Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
sackett said:
Note that this AZ Squeaker of the House makes his obeisance to Trumph, and ends with an invocation of Saint Ronnie Raygun. Thus he attempts to hoard his ****-cake and eat it too, while annonting himself with True Conservative Holy Oil.

Goddamn but sometimes I feel like shoving in a clip and going weasel hunting.
Click to expand...

It's hard to say the statement wasnt self serving. It was. Nevertheless he lays it out there.
 
Not sure if this should be in this thread. It's more about Ivanka and the Trump Organization.

Maybe you don't know that Ivanka was deposed this week because of billing practices for the 2016 election.

Ivanka said afterward that it was a partisan witchhunt and kreferred to an email she sent at the time that said that the hotel should charge prevailing rates to the inaugural committee.

Except they didn't. One of many examples was a ballroom the hotel rented out earlier that day to another organisation for 5 thousand dollars. The room was rented out to the inaugural committee for 175 thousand dollars.
 
Minoosh said:
However:

Do these folks ever stop to wonder what kind of president would even make the request? Is a good guy going to ask you to break the law to keep him in office?

Why would you want to re-elect someone like that?
Click to expand...

That is exactly the question I have been asking! Even if they like his political policies, why on Earth would they vote for a man with so little scruples that he even ask them to violate the very principles of democracy upon which this country is founded? I've said since 2015 that, even if I agreed with his politics, I could never vote for someone that I detest as a person so much.
 
Stacyhs said:
That is exactly the question I have been asking! Even if they like his political policies, why on Earth would they vote for a man with so little scruples that he even ask them to violate the very principles of democracy upon which this country is founded? I've said since 2015 that, even if I agreed with his politics, I could never vote for someone that I detest as a person so much.
Click to expand...

Have you heard of the phrase "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"?

To act out of pique, or pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself as much as the object of one's anger. In this very forum, we have had posters who announced they had voted for Trump mainly so they could drink the "librul" tears.
 
Just when you think the behavior of the Trump administration could not get any more disgusting...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...admin-has-handed-over-data-will-help-n1249782

https://twitter.com/JoaquinCastrotx...admin-has-handed-over-data-will-help-n1249782

... they have been withholding contact details for parents of children separated at the border.

"Everyone's been asking whether the Trump administration has been helping to find these families. Not only have they not been helping, but they have been withholding this data forever," ​

What a ******* disgrace! Scumbags, every last one of them!
 
This via Twitter this morning...

“The White House removed nine members of the Pentagon's Defense Business Board on Friday and installed people loyal to President Donald Trump in their place, including presidential allies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie.”

This seems ominous on the surface. What could possibly be the point of installing sycophants in Pentagon-related positions?

It’s common to refer to what a new President will do “On Day One”. Let’s hope President Biden, on Day One, will have list in hand of Executive Orders and appointments such as this to strike down.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
This via Twitter this morning...

“The White House removed nine members of the Pentagon's Defense Business Board on Friday and installed people loyal to President Donald Trump in their place, including presidential allies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie.”

This seems ominous on the surface. What could possibly be the point of installing sycophants in Pentagon-related positions?

It’s common to refer to what a new President will do “On Day One”. Let’s hope President Biden, on Day One, will have list in hand of Executive Orders and appointments such as this to strike down.
Click to expand...

Will they be entitled to things like a federal pension?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
.....
This seems ominous on the surface. What could possibly be the point of installing sycophants in Pentagon-related positions?
.....
Click to expand...


Part of it is perpetuating Trump policies after he's gone. Part of it is just wrecking the place on the way out. In this particular case, it looks like Biden could fire all the Trumpers on Jan. 20.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-former-campaign-managers/ar-BB1bDPAGhttps://
www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/trump-biden-natsec-transition-fires/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0519ac-333d-11eb-a997-1f4c53d2a747_story.html
 
GOP circular firing squad in Arizona on Twitter:

Rep Biggs: "Like all freedom-loving Arizonans, I am left wondering if the Governor intends to coerce vaccinations, and whether the State Legislature will let him."

The Chief of Staff of Governor Ducey (R), Daniel Scarpinato, quotes and comments: "We always knew you were nuts, but you've now officially confirmed it for the whole world to see. Congratulations. Enjoy your time as a permanent resident of Crazytown."

Prompting a quote and comment by the Arizona GOP: "Well that’s not a very nice way to talk to a member of Congress from your own party... @dougducey"
 
acbytesla said:
Statement by the Arizona Speaker of the House​

This week, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and others representing President Donald Trump came to Arizona with a breathtaking request: that the Arizona Legislature overturn the certified results of last month’s election and deliver the state’s electoral college votes to President Trump. The rule of law forbids us to do that.

Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Ellis made their case here at least twice—on Monday, at an unofficial public gathering hosted by a small group of legislators; and again on Tuesday, during a closed-door meeting at the State Capitol with Republican leaders from both chambers of the Legislature. Both times, the Trump team made claims that the election was tainted by fraud but presented only theories, not proof. U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr said on Tuesday that he, too, has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome of the election.”

Even if such evidence existed, the Arizona Legislature simply couldn’t do what is being asked. Under our state’s constitution, the Legislature can act only when it is in session, and the Legislature could call itself into a special session only with the support of a bipartisan supermajority of its members.

That won’t materialize, but even if did, the Legislature couldn’t provide the recourse the President’s team seeks. The U.S. Constitution authorizes each state to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” For decades, Arizona law has required that the voters elect the state’s electors on Election Day—this year, on November 3rd. And under a law the Republican-led Legislature passed just three years ago, the state’s electors are required to cast their votes for the candidates who received the most votes in the official statewide election canvass. Enacted after the 2016 presidential election, in which President Trump won the electoral college but not the popular vote, the law was aimed at ensuring that Arizona’s electors would remain faithful to the vote of the people.

So under current Arizona law, the presidential electors who were elected on November 3 must, after the canvass is completed, vote for the winners of the popular vote. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court even suggests that the Arizona Legislature could retroactively appoint different electors who would cast their ballots for different candidates.

The Trump legal team has cited McPherson v. Blacker (1892), to claim that the legislature can “resume the power [to appoint electors] at any time.” And it is true that the Arizona Legislature could alter the method of appointing electors prospectively. But it cannot undo the election of electors whom the voters already voted for. As the Supreme Court made clear in Bush v. Gore (2000), “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental.”

No election is perfect, and if there were evidence of illegal votes or an improper count, then
Arizona law provides a process to contest the election: a lawsuit under state law. But the law does not authorize the Legislature to reverse the results of an election.

As a conservative Republican, I don’t like the results of the presidential election. I voted for
President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election.
I and my fellow legislators swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and laws of the state of Arizona. It would violate that oath, the basic principles of republican government, and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people’s vote based on unsupported theories of fraud. Under the laws that we wrote and voted upon, Arizona voters choose who wins, and our system requires that their choice be respected.

Forty years ago next month, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that while the “orderly transfer of authority” is a “commonplace occurrence” for Americans, “n the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.” Now, Americans are being reminded once again never to take for granted what President Reagan correctly described as “the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.”
Click to expand...
That was great, thanks for posting that.

He laid all that out in very clear, plain language. I have gained a great respect for the strength of election law. Trump has torn down so much of the U.S.'s political culture that it was bracing to see that election law is a rock that we could rely on in the face of the chaos.
 
sackett said:
Note that this AZ Squeaker of the House makes his obeisance to Trumph, and ends with an invocation of Saint Ronnie Raygun. Thus he attempts to hoard his ****-cake and eat it too, while annonting himself with True Conservative Holy Oil.

Goddamn but sometimes I feel like shoving in a clip and going weasel hunting.
Click to expand...

All proper-thinking people were aghast at Reagan's presidency (how innocent we were to think that we had hit rock bottom), but I don't begrudge Reagan supporting a peaceful transfer of power.

Here's Reagan on the separation of church and state. He even mentions the freedom to *not* believe, something that wasn't on many people's radar at the time.
 
Firestone said:
GOP circular firing squad in Arizona on Twitter:

Rep Biggs: "Like all freedom-loving Arizonans, I am left wondering if the Governor intends to coerce vaccinations, and whether the State Legislature will let him."

The Chief of Staff of Governor Ducey (R), Daniel Scarpinato, quotes and comments: "We always knew you were nuts, but you've now officially confirmed it for the whole world to see. Congratulations. Enjoy your time as a permanent resident of Crazytown."

Prompting a quote and comment by the Arizona GOP: "Well that’s not a very nice way to talk to a member of Congress from your own party... @dougducey"
Click to expand...

I'm amused by the implication that it would be a nice way to talk to someone not from your own party. It sure would be great to get back to the days when Ronald Regan and Nancy would have Tip O'Neil (the long serving Democrat Speaker of the House during most of the Regan Administration) and his wife over to the White House for meatloaf on Friday nights.
 
I retract my bad-tempered (and stolen from Hemingway) remark about shoving in a clip. That's no way to talk, in these or any other times.

And if the Arizona repluglicans declare that they won't try to pull an illegal shenanigan, one they'd never get away with, then bless their semi-courageous little hearts and livers.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
This via Twitter this morning...

“The White House removed nine members of the Pentagon's Defense Business Board on Friday and installed people loyal to President Donald Trump in their place, including presidential allies Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie.”

This seems ominous on the surface. What could possibly be the point of installing sycophants in Pentagon-related positions?

It’s common to refer to what a new President will do “On Day One”. Let’s hope President Biden, on Day One, will have list in hand of Executive Orders and appointments such as this to strike down.
Click to expand...

Defense Business Board? Sounds like a way to try to push corruption and to keep softer power to affect who to funnel contracts towards, really. On a very quick look, it looks like it's supposedly an "independent" board that makes recommendations. Not a more nightmarish scenario, probably, like trying to recall and install still a General Flynn and his retired officer allies into positions of power so they can support the illegal orders that they recommended that Trump make, but still problematic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom