The Official Former President Trump thread

[Theroadlesstravelled]

On 20/09/2020 at 11:37, RiG said:

Both of these are quite bizarre:

https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/lawyers-for-trump-poster

https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/donald-j-trump-limited-edition-fine-art-print

Although I did find this quite hilarious

https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/trump-pence-snowflake-gift-wrapping-paper


 

Could the girl holding the present be any whiter?

[SandyCromarty]

16 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

I do not think that word means what you think it means.  
 

God forbid anyone ever misspeaks.   

If it was a one off from Biden I wouldn't have commented but his misquotes and gaffes have become a joke which the Trump team are continually attacking, albeit falsely at times but the worry is that if this man became president gaffes like that over telcons to other leaders could be misinterpreted.

Trump btw is no better in articulation as we all know, as was Bush.

And I repeat it's a fuckin joke as is American politics and I cannot in all honesty take it seriously.

[Comrie]

The Trump/Biden debate is going to be a high powered reenactment of two old drunk bams arguing down the pub.

[Steve_Wilkos]

30 minutes ago, Comrie said:

The Trump/Biden debate is going to be a high powered reenactment of two old drunk bams arguing down the pub.

Bring it on!

[Savage Henry]

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

All the talk of hypocrisy by the Republicans trying to force their deranged fuckwit on to the Supreme Court before the election is a bit lame, all the progressives would be spitting blood if a Dem president and senate didn't do the same. All they can do is remind voters of what the existing right wing justices and Trump's new pick have said in the past, and put some pressure on wavering senators.

I think Merrick Garland was the first case.  While you aren’t wrong in what you say, the statements by Ted Cruz and the other weirdo who’s name escapes me at the moment, in which they specifically said that they could be held at their word (and are now reversing it) do need to be pointed out.  It’s grotesque.

[NotThePars]

Fully prepared for the first debates to be massive disappointments as they’ll be ensuring Trump and Biden are drugged up to the eyeballs.

[RiG]

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

I think Merrick Garland was the first case.  While you aren’t wrong in what you say, the statements by Ted Cruz and the other weirdo who’s name escapes me at the moment, in which they specifically said that they could be held at their word (and are now reversing it) do need to be pointed out.  It’s grotesque.

Lindsay Graham per chance?

Obama did try and appoint a SC judge but was blocked by McConnell IIRC.

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, RiG said:

Lindsay Graham per chance?

Obama did try and appoint a SC judge but was blocked by McConnell IIRC.

Yeah, Graham is the weirdo in question who claimed that his position would be that in all similar cases, the election should determine who makes the SC appointment, and that everybody could quote him on that.  In the Merrick Garland case, McConnell and other establishment cowards used the filibuster to make it impossible for the Democrats to appoint Garland, who would have been a centrist appointment at best/worst.  

Filibustering now is in the hands purely of the controlling party, ie the Republicans, and therefore the same situation cannot arise here.  It's almost as if the sole purpose of these old GOP men is to create a supreme court with a right wing bias, and that anything else, including human decency and the state of the nation, is purely a distraction.

[BillyAnchor]

Politicians going back on their word? Say it aint so. 

[welshbairn]

Trump not helping his Nobel Peace Prize chances here in his UN speech. No chance for them all to laugh at him this time unfortunately. About 3 mins in.

 

[welshbairn]

Romney not necessarily saying how he'll vote here.

Quote

"The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications," Romney said in a statement.

 

[Wee-Bey]

Is the court not already 5-3 in favour of conservatives after Ginsberg's death ?

Rumours that they're looking at a female, Latina judge from Florida, 10/10 for trolling. 

What an absolutely terrible system though. They should maybe look to change it.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Is the court not already 5-3 in favour of conservatives after Ginsberg's death ?

Rumours that they're looking at a female, Latina judge from Florida, 10/10 for trolling. 

What an absolutely terrible system though. They should maybe look to change it.

There's an assumption that they always make decisions on a political basis, even Kavanagh upset the right by going on the wrong side of an argument recently, refusing to block Trump's tax records being examined I think. Most of the time they don't get much leeway, it's about interpreting the law and the constitution convincingly and they have to back it up with rational argument. It's not like they can ban abortion tomorrow just because they want to. Think they used to be chosen by an informal consensus on whether they were a good lawyer, RBG got something like 95%  in the Senate. Now that it's a purely political decision they should force them to retire at 65 like anyone else.

[Detournement]

6 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

.  It's almost as if the sole purpose of these old GOP men is to create a supreme court with a right wing bias, and that anything else, including human decency and the state of the nation, is purely a distraction.

It's almost as if the GOP are deeply committed to an ideological project and the Democrats aren't.

[Wee-Bey]

The Dems easily rival the Labour right when it comes to getting their wallets inspected.

[carpetmonster]

2 hours ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Is the court not already 5-3 in favour of conservatives after Ginsberg's death ?

Rumours that they're looking at a female, Latina judge from Florida, 10/10 for trolling. 

What an absolutely terrible system though. They should maybe look to change it.

It is, but the loonballs view Roberts as being a bit squishy. Gorsuch also pissed that section off with the LGBTQ employment discrimination ruling in the summer because he interpreted the law in the way it was written rather than how they fancied it should be, so anything with precedent that was originally written by anyone left of Strom Thurmond, he's gonna be unreliable on to some of them. It doesn't matter worth a f**k, you can be fired because it's a Tuesday, and as long as your boss isn't daft enough to say it's because you were gay, rather than it being Tuesday, you've still got no rights, but they did want that being LGBTQ stipulation to be a fireable reason. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by carpetmonster

[NotThePars]

The less stupid judges realise they can cash in some goodwill right now off stupid libs by sticking up for social issues which are either easily manoeuvred around or inconsequential to the grand project. Then when it comes time to start putting the blockers on any lasting institutional or economic change they can step in and keep the country fucked for everyone that doesn't earn at least 10 million dollars. Imagine if Bernie got in. They'd have had M4A declared unconstitutional well before he got his hand on that bible.

[Wee-Bey]

2 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

It is, but the loonballs view Roberts as being a bit squishy. Gorsuch also pissed that section off with the LGBTQ employment discrimination ruling in the summer because he interpreted the law in the way it was written rather than how they fancied it should be, so anything with precedent that was originally written by anyone left of Strom Thurmond, he's gonna be unreliable on to some of them. It doesn't matter worth a f**k, you can be fired because it's a Tuesday, and as long as your boss isn't daft enough to say it's because you were gay, rather than it being Tuesday, you've still got no rights, but they did want that being LGBTQ stipulation to be a fireable reason. 

Yeah, but don't conservatives generally dislike SCOTUS because it infringes on states rights etc ? Libs more in favour, because they like the pillars and institutions of the republic, which ties in with their belief in bipartisanship, and continually getting their wallet inspected as the GOP only pay lip service to this.

As NTP says, SCOTUS throws liberals a few bones on social issues, while acting as a bulwark against any meaningful change eg. campaign finance, labour laws and so on.

It's also handily being stacked in case there's a Florida Bush/Gore situation in November.

[carpetmonster]

34 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Yeah, but don't conservatives generally dislike SCOTUS because it infringes on states rights etc ? Libs more in favour, because they like the pillars and institutions of the republic, which ties in with their belief in bipartisanship, and continually getting their wallet inspected as the GOP only pay lip service to this.

As NTP says, SCOTUS throws liberals a few bones on social issues, while acting as a bulwark against any meaningful change eg. campaign finance, labour laws and so on.

It's also handily being stacked in case there's a Florida Bush/Gore situation in November.

To a degree, although with modern conservatism being more authoritarian than conservative, it's increasingly apparent they've no issue riding roughshod over more local rights, in everything from Gov Brian Kemp (R) attempting to outlaw Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms' (D) mask mandate in Atlanta, to trying to withhold Federal funding to sanctuary cities/states, to Trump sending the Fed goons into Portland without consent. It's why the probable pick of Amy Coney Barrett is significant - I don't think the GOP would ever overturn Roe V Wade because they need it to dangle in front of the crazies; Planned Parenthood V Casey will be much more important - they'll allow states to make abortion provision so restrictive in their own state that it's outlawed in those places in all but name; so it's back to being the case that if you're in Bumfuck Iowa, you're going to have to arrange a week off to get to Chicago and if you're in Alaska, then bonne fucking chance. This is already happening - in 2013 there were 40 abortion clinics in Texas, now there's only 22, to cover 29 million people. 

And yeah, but I think it's more than that - again, I couldn't see it being good politics to make the appointment prior to the election when it's a turnout carrot, but as you said, Bush V Gore. Even further than that, Trump may well try and call victory well before postal ballots are all counted (should in person ballots go favorably for him) and pressure the courts to have postal ballots declared void (absentee voter fraud isn't a thing; Oregon has been compulsory vote-by-mail for the past 20 years and has had 14 instances of fraud in that period). If we're getting into proper tinfoil hat stuff, then there's even a school of thought that says Trump's trying to sabotage himself and make Biden's margin so impossibly big (and some of the models are predicting Biden getting near 400 Electoral College votes) that he can claim it's clearly a rigged election and take it thru every court in the land.

Edited September 22, 2020 by carpetmonster

[carpetmonster]

8 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Romney not necessarily saying how he'll vote here.

 

I hope to f**k I'm wrong but forgive me for not having too much faith in a geez with faith in magic underpants.