Donald Trump Sack Watch

VivaStPauli wrote:Don't worry, your country has been pretty much ruined since Reagan. I still feel you, though.

fair point.

I dont feel the same hatred towards Reagan that somebody who lived through his decade of sadness does. His VP was president by the time I was born.

He was a piece of crap though. His VP, and his son who became president, also were.

Young Kaz wrote:

The New York Times wrote:Trump Targets Michelle Obama’s School Nutrition Guidelines on Her Birthday
The Agriculture Department proposed a rule that would further unravel nutrition standards set by Mrs. Obama when she was first lady.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration moved on Friday to roll back school nutrition standards championed by Michelle Obama, an effort long sought by food manufacturers and some school districts that have chafed at the cost of Mrs. Obama’s prescriptions for fresh fruit and vegetables.

The proposed rule by the Agriculture Department, coming on the former first lady’s birthday, would give schools more latitude to decide how much fruit to offer during breakfast and what types of vegetables to include in meals. It would also broaden what counts as a snack.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/politics/michelle-obama-school-nutrition-trump.html

Just a petty petty little man.

I hate EVERY person who voted for him. Miserable gits ruined this country.

i got banned for saying that

It's Martin Luther King Jr. Day here in the US.

This is my favorite quote from him:

"One day we must ask the question, why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy"

So the Senate-phase of Trump's Impeachment trial begins officially tomorrow.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has set the rules:

- McConnell needs 51 of the Senate's 53 Republicans to ratify the below rules. This is expected to happen.

- McConnell himself has written in a rule that gives him the the ability to introduce a motion to put to a vote whether to dismiss the entire trial outright. It is unlikely that he has the votes to pass this motion so I doubt it happens.

- The House Impeachment Managers (The Prosecution) and Trump's Legal Team (The Defense) will be given 24 hours each over 2 days (beginning tomorrow) to present opening arguments. This begins 1 pm ET tomorrow. The White House announced late last night that 8 House Republicans will join Trump's Legal team.

- Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the trial. He's not expected to involve himself too much, in order to remain impartial.

- After opening arguments, Senators (they are the jury here) will have 16 hours to ask questions followed by the House Impeachment Managers and the Trump Legal team each having 2 hours for arguments on answering those questions.

- Next, any witnesses, documents or other evidence subject to a subpoena could appear.

- Once all of the above are complete, the Senate will then vote. It will take 67 votes to remove Trump. That means all 47 Democrats and 20 Republicans.

Now McConnell and many of the leading Republicans have gone on the Sunday talk shows to repeatedly say that these rules closely follow the same rules used during the Clinton Impeachment trial during the 90s, however there is a key difference here:

- The 24 hour period of arguments in the Clinton trail lasted 3 days instead of the 2 days for this one. This is important as it forces the Democrats to make their arguments pretty much throughout the night. Republicans point out that shortening to 2 days was largely done based on the fact that despite having 3 days, the Clinton trial players were able to do it in 2 so there's no reason that can't be applied here. This will likely piss off some Republicans who expected an exact copy of the Clinton rules to be applied here.

Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) are expected to offer several amendments to these rules as there's the argument that they do not allow Democrats to call witnesses or evidence gathered in the House to support their prosecution. The only way this happens is via a Senate majority vote, which the Republicans would win. McConnell is expected to reject any/all amendments offered by Democrats.

Used this article as my source: How a Senate Impeachment Trial Could Work

As expected, Democrats submitted amendments (11 in total) to the rules above last night and these were all rejected by Republicans thanks to their majority vote. Specifically, Democrats were trying to get the rules changed so that they could issue subpoenas for documents and witnesses. The GOP was never going to allow this as it would slow down the trial.

What McConnell did allow was each side to speak 24 hours over 3 days instead of the original 2. Also he has allowed all evidence from the House Impeachment inquiry as well. It's thought that he was swayed to allow this by vulnerable GOP senators.

Senator Lindsay Graham (Trump's staunchest supporter in the Senate) during Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1999:

"What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means," Graham said at the time.

"It's not very scholarly, but I think it's the truth," Graham continued. "I think that's what [the framers of the Constitution] meant by high crimes. It doesn't even have to be a crime. It's just when you start using your office and you're acting in a way that hurts people, you've committed a high crime."

He has repeatedly said the exact opposite of what he said 20 years ago and has boldly claimed that he's remained consistent. He clearly hasn't.

This is what the Democrats have had to put up with this entire trial.

The House's Lead Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff (D-California) gives the Democrats' closing arguments on the floor:



This was an excellent speech. It's just unfortunate that Republicans have largely tuned it out and will not listen.

Now the next 3 days, it's the Republicans turn give a defense of Trump and his part in all of this.

It will be 3 days of lies, misdirection, and outright gaslighting.

So we've reached the end of the road for Trump's Impeachment trial.

A quick update on what has transpired:

- The legal team defending Trump did not use the entire 24 hours allotted to them to state their case. They did so in 12 hours focusing on the Democrats failure to call all of the witnesses they needed during the House phase of the impeachment. They also used this time to tout Trump's "victories" as a reason not to remove him.

- Perhaps the most controversial defense offered was the following from Alan Dershowitz:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,”

This has triggered an absolute firestorm of condemnation from legal scholars and historians, who have been clear on the fact that the Constitution clearly defines limits on presidential authority.

- In lieu of this, Trump's legal team have rested, prompting a vote by the Senate on whether to allow witnesses and documents to be introduced for consideration. Significant focus was put on vulnerable Republicans such as Mitt Romney (Utah), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Cory Gardner (Colorado), Martha McSally (Arizona), Jodi Ernst (Iowa), Susan Collins (Maine), Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) and others. Of these senators, Murkowski, Romney and Collins all were the most interested in considering voting for more witnesses. By yesterday, it became clear that only Collins and Romney would actually vote this way. With Alexander and Murkowski announcing that they will not vote for witnesses, this practically assures that the Senate will vote to acquit Trump. This vote has not occured yet, but is expected to happen on Wednesday.

---------------------------

So I have several thoughts here:

- Regarding witnesses, the GOP have expressed that the House had their chance to get their witnesses (Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc), but both moved too quickly to impeach Trump while also neglecting to force these witnesses to appear by going through the courts, a much slower prospect. By not doing this, this made it easier for the Senate to simply say "that's not our responsibility" and simply vote on what was provided by the House, which they already disagreed with to begin with. In hindsight, the Democrats should've been more forceful in getting those witnesses to appear. Trump's orders do not supercede a federal subpoena.

- The vulnerable GOP senators who voted against witnesses must pay a price for this in November. They had a chance to make this trial a lot more fair and they squandered it. Alexander's decision particularly is egregious given he's retiring and doesn't have re-election to worry about. He's a good buddy and is McConnell's right hand man though so he was never going to turn on him. Personally, I think this whole drama over witnesses was carefully choreographed theatre to make it seem like the GOP were taking this seriously, when in fact they never have.

- Dershowitz's argument is extremely dangerous. He's effectively saying that anything the President does, good or bad, ethical or unethical, criminal or legal, is done with the public and national interest in mind. This means the president is not subject to the Constitution and if they're not subject to the Constitution, then they are not subject to the checks and balances of the other branches of government. This puts the Executive branch above the others, making the presidency essentially somewhere on the spectrum between a monarchical, autocratic or dictatorial position. That has grave implications. This acquittal essentially puts Trump above the law and sets a precedent that no president can ever be impeached and removed for anything.

I'm not prone to hysterics or hyperbolics, but this very much feels like the death of the American ideal of democracy and equal branches of government.

When someone challenged his authority, Louis XIV once famously quipped - "L'etat c'est moi"......with this upcoming acquittal. Trump is effectively saying the same thing: "I am the state".

The stakes in November just got that much higher.

McLewis wrote:So we've reached the end of the road for Trump's Impeachment trial.

A quick update on what has transpired:

- The legal team defending Trump did not use the entire 24 hours allotted to them to state their case. They did so in 12 hours focusing on the Democrats failure to call all of the witnesses they needed during the House phase of the impeachment. They also used this time to tout Trump's "victories" as a reason not to remove him.

- Perhaps the most controversial defense offered was the following from Alan Dershowitz:

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,”

This has triggered an absolute firestorm of condemnation from legal scholars and historians, who have been clear on the fact that the Constitution clearly defines limits on presidential authority.

- In lieu of this, Trump's legal team have rested, prompting a vote by the Senate on whether to allow witnesses and documents to be introduced for consideration. Significant focus was put on vulnerable Republicans such as Mitt Romney (Utah), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Cory Gardner (Colorado), Martha McSally (Arizona), Jodi Ernst (Iowa), Susan Collins (Maine), Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) and others. Of these senators, Murkowski, Romney and Collins all were the most interested in considering voting for more witnesses. By yesterday, it became clear that only Collins and Romney would actually vote this way. With Alexander and Murkowski announcing that they will not vote for witnesses, this practically assures that the Senate will vote to acquit Trump. This vote has not occured yet, but is expected to happen on Wednesday.

---------------------------

So I have several thoughts here:

- Regarding witnesses, the GOP have expressed that the House had their chance to get their witnesses (Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc), but both moved too quickly to impeach Trump while also neglecting to force these witnesses to appear by going through the courts, a much slower prospect. By not doing this, this made it easier for the Senate to simply say "that's not our responsibility" and simply vote on what was provided by the House, which they already disagreed with to begin with. In hindsight, the Democrats should've been more forceful in getting those witnesses to appear. Trump's orders do not supercede a federal subpoena.

- The vulnerable GOP senators who voted against witnesses must pay a price for this in November. They had a chance to make this trial a lot more fair and they squandered it. Alexander's decision particularly is egregious given he's retiring and doesn't have re-election to worry about. He's a good buddy and is McConnell's right hand man though so he was never going to turn on him. Personally, I think this whole drama over witnesses was carefully choreographed theatre to make it seem like the GOP were taking this seriously, when in fact they never have.

- Dershowitz's argument is extremely dangerous. He's effectively saying that anything the President does, good or bad, ethical or unethical, criminal or legal, is done with the public and national interest in mind. This means the president is not subject to the Constitution and if they're not subject to the Constitution, then they are not subject to the checks and balances of the other branches of government. This puts the Executive branch above the others, making the presidency essentially somewhere on the spectrum between a monarchical, autocratic or dictatorial position. That has grave implications. This acquittal essentially puts Trump above the law and sets a precedent that no president can ever be impeached and removed for anything.

I'm not prone to hysterics or hyperbolics, but this very much feels like the death of the American ideal of democracy and equal branches of government.

When someone challenged his authority, Louis XIV once famously quipped - "L'etat c'est moi"......with this upcoming acquittal. Trump is effectively saying the same thing: "I am the state".

The stakes in November just got that much higher.

is that not what all presidents have done. also how do you think all this will turn out.

I'm entirely confident that every one of Trump's predecessors (bar perhaps Nixon and Clinton) would've resigned rather than assert that what they did to get impeached was " in the public and national interest".

Was Nixon ordering someone to break into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate hotel in order to get dirt on his Democrat rival to help his re-election in the national / public interest? No.

Was Clinton lying about a sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky in the national / public interest? Absolutely not.

And yet both got impeached and one resigned before he could be removed. Had Clinton's term not expired, it's hard to know what may have happened after impeachment.

So to answer your question, the answer is no. Presidents are merely the most power politicians in the country. Their first and foremost priority is their own self-interest. None of Trump's predecessors (including Obama) were exempt from this thinking.

All Trump and his legal team have done here is make public what has been known all along. What's horrifying about this is that it is now being enshrined in legality and has been rubber-stamped by members of our government.

What happens next is quite clear - Trump will take a 10 month victory lap going into November. The question becomes: How will Democrats use this to their advantage to beat him?

McLewis wrote:I'm entirely confident that every one of Trump's predecessors (bar perhaps Nixon and Clinton) would've resigned rather than assert that what they did to get impeached was " in the public and national interest".

Was Nixon ordering someone to break into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate hotel in order to get dirt on his Democrat rival to help his re-election in the national / public interest? No.

Was Clinton lying about a sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky in the national / public interest? Absolutely not.

And yet both got impeached and one resigned before he could be removed. Had Clinton's term not expired, it's hard to know what may have happened after impeachment.

So to answer your question, the answer is no. Presidents are merely the most power politicians in the country. Their first and foremost priority is their own self-interest. None of Trump's predecessors (including Obama) were exempt from this thinking.

All Trump and his legal team have done here is make public what has been known all along. What's horrifying about this is that it is now being enshrined in legality and has been rubber-stamped by members of our government.

What happens next is quite clear - Trump will take a 10 month victory lap going into November. The question becomes: How will Democrats use this to their advantage to beat him?

If you examine German history, you will find Hitler’s destruction of their constitution very similar to what Trump has been doing.

Precisely. Many have compared Trump to Hitler from the very beginning. His introduction of the term" fake news" was the beginning.

His supporters brush off these comparisons by pointing out that Trump has never killed 6 million Jews and that he supports Israel. It's gaslighting of the worst kind.

"We're in the endgame now".

McLewis wrote:Precisely. Many have compared Trump to Hitler from the very beginning. His introduction of the term" fake news" was the beginning.

His supporters brush off these comparisons by pointing out that Trump has never killed 6 million Jews and that he supports Israel. It's gaslighting of the worst kind.

"We're in the endgame now".

futbol_bill wrote:If you examine German history, you will find Hitler’s destruction of their constitution very similar to what Trump has been doing.

Meh.
Hitler had, within weeks of being elected and taking office, the so-called "Ermächtigungsgesetz" ("Empowerment Law") passed  by parliament, which basically meant parliament voted to strip itself in terms of legislative power and give the Chancellor (Hitler) basically absolute power.


He had a >50% majority in parliament after the election in March 1933 with the NSDAP and DNVP (an allied right wing party), the Communist members of parliament had already been interned and jailed or had fled to evade capture, only the remaining MPs of the Social Democrats voted against it (they were jailed later..), with the centrist and liberal parties (the Zentrum being the predecessor of the CDU of today, for example, the DStP the predecessor of todays FDP) shamefully voting with the Nazis too to provide the 2/3 majority needed to give Hitler absolute power, and end parliamentary democracy with its separation of powers.

So within weeks of being elected, the Nazis had completely altered the system of state and officially turned the republic into a dictatorship, and continued the process to end plurality and install the Führer principle (obedience to nationalsocialist doctrine declared by Hitler and his buddies) in all other areas of society, the judiciary, the army, media, press, clubs, sports, etc.

Nothing about this is in any way comparable to what Trump does, honestly.
If we see AOC and the Gang abducted by GOP militia into a concentration camp, you can start comparing it.

I wasn’t comparing Hitler’s nazi actions to Trump, i was pointing out how he took absolute power and broke the constitution. If you look into the details, by blaming the polish guy to be from the opposition and got the judge to slide with his takeover, it is remarkably similar to  what Trump is up to.

Romney voting to convict. Right as it’s obvious nothing will happen. Instead of trying to sway it.

This way he can get on the right side of history without risking anything.

So I did not watch Trump's State of the Union address last night for several reasons:

- It's a victory lap for him given the impeachment results.
- It's an antiquated tradition that serves no functional purpose (I thought this even of Obama's addresses).
- I found the awful last season of Scrubs a better watch.
- Had to turn in early for work in the morning.

The apparent highlights:

-  He touted the strong economy, low unemployment, vowed not to touch medicare and vowed to prevent "socialism",

- Trotted out a poor little black girl and her mother as political props to support the school-choice campaign that is nothing more than a right-wing tactic to reintroduce segregation in our school systems. Then reunited the girl and her mom with the military veteran dad to tout his strong support from the military and the ideal American family unit. Laughable stuff.  

- Gave right-wing demagogue Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award the President can give. The award is now cheapened and tainted.

The night's best highlight? Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up his speech for all to see in an act of defiance. By doing so, she sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. All anyone on both sides can talk about now is what she did and no one is talking about Trump's speech, which has really pissed him off. There is no politician in the world that can get under Trump's skin like Pelosi can. She reads him like a book every time.

Gretchen Whitmer, governor of my adopted home state of Michigan, gave the Democratic response. Pretty standard Dem talking points. Nothing spectacular.

In a smooth 3 seconds she dispensed with his 70 minute manifesto of mistruths. Classic Italian Grandma move - saying everything without saying a word. #NancytheRipper #NancyPelosiROCKS #DontMessWithMama pic.twitter.com/kTc1CEUIuh

— Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) February 5, 2020

why are they saying mistruths instead of saying lies.

Freeza wrote:Romney voting to convict. Right as it’s obvious nothing will happen. Instead of trying to sway it.

This way he can get on the right side of history without risking anything.

Nah.
Say what you will about Romney, and I guess most things have already been said about him since he ran for President and lost, but his opposition to Trump does not seem calculating to me, but I think there's genuine antipathy.
Let's not forget Trump has attacked Romney harshly too at the slightest critique, so at some point it seems Romney had no way back but to become apostate.

About not risking anything, we can see in the astonishing subservience and eagerness with which 99% of the Republican party serves Trump's interests and follows him, that it's never without risk to oppose Trump as a Republican, simply because you join a very exposed and aggressively targeted minority.

Which is, of course, a first as an experience for Romney lol.

Trump will absolutely cruise to a second term, barring an economic collapse.

Events of the 2020 could not have gone more perfectly for him...and Democrats are masters of scoring own goals and making miscalculated moves.

Every Trump voter from 2016 I know is voting for him again, and I personally know at least 20 friends and relatives who vote Hillary or didn't vote in 2016 but intend to vote Trump in November.

Still, 9 months to go before elections though...first Russia, then Ukraine...maybe Pelosi can attempt another impeachment over Belarus or Moldova this time?

Zagadka wrote:Trump will absolutely cruise to a second term, barring an economic collapse.

Events of the 2020 could not have gone more perfectly for him...and Democrats are masters of scoring own goals and making miscalculated moves.

Every Trump voter from 2016 I know is voting for him again, and I personally know at least 20 friends and relatives who vote Hillary or didn't vote in 2016 but intend to vote Trump in November.

Still, 9 months to go before elections though...first Russia, then Ukraine...maybe Pelosi can attempt another impeachment over Belarus or Moldova this time?

No more questions, that surely is better than every professional poll that says otherwise lmao.

I have no doubts Trump will lose this time, and then it's straight to jail.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Zagadka wrote:Trump will absolutely cruise to a second term, barring an economic collapse.

Events of the 2020 could not have gone more perfectly for him...and Democrats are masters of scoring own goals and making miscalculated moves.

Every Trump voter from 2016 I know is voting for him again, and I personally know at least 20 friends and relatives who vote Hillary or didn't vote in 2016 but intend to vote Trump in November.

Still, 9 months to go before elections though...first Russia, then Ukraine...maybe Pelosi can attempt another impeachment over Belarus or Moldova this time?

No more questions, that surely is better than every professional poll that says otherwise lmao.

I have no doubts Trump will lose this time, and then it's straight to jail.

man, I love Europeans!! you guys just operate on a whole different level <3 ....you down to put your moneh where you mouth is, sir? ...200 EUROS bet....you in Herr Hans ?

i wonder if nancy would go after the president this hard if he came from her party or if she would back him like trumps people have backed him. if she would then fair play to her but if not then she is just as bad as trump and his backers that she fights against. a question we will never know the answer to but food for thought anyway.

Zagadka wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Zagadka wrote:Trump will absolutely cruise to a second term, barring an economic collapse.

Events of the 2020 could not have gone more perfectly for him...and Democrats are masters of scoring own goals and making miscalculated moves.

Every Trump voter from 2016 I know is voting for him again, and I personally know at least 20 friends and relatives who vote Hillary or didn't vote in 2016 but intend to vote Trump in November.

Still, 9 months to go before elections though...first Russia, then Ukraine...maybe Pelosi can attempt another impeachment over Belarus or Moldova this time?

No more questions, that surely is better than every professional poll that says otherwise lmao.

I have no doubts Trump will lose this time, and then it's straight to jail.

man, I love Europeans!! you guys just operate on a whole different level <3 ....you down to put your moneh where you mouth is, sir? ...200 EUROS bet....you in Herr Hans ?

Which nationality are you this week?

Freeza wrote:

Zagadka wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:


No more questions, that surely is better than every professional poll that says otherwise lmao.

I have no doubts Trump will lose this time, and then it's straight to jail.

man, I love Europeans!! you guys just operate on a whole different level <3 ....you down to put your moneh where you mouth is, sir? ...200 EUROS bet....you in Herr Hans ?

Which nationality are you this week?

I am always Iranian.....but I have a shit load of American friends and family members...you know, having lived there for a couple of years myself

but it's so easy to spot Europeans who have very little idea about the American mindset and political priorities hamvatane aziz