[worry]

There is a growing list of rightwing hacks calling for the firing of Mueller now, even though as far as I know he hasn't actually said a public word about the investigation himself. Newt Gingrich, of course, and Sean Hannity actually called for the firing on his show last night, which was live from the baseball field of yesterday's attack. This is some shameless, panicky stuff.

[Mentalist]

QuickTidal, on 15 June 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

I mean, it doesn't get any more hilarious than Trump himself being TOTALLY responsible for the investigations against him by things he said, to which he freaks out and claims are a witch-hunt....no you fucking numpty, you said some shit, and now you're being investigated as a result. You caused ALL of this. You don't get to complain about things you are directly responsible for.

https://www.washingt...m=.6c236a0d9fb1

LMAO

of course he gets to complain. Why else would he become president if NOT for the ultimate privilege of doing whatever the fuck he wants?




All in the name of "The People™", of course.

I mean, Americans supported enough populist leaders around the world, you'd think they'd know what to expect by now...

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 15 June 2017 - 07:13 PM

[Aptorian]

Just saw this on Reddit. WTF.

https://www.theguard...MP=share_btn_tw

Quote

Lobbyist for Russian interests says he attended dinners hosted by Sessions

Richard Burt contradicts Jeff Sessions’ testimony that he didn’t believe he had contacts with lobbyists working for Russian interests during Trump’s campaign

An American lobbyist for Russian interests who helped craft an important foreign policy speech for Donald Trump has confirmed that he attended two dinners hosted by Jeff Sessions during the 2016 campaign, apparently contradicting the attorney general’s sworn testimony given this week.

Now beyond the lies is anyone else confused by the notion that a Russian middleman is writing speeches for Trump? What the everloving fuck is that about?

[Mentalist]

He is a lobbyist. Meaning he's paid to represent Russian interests.
Obviously there's some quid pro quo going on, and in exchange for undisclosed "something", he got to influence a foreign policy speech, so that it's better aligned with Russian interests.
Nothing particularly unusual about that, in itself.

[worry]

DJT officially under criminal investigation: https://twitter.com/...485673616224256

And earlier in the day VP Pence hired his own outside counsel.

[worry]

On fifth anniversary of DACA, Trump admins ends protections for the parents of Dreamers.
http://thehill.com/l...migrant-parents

Monstrous. I hope their fall is swift and painful.

Edit: to be clear, DACA still around, DAPA (which was held up in court) was unceremoniously killed. Something like a lashing out in response to the latest blow to his Muslim ban imo.

This post has been edited by worry: 16 June 2017 - 03:28 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

Something I'm wondering today... With calls to fire Mueller growing, can the administration just keep firing people until they're get someone who does what they tell them to?

Or does this have an end point? A point where decent republicans (??) stand up and say "No."? Or is that not likely to ever happen?

[Macros]

What happensort if trump gets impeached and pence also gets the chop?

[amphibian]

Macros, on 16 June 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

What happensort if trump gets impeached and pence also gets the chop?

Paul Ryan becomes president.

Pence and Ryan are actually worse options to have as president than the incompetent Trump. They know what they're doing in terms of procedure and they want to eviscerate anything that's some sort of help to people who aren't the "good ones" in their minds.

[Macros]

Huh.
I figured that the present and vice both getting kicked would create some kind of re poll sI tuition. How far down the line will they go before they would force that?

[EmperorMagus]

Macros, on 16 June 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Huh.
I figured that the present and vice both getting kicked would create some kind of re poll sI tuition. How far down the line will they go before they would force that?

From what I understand. They'd never go to the polls before the appointed time. The new president, whoever he is, will be able to appoint a VP for himself.

If the president, his VP, and Speaker of the House all die at the same time; the president pro temporo of Senate is next. Then the Sec. State and so on.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

Macros, on 16 June 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

What happensort if trump gets impeached and pence also gets the chop?

Pence and Ryan are actually worse options to have as president than the incompetent Trump. They know what they're doing in terms of procedure and they want to eviscerate anything that's some sort of help to people who aren't the "good ones" in their minds.

ARE they worse in the grand global scheme of things? While they are both bad in their own right (and they are, for sure)...they still fall under the category of "garden variety nasty Republican". Anything they enact, can be rolled back when the Dems are back in charge. While they would not be good for the country, they would at least be held to the various checks and balances and rules that were laid out as any normal political would be. While Trump just barrels through those checks each day, challenges them as "false" and claims that they don't apply to him. With this guy in charge, you have to think about the world at large, and not just Americans (Which I realize sucks, but you guys are a superpower...this is a responsibility).

Right now you have a schoolyard bully at the helm...who backed out of the Paris Accords...because the French president shook. his. hand. too. hard. (and boasted about it). One of the three biggest polluters and contributors to Climate Change (the USA)...has backed out of the global accords set out to deal with it (and let me be clear, the efficacy of the Accords themselves are NOT the point)...because his feelings got hurt.

He also has the football. Let me say that again, as it truly bears noting. He has the football codes. And the only thing that has to happen between an order to use them, and a strike...is the SecDef has to merely confirm that the President is indeed the one who gave the order (he can't countermand it or veto it). The only way a strike like that doesn't happen in such a situation...is if the military commanders in charge, wherever those missiles launch from, are insubordinate and refuse his orders.

"Incompetence" as you put it to describe Trump...is EXACTLY the kind of thing that starts international incidents, and could lead to war.

While Pence and Ryan would not be good for your country....neither of them are off the hinge like Trump when it comes to the rest of our planet. That's where the rest of us are looking at this from. From a global standpoint.

EmperorMagus, on 16 June 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

Macros, on 16 June 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Huh.
I figured that the present and vice both getting kicked would create some kind of re poll sI tuition. How far down the line will they go before they would force that?

From what I understand. They'd never go to the polls before the appointed time. The new president, whoever he is, will be able to appoint a VP for himself.

Yeah, this is how I understand it as well. I think the ONLY way you go back to any kind of polls or election might be if it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia had direct influence in the numbers of the election itself. For which there has never been a precedent set, so it would be entirely new territory anyways. I feel like it would never happen though. They would infinitely scroll down the line of Republicans in line for the presidency until they came across the first one that wasn't a part of the "impeachment" offences that the administration that fell to cause the succession... and they'd become president.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 16 June 2017 - 12:42 PM

[amphibian]

I am 100% certain Pence and Ryan are worse than Trump. They have the knowhow to enact legislation and they, alongside McConnell, are responsible for the secret health care stuff now plus they are not the garden variety nasty Republicans.

Look up Pence and the HIV epidemic he oversaw. That'll show you what kind of evil he is.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

I am 100% certain Pence and Ryan are worse than Trump. They have the knowhow to enact legislation and they, alongside McConnell, are responsible for the secret health care stuff now plus they are not the garden variety nasty Republicans.

Look up Pence and the HIV epidemic he oversaw. That'll show you what kind of evil he is.

My point wasn't that they aren't bad as well.

My point was that Trump is worse for the world, and that you can't think of just the USA in this whole thing.

What would you rather do here Amph? Leave the volatile toddler in charge who might be horrible for the whole world and not just the US...or accept that your country's republicans are also bad people (and your politics are utterly divided with no visible centre anymore)...but it's what you're going to have to deal with if it comes to impeachment?

There are no other options, unless you leave Trump in charge (which may be a moot point depending on Mueller's investigation and it's outcome/revelations).

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 16 June 2017 - 03:06 PM

[Mentalist]

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

Macros, on 16 June 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

What happensort if trump gets impeached and pence also gets the chop?

Pence and Ryan are actually worse options to have as president than the incompetent Trump. They know what they're doing in terms of procedure and they want to eviscerate anything that's some sort of help to people who aren't the "good ones" in their minds.

ARE they worse in the grand global scheme of things? While they are both bad in their own right (and they are, for sure)...they still fall under the category of "garden variety nasty Republican". Anything they enact, can be rolled back when the Dems are back in charge. While they would not be good for the country, they would at least be held to the various checks and balances and rules that were laid out as any normal political would be. While Trump just barrels through those checks each day, challenges them as "false" and claims that they don't apply to him. With this guy in charge, you have to think about the world at large, and not just Americans (Which I realize sucks, but you guys are a superpower...this is a responsibility).

Right now you have a schoolyard bully at the helm...who backed out of the Paris Accords...because the French president shook. his. hand. too. hard. (and boasted about it). One of the three biggest polluters and contributors to Climate Change (the USA)...has backed out of the global accords set out to deal with it (and let me be clear, the efficacy of the Accords themselves are NOT the point)...because his feelings got hurt.

He also has the football. Let me say that again, as it truly bears noting. He has the football codes. And the only thing that has to happen between an order to use them, and a strike...is the SecDef has to merely confirm that the President is indeed the one who gave the order (he can't countermand it or veto it). The only way a strike like that doesn't happen in such a situation...is if the military commanders in charge, wherever those missiles launch from, are insubordinate and refuse his orders.

"Incompetence" as you put it to describe Trump...is EXACTLY the kind of thing that starts international incidents, and could lead to war.

While Pence and Ryan would not be good for your country....neither of them are off the hinge like Trump when it comes to the rest of our planet. That's where the rest of us are looking at this from. From a global standpoint.

EmperorMagus, on 16 June 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

Macros, on 16 June 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Huh.
I figured that the present and vice both getting kicked would create some kind of re poll sI tuition. How far down the line will they go before they would force that?

From what I understand. They'd never go to the polls before the appointed time. The new president, whoever he is, will be able to appoint a VP for himself.

Yeah, this is how I understand it as well. I think the ONLY way you go back to any kind of polls or election might be if it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia had direct influence in the numbers of the election itself. For which there has never been a precedent set, so it would be entirely new territory anyways. I feel like it would never happen though. They would infinitely scroll down the line of Republicans in line for the presidency until they came across the first one that wasn't a part of the "impeachment" offences that the administration that fell to cause the succession... and they'd become president.

In theory, when there's enough public doubt into the integrity of an election (usually expressed via public protests), a different branch of the government (such as judiciary) is supposed to step in to provide a compromise to get out of political crisis- that's how the "colour revolutions" work.

That being said, the likelihood of that happening in the US (or any other Western state for that matter) is incredibly low, due to the fact that overwhelming majority of people either implicitly trusts the institutions of state or is not civically educated enough to care (which amounts to the same thing).

[QuickTidal]

Mentalist, on 16 June 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

In theory, when there's enough public doubt into the integrity of an election (usually expressed via public protests), a different branch of the government (such as judiciary) is supposed to step in to provide a compromise to get out of political crisis- that's how the "colour revolutions" work.

That being said, the likelihood of that happening in the US (or any other Western state for that matter) is incredibly low, due to the fact that overwhelming majority of people either implicitly trusts the institutions of state or is not civically educated enough to care (which amounts to the same thing).

Huh, interesting. I did not know that. I agree though that the chances of it happening are low. I doubt anyone would stand for it.

[Tiste Simeon]

Tiste Simeon, on 16 June 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

Something I'm wondering today... With calls to fire Mueller growing, can the administration just keep firing people until they're get someone who does what they tell them to?

Or does this have an end point? A point where decent republicans (??) stand up and say "No."? Or is that not likely to ever happen?

Turns out only this chap called Rosenstein (Deputy AG) can fire Mueller. And he has said he isn't going to. So now Trump appears to be gunning for Rosenstein. https://twitter.com/...698062030778368

[Silencer]

Tiste Simeon, on 16 June 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 16 June 2017 - 08:46 AM, said:

Something I'm wondering today... With calls to fire Mueller growing, can the administration just keep firing people until they're get someone who does what they tell them to?

Or does this have an end point? A point where decent republicans (??) stand up and say "No."? Or is that not likely to ever happen?

Turns out only this chap called Rosenstein (Deputy AG) can fire Mueller. And he has said he isn't going to. So now Trump appears to be gunning for Rosenstein. https://twitter.com/...698062030778368

It amuses me that he believes the economics and jobs numbers are somehow real-time, and reflective of either himself or the current actions being passed. It concerns me that "regulations are down" is considered a positive thing. Oh, wait, Trump *wants* to go back to the good ol' times before the GFC, because that will allow him to make more money. SMH.

[amphibian]

I would keep Trump in charge over having Pence or Ruan as president because every other global leader will run circles around him, which is fine, but he won't enact policies that will crater this country for fifty years like Pence or Ryan will.

Look at Kansas after total Republican capture. It's nearly failing as a state and that's after a couple years under the Obama administration.

I do not think Trump will ever use nukes or do something like start a war over a handshake. He's volatile and incompetent, but he won't go that far because he can't actually do that.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 04:47 PM, said:

I would keep Trump in charge over having Pence or Ruan as president because every other global leader will run circles around him, which is fine, but he won't enact policies that will crater this country for fifty years like Pence or Ryan will.

Look at Kansas after total Republican capture. It's nearly failing as a state and that's after a couple years under the Obama administration.

I do not think Trump will ever use nukes or do something like start a war over a handshake. He's volatile and incompetent, but he won't go that far because he can't actually do that.

Wow. Okay man. I think you're wrong from a global POV, but that's your prerogative to that opinion.

Also, he can do that. Research the Football, and the accompanying biscuit. But he literally can do that and the only thing that stops the order from going through is a mutiny of the armed forces. There is no one who can veto him on it if he chooses to do it.

The Football case follows him around everywhere, and sleeps in a room below him so he has access to it 24/7. He carries a key card (biscuit) with the his personal codes.

This was all established in Kennedy's era.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 16 June 2017 - 05:55 PM