with Trump standing next to him. It's way too early to say he's caved.
Click to expand...
Fauci had the talk shows scheduled then cancelled them all when Pence was assigned to censor people.

He did go on one show yesterday. He avoided answering a political question. That's fine.
 
Stacyhs said:
My problem with your link is that it does not define what they mean by a "strong leader". They do say this:



Yet nowhere in the article is the highlighted part included in a "strong leader" definition. In fact, no definition of what they mean by that term is given. The polls only say "strong leader" with no mention of that leader being an authoritarian. A "strong leader" can be anything from a very pro-democratic, Constitution supporting person of strong character and leadership abilities to a dictator. When I think of a strong leader, an authoritarian/dictator does not come to mind.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Maybe a look at this article might help with that?
 
The Trump Deal with the Taliban is exactly like the Trade Deal with China - a vague commitment to do something in the future if things go a certain way.
I guess it's progress to talk at all, but at this point it is little more than PR.
 
Stacyhs said:
A "strong leader" can be anything from a very pro-democratic, Constitution supporting person of strong character and leadership abilities to a dictator.
Click to expand...
The problem with the Lord Vetinari type of benevolent dictatorship, of course, is that it only works for a while, because the next one could be a lot worse. Bit like monarchy - fine when you've got a good king, not so fine when his idiot son succeeds him.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a system that produces a reasonable leader every time. Democracy probably comes closest, but we have ample recent evidence that it also can fail spectacularly.
 
Trebuchet said:
The Trump administration has made a deal with the Taliban. Can you imagine the outcry if Obama did that?
Click to expand...


It's probably just a result of old age reducing my memory to a shambles, since it's been eighteen years, but ...

Didn't we go to war with Afghanistan eighteen years ago because the Taliban was too untrustworthy to negotiate with?

Has eighteen years of war made them more trustworthy? I mean obviously we are negotiating from a position of strength, since they're staying ... in power ... and we're the ones who want to bug out (/sarcasm), but how is that fundamentally different from the situation all those years ago when we decided that war was the only possible alternative, since they couldn't be trusted to bargain in good faith?
 
Well, this is basically the best available option in a situation where all options suck. Best just to cut losses and keep a beady eye on the future Taliban Afghanistan - fine if they just opress and slaughter their own people, but won't threaten or attack the West.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom