At 7/5/17 10:29 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: While you make an absolutely solid point on Shakespeare in the park, and I agree that ted nugent is an asshole. Political effigies are absolutely nothing new. To my knowledge they go as far back as the Reagan era or even long before. Both sides have done it for decades. To act like it only happened to Obama or that he was the first president to have had that happen to him simply isn't true. Didn't take long to find a stock image of Reagan hanging. Far easier to find bush effigies though since the internet was more developed in his years in office.

Then I guess we're in total agreement? My point was the hyperbole outrage over the trump head by the same people who happily lauded the hung/burnt Obama ones is just tasteless hypocrisy over equally tasteless subject matter. The fact that there's earlier still examples just solidifies it as a stupid thing for anyone to be outraged over.

At 7/6/17 12:48 AM, EdyKel wrote: I don't really follow this stuff that closely. I know it happens, happens under many presidents. There is always people espousing their wish that a certain president would die, or making death threats against them. That's kinda normal, in a sad way. I mean, I read an article that death threats rose 300% when Obama was in office, taxing the secret service. But most of them didn't go to jail, because, they weren't credible threats, just people vocalizing their feeling out loud, and nothing more. And it's their right, it's their 1st amendment right's to free speech. So, when people come out with their effigies of presidents, or joke, or wish, for a president to die, it's their right to do so, because otherwise, it would be sign of a much too controlling government, which is what our founding fathers were concerned about, if people weren't allowed to express these views.

But having said all this, I think it's always in bad taste, when someone expresses such views. I'm inclined to give the Caesar performance a pass, because it is a cautionary tale, and it's been around for ages, popularized by Shakespeare, during Queens Elizabeth I reign in England, and could be interpreted as a reason not to kill Trump, because of the tragedies that befell those who assassinated him.

But, while people have the right to wish for the death of the president, the president, like any other politician, does not have the right to do the same thing against anyone in the country. We have seen Trump encourage violence at his rallies, call the press the enemies of the people - accuse them of promoting fake news - and generally lashing out against his critics or anyone he believed wronged him. This is unacceptable behavior, and sends a frightening message of fear and intimidation towards American citizens. This type of behavior is what you see from wannabee tyrants, who are use to getting their way on things, and are not afraid to encourage bad behavior from their followers towards those who oppose them by vocalizing their views.

No, I get you 100%. I'm just very compelled to call out hypocrisy and the whole ordeal for the most part is just that; extremely hypocritical. In my mind the Kathy thing was definitely in bad taste, but so was the Obama era stuff. The issue I take, and I feel like the majority of us can agree on this, is that if you weren't upset or outraged over one, you really shouldn't be about the other one. To me that's just common sense. As far as the Trump/CNN .gif, I mean wasn't it made by a teenager? I'm a lot less upset that it exists than most people.

Trump himself sharing it I wouldn't even care about EXCEPT the fact that like you said, he has in the past tried to direct violence. Between that and his programming of the population to even farther distrust the news, it can very easily become a perfect storm scenario where someone like the guy who shot up the congressional baseball practice goes "Yeah, I think I'll solve this whole news thing" and walk into CNN with an AR-15. Sad enough, thats the unique world our country is in right now.

Caesar in the park I had to read up on because I dont follow that either. Like the second article I came across though made the claim that they used an Obama stand in in the past and had accompanying pics to go with it so I also wrote it off as another "it was fine yesterday but not today" thing. Honestly though, IMO it's just flavor. No matter who the President was is going to be depicted because productions like that want you to feel things. Obama was done, so was Trump. Hillary would have been. Same for Romney or McCain. It's a safe bet Bush Jr. was depicted. Cant really make a big deal about it when you look at it that way.

At 7/5/17 09:35 PM, MasterStalker wrote: Sorry for the triple post. Just caught up. I'm surprised we're still talking about the wrestling thing and the hacking. I was really hoping to hear everyone's feelings on the President wanting to gather up and make public all our voter data to prove he should have won the popular vote, because you know... We still also need to be talking about that.

Oh, I think that deserves it's own topic. I've been planning to do one, but I've been busy and distracted. I'll try to post it in the next day or so. I'm still gathering articles, and reading through them...

Take your time. I'm not on frequent enough for anyone to remember I exist, lol. I do find it interesting though the lengths people are trying to go to prove the point on a non-issue and how everyone else feels about it. Should make for an interesting thread.

At 7/6/17 09:07 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: We do indeed. But that one is very much an evolving issue. For now there's no real power to compel or subpoena the info, it's up to individual states how much they want to release. In safely Blue states like mine (NJ) I fully expect them to refuse to comply (which they've already indicated the agency gets nothing but the most basic already available data). The issue is states that have already been engaged in voter suppression (especially states that have been caught at it, or had suppression laws struck down like SC). There There is even a good amount of Republican push back. Since I don't think Trump has a ton of investment in this project (I think it mostly exists like the article said as a cynical ploy to cover up for yet another Trumpian falsehood), if the states stand resolute against it, it should stem any major potential damage.

I hope nothing comes of it. I'm against it and even though my state (Pennsylvania) went Trump, my county went 80% Hillary. So in the scope of illegal voting witch hunt, my district will definitely be picked for review. Luckily my Governor opposes it too. In this day and age of stolen identities and the need to protect one's personal information, I can imagine anyone should be happy of so much gathered intel in one place. Then again, the RNC did already potentially just give all that away recently....

At 7/6/17 04:04 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Everyone is "far right" the moment they disagree with a single thing in the circle jerk narrative. Blindly agree and support everything the dems do or say or you are far right. It's just liberal wish fulfillment they have to pretend that everyone who isn't them are the worst people just to feel good about themselves.

Don't get me wrong, that's pretty accurate in a lot of circles, but swap out which side you directed it at to the opposing one and it's still just as true. I know because I take issue with certain things on both side and so get shit on by the echo chamber from both groups fairly frequently. There is no good guy in this. Everyone need to step back breath and go back in with a clear head but few actually do this.

At 7/11/17 08:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This is a common defense among Trump fans. They say that since Russia connections never materialized (as far as we know) into any actual tampering, or influence on the outcome, there was no problem. They're right in that we will likely never find any conclusive or near conclusive proof that any actions with Russia actually changed the election. Again, that is irrelevant. The fact is that they attempted both to undermine the Presidential elections AND do so by means of a foreign counrty (a quite hostile one at that). Attempting is enough.

A good analogy you can use that I keep saying is "Sure I shot AT you, but I missed so it's not attempted murder!"

At 7/12/17 01:53 PM, Sause wrote:

At 7/12/17 12:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/11/17 11:01 PM, Sause wrote: SOMETHING MUST BE DONE

That's why we have the multiple investigations going on. :)

Which makes for a good bumper sticker for 2018

Look, if there was anything, they would have found it by now.

So the multiple investigations are engineered optics for the Drumpf's Downfall campaign

I hate to continue the parallels between Trump and Watergate, but actually look at the Nixon Impeachment. It was years after the investigating started before it came to public fruition. Other than our culturally sparse attention span, what makes you think there's nothing known, nothing to be found, and nothing to see? If all we know is already public, what's the point of closed door sessions? This is the point of view of people brainwashed by tv into thinking everything can neatly be tied up in an hour time slot when it's more akin to the between seasons cliffhanger on a show that may or may not get canceled.

At 7/12/17 03:51 PM, Fluffington wrote: The thing is, I don't actually care? Take this for an example, if a hacker hacked my boyfriend's phone and revealed that he's been cheating on me all this time, and I break up with him as a result, I wouldn't blame the hacker for my break up, I would blame my boyfriend.

Actually a better comparison would be you're picking between chicken or pork for dinner when the butcher tells you a bunch of awful stuff about pigs because he gets a better rate on chicken meat.

At 7/12/17 06:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: No, that isn't the case anymore. Jr. has secruity clearance, he had to fill out a legal form for that and leaving this meeting off that form is a giant no no. Same for Kushner. These are people that are used to dealing with law breaking as "ok, I say I'm sorry and I pay a fine and it goes away" that doesn't work at this level. Fuck ups like this carry severe penalties up to and including the removal of Trump from office.

Just to follow you up on this. Again, look to Nixon. He was impeached for the Watergate scandal for participating in the cover up. "Go find dirt on my enemies" wasn't Nixon's crime. "You committed how many crimes to get this dirt!? My name cant be tied to this nonsense!! Hide it, HIDE IT ALL!!!" was what burned Nixon. All this administration is doing is hiding and lying. If history repeats itself, like a lot of people are speculating, it's going to be the attempts to cover and resist the probes that get him removed.

At 7/12/17 08:35 PM, Fluffington wrote: There is tons to criticize about Trump and his many different policies, but I will take his policy on Russia over Hillary's hawkish, warmongering brand of "diplomacy" any day of the week. Relationships with Russia has improved under Trump, and I won't call that a bad thing no matter how much I might dislike certain things the country does.

When ties to an enemy state improve at the expense of our ties to almost all of our allies, that most definitely is a big issue. One that no one should be taking lightly.

If they had any solid bit of evidence they would've nailed him already. Are you telling me that the entirety of the DNC, establishment & deep state can't produce enough evidence to get rid of the person mucking up their plans? Until that happens this is nothing but a glorified conspiracy theory.

Back to my TV comparison. This isn't NCIS or Law and Order. these things take years. Evidence gets gathered, cases are built. Things get double checked then triple checked. Witnesses get prepped. This isn't any different than any other court related endeavor. Hell, I catch a shoplifter and it takes 5 weeks to see a local magistrate but you people want to see the whole story play out over the course or a mid season story arc in a procedural drama.

And as for conspiracy theories, way to throw in the deep state nonsense. I never tire or people demanding facts while simultaneously citing an ambiguous shadow cabal that cant actually be physically linked to anyone or anything but controls everything.

At 7/20/17 11:38 AM, Sause wrote: Have we discussed his health yet? The presidency can do horrors to a person's mental and physical health, and Trump entered the office older than any president in history.

I believe both he and Ronald Reagan entered their presidency at the age of 70. Yes the position can be draining on their mental and physical health no doubt. I imagine the same will be with Donald Trump. In this case I don't judge much on age with any President really. I lot of people were concerned about Bernie Sanders age. Which if he had won would have made him the oldest.

Old age is actually a beneficial thing, it shows more experience, which is what got a lot of (sensible) minded people behind McCain over Obama. The argument was that McCain was older and more experienced, but could die at any moment. Obama was young and probably with fresh new ideas. Also Obama didn't have signs of croaking due to old age. What turned a lot of people off of McCain was that he could croak as President and then the next person in charge would have been his VP... Sarah Palin.

With Trump, I fear Mike Pence taking his place. The same way I feared Bush being impeached and Cheney taking his place.

At 7/20/17 11:38 AM, Sause wrote: Have we discussed his health yet? The presidency can do horrors to a person's mental and physical health, and Trump entered the office older than any president in history.

Trump has mental health?

At 7/21/17 12:51 AM, The-Great-One wrote: Old age is actually a beneficial thing, it shows more experience, which is what got a lot of (sensible) minded people behind McCain over Obama.

Old age and experience sounds great, but over the last 10 years or so, that has been a detrimental quality with a presidential candidate. In the voters' minds, all that experience meant that they were opposed to new ideas and actions (considering that the Great Ressisson was already started then, that did make some sense) and they needed a fresh face to implement them, Obama was able to take advantage of this, and became a two-term president by being said face. Likewise, Trump did the exact same thing by being a total political outsider and riled up the pent up frustrations of the middle class and those who felt they're being punished for being themselves, whether or not they were... subversive.

Personally, I usually favor experience and pragmatism over idealism, but I do acknowledge that in today's political climate, I dread that such things are being thrown out the window in our politics. (at least on the federal level) Hopefully, the election of Trump, and the Tea Party movement gaining victory in recent elections proves that maybe experience isn't always such a bad thing in politics, and hopefully get us to return to our senses when the TPC is trying to dismantle all of the progress we've made the last couple of decades.

At 7/5/17 09:35 PM, MasterStalker wrote: Sorry for the triple post. Just caught up. I'm surprised we're still talking about the wrestling thing and the hacking. I was really hoping to hear everyone's feelings on the President wanting to gather up and make public all our voter data to prove he should have won the popular vote, because you know... We still also need to be talking about that.

Oh, I think that deserves it's own topic. I've been planning to do one, but I've been busy and distracted. I'll try to post it in the next day or so. I'm still gathering articles, and reading through them...

Take your time. I'm not on frequent enough for anyone to remember I exist, lol. I do find it interesting though the lengths people are trying to go to prove the point on a non-issue and how everyone else feels about it. Should make for an interesting thread.

Actually, I posted it the other day - which, by the time you read this, well probably be one to two weeks back. XD

Pretty much maxed out the allotted amount of words for that post. I had a lot to say, as there was a lot of twist and turns to see where it was all heading, and a lot of drama to sort through.

At 7/12/17 01:53 PM, Sause wrote:

At 7/12/17 12:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/11/17 11:01 PM, Sause wrote: SOMETHING MUST BE DONE

That's why we have the multiple investigations going on. :)

Which makes for a good bumper sticker for 2018

Look, if there was anything, they would have found it by now.

So the multiple investigations are engineered optics for the Drumpf's Downfall campaign

I hate to continue the parallels between Trump and Watergate, but actually look at the Nixon Impeachment. It was years after the investigating started before it came to public fruition. Other than our culturally sparse attention span, what makes you think there's nothing known, nothing to be found, and nothing to see? If all we know is already public, what's the point of closed door sessions? This is the point of view of people brainwashed by tv into thinking everything can neatly be tied up in an hour time slot when it's more akin to the between seasons cliffhanger on a show that may or may not get canceled.

Trump just likes to supply drama in all this, as he continues to makes things worse for himself. The more he tries to makes threats against investigators, or hinder them, he makes himself look more guilty.

Here are some more self inflected wound in this week alone:

The latest reports is that he's looking to undermine special investigator Robert Mueller by looking for any conflicts of interests that he has.

In his NYT interview he lamented that he wouldn't have chosen(hired) Jeff Sessions for Atorney General of the DOJ if he knew that he would recluse himself from the Russian investigation.

And he's looking for ways to pardon himself, or family members....

Oh, and he also threatened Mueller not to look into his family's financial matters.

I think Trump has a legitimate reason to fire Sessions over the whole civil forfeiture debacle, which has pissed off everyone I know on BOTH sides of the aisle (not to mention the libertarians), and restarting the failed war on drugs could be icing on the cake. But the rumors I've been hearing are Giuliani would be next man up. Refresh my memory, but wasn't there a reason they skipped Giuliani in the first place?

At 7/24/17 10:20 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I think Trump has a legitimate reason to fire Sessions over the whole civil forfeiture debacle, which has pissed off everyone I know on BOTH sides of the aisle (not to mention the libertarians), and restarting the failed war on drugs could be icing on the cake.

Sessions has been a terribly unpopular pick out of the gate, supporting actions that are not popular among anyone (like the aforementioned war on drugs revamp). Why would the push to increase civil forfeiture change anything?

At 7/24/17 10:20 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I think Trump has a legitimate reason to fire Sessions over the whole civil forfeiture debacle, which has pissed off everyone I know on BOTH sides of the aisle (not to mention the libertarians), and restarting the failed war on drugs could be icing on the cake. But the rumors I've been hearing are Giuliani would be next man up. Refresh my memory, but wasn't there a reason they skipped Giuliani in the first place?

But that isn't the reasons why he could be fired, it's because he recused himself from the DOJ investigation into Russia, which has Trump steamed at him.

As for Giuliani, I believe Trump cited his poor health as a reason, but the FBI investigation over a leak he bragged about getting from an informant from the FBI about Clinton was probably the real reason why he didn't get a cabinet position.

Trump demands loyalty but gives none in return with the way he is treating Sessions.

Trump is an idiot. There is nothing to gain by reinstating the ban on transgenders from the military. It would just kick out thousands of able body troops who want to serve their country.

At 7/26/17 05:05 PM, Sause wrote: What, nobody wants to talk about today's tweet? It's a soap opera package with all the trimmings.

Russia just isn't interesting anymore.

Actually, it was about Russia, as Trump continues to assail Sessions (who I am starting to feel sorry for, almost) for recusing himself from the Russian Investigation. Trump is trying to get him to quit on his own with these twitter assaults, instead of outright firing him like he did with Comey - which brought him even more scrutiny.

I'm still betting that Trump will wake up one morning, and without seeking advice, will act on impulse and fire Sessions anyways. This is just who Trump is. It doesn't matter if Sessions was supporting him from the very beginning of his campaign, Trump has no loyalty to no one but to himself. He expects loyalty from others, and expects people to obey him.

Trump gave a speech at the annual boy scout Jamboree, attended by thousands of boy scouts, and it did not go well. Trump forgot that the audience were mostly kids, and that innuendos were not appropriate; and he also seemed to have forgotten that this was supposed to be about the boy scouts, not some political rally all about him. Attacking political opponents, ranting about firing federal employees, and talking about himself, is not what the event was supposed to be about, is was supposed to be the president about inspiring them about their future, not his.

At 7/27/17 12:49 AM, EdyKel wrote: Trump gave a speech at the annual boy scout Jamboree, attended by thousands of boy scouts, and it did not go well. Trump forgot that the audience were mostly kids, and that innuendos were not appropriate; and he also seemed to have forgotten that this was supposed to be about the boy scouts, not some political rally all about him. Attacking political opponents, ranting about firing federal employees, and talking about himself, is not what the event was supposed to be about, is was supposed to be the president about inspiring them about their future, not his.

At this point I just wonder if Trump feels like he has to get all of this off his chest like he's talking to a psychiatrist. It doesnt excuse it when its the boy scouts and hes going so off topic.

Speaking of off topic whats the deal with that Scaramucci guy? He seems crazy and so loyal to the president it looks like he wants to get in bed with him.

At 7/28/17 08:23 PM, Sause wrote: He also may have been the main leaker all along, though I doubt he acted alone.

I doubt he even did it, since Scaramucchi's evidence was a publicly available document. These people have no clue, and we are officially at the point now where i think two things really have to be admitted:

1. Trump is not a Republican. As I've said for awhile, he's a parasitic organism that hijacked the party, and they invited it really...the culmination of all the race baiting, naturilist rhetoric and other crap pumped out of the FOX news bubble. The last of the establishment is gone, and Congress already seems to be taking steps to cauterize itself from the West Wing.

2. The Presidency and the inner workings of The White House are now the Press equivalent of reality TV. Which is hardly surprising I think for people that understand Trump isn't really a "business man" or a great "deal maker" or a "mogul" or any of that. He's an entertainer, he's show biz. He's a reality television star we gave the nuclear codes to. The fuck did people who voted for him really expect?

At least the legislative agenda seems DOA/

At 7/30/17 06:25 PM, lapis wrote:
Edit: anyone else remember the time it emerged that Silvio Berlusconi had called Angela Merkel an "unfuckable lard ass"? Is that the stage at which the US now finds itself?

The Mooch/ Scaramucchi is on the record saying that he doesn't like to "suck his own cock" like Steve Bannon does, so I think we're about there, yeah.

At 7/30/17 07:04 PM, Gario wrote:

At 7/30/17 06:25 PM, lapis wrote:
Edit: anyone else remember the time it emerged that Silvio Berlusconi had called Angela Merkel an "unfuckable lard ass"? Is that the stage at which the US now finds itself?

The Mooch/ Scaramucchi is on the record saying that he doesn't like to "suck his own cock" like Steve Bannon does, so I think we're about there, yeah.

ireally believe that if you were right eye dominate and you wanted to fly a pluto power moody bible institute helicopter you might want to try that..

At 7/30/17 07:04 PM, Gario wrote:
The Mooch/ Scaramucchi is on the record saying that he doesn't like to "suck his own cock" like Steve Bannon does, so I think we're about there, yeah.

Oh wait, nope, the Mooch was fired, my bad. We're totally a functional government now.

At 7/31/17 09:28 PM, Gario wrote:

At 7/30/17 07:04 PM, Gario wrote:
The Mooch/ Scaramucchi is on the record saying that he doesn't like to "suck his own cock" like Steve Bannon does, so I think we're about there, yeah.

Oh wait, nope, the Mooch was fired

This song is fitting for so many reasons

This Apprentice-like Trump-Thriller in the White House is getting boringly predictable.

"You are fired!"

"You are fired!"

"You are fired!"

Slam!

At 7/31/17 09:45 PM, HexMagnificus wrote: This Apprentice-like Trump-Thriller in the White House is getting boringly predictable.

The twist is that no matter the outcome, we all lose. All this has honestly showcased why democracy really an oversold shit storm.

I'm going to have to read up on De Gaulle .

Trump... Trump... Trump.... You just keep doing stupid things that are bound to make things worse for you.

Trump dictated misleading statement on son's meeting with Russian: Washington Post

At 7/31/17 09:50 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: The twist is that no matter the outcome, we all lose. All this has honestly showcased why democracy really an oversold shit storm.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones we've tried."- Winston Churchill.

I get it, Trump won because of Russian interference, and so forth, but dissuading yourself from democracy because of a perfect storm of negative events in an election is akin to buying a new car when the old one runs out of gas. Say what you want about Clinton, I guarantee you we wouldn't be in this mess if she was in office right now.

I'd definitely prefer Clinton over Trump. I don't care if she's a criminal, she's better than him.

Also, I kinda hate how people never even acknowledge how evil Trump's vice, Mike Pence, is. He's honestly worse than Trump, which is REALLY saying something.

At 8/1/17 05:58 PM, DubstepJoltik wrote:
Also, I kinda hate how people never even acknowledge how evil Trump's vice, Mike Pence, is. He's honestly worse than Trump, which is REALLY saying something.

Pence is awful. However, I would be slightly more comfortable with him handling our international affairs than Mr. 45. If a red button decision came up I'd rather have an awful person who understood and appreciated the weight of that decision that a bumbling, ignorant man-child who literally doesn't understand at all.

Interesting theory about the word "Russian adoption", by HuffPo. They are suggesting that it's a code word for removing US sanctions on Russia. If true, and it seems feasible, then the meeting that Trump Jr was in was about talking about removing US sanctions with Russian officials for dirt on Clinton. That makes a lot more sense.

So what does adopting kids from Russia have to do with US sanctions you might ask? Well, according to the article, everything. Back in 2012 the US imposed banking sanctions on Russia, in response to human right abuses and the death of prominent lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, by Russian officials, (AKA oligarchs). Named after the lawyer who died in prison, the Magnitsky Act barred top Russian officials from using banks in the US to hide their assets. It also denied them entry to the US. In response to these sanction Putin barred US citizens from adopting Russian children.

If this theory is true, and with revelations that Trump dictated his son's response by telling him to describe it as talks about Russian adoption, then that will further compound Trump's Russian problems.

At 8/1/17 05:58 PM, DubstepJoltik wrote: I'd definitely prefer Clinton over Trump. I don't care if she's a criminal, she's better than him.

And this is one of the problems with why the Dems should have never gone with Clinton, discouraged her in any way they could really. Because even though Hillary has never been convicted of anything, never tried even for a crime, just been the subject of smear campaigns, which hunts and a huge magnifying glass shined on questionable or bad decision making it's been enough to tar her in the minds of people that she IS a criminal.

Meanwhile Donald Trump actually HAS admitted to criminal associations (bragged to the FBI about Mafia connections), HAS been found guilty of criminal activities (his father illegally contributed to his failing casino with an illegal chip buy that was proven to be a cover for a loan, his father and himself were judged liable as racially discriminating on a housing project, Trump Tower was built by illegals Trump then refused to pay), but all that was barely reported by the cable news outlets and was more a feature mainstream online and print media and this seemed to make not a dent for people compared to Hillary Clinton simply having proximity to wrong doing, or charges that were completely false and politically motivated but were blared out for all the world to see and hear thus creating this false narrative.

I thought the whole purpose of the White House shake up (besides getting rid of some of the infighting) was to get rid of the leakers.... Apparently, they missed a few.

Could he be anymore childish. Seriously, look at the quotes.

At 8/3/17 08:14 PM, Sause wrote:

At 8/3/17 07:09 PM, LordJaric wrote: Could he be anymore childish. Seriously, look at the quotes.

That looks like normal straight-talk to me, like the kind I'd have between coworkers.

Could you pull what you think is the most childish? Maybe we disagree on what counts as immature.

World leaders aren't "coworkers". Especally not drunken shitty co-workers who talk shit to each other.

The better question is what isn't incredibly arrogant and childish.