What is your present favorability rating of Donald Trump's executive actions?
Absolutely Favor
7.3% (10)
7.3% (10)
Mostly Favor
8.8% (12)
8.8% (12)
Barely Favor
1.5% (2)
1.5% (2)
Neutral
2.9% (4)
2.9% (4)
Barely Disfavor
1.5% (2)
1.5% (2)
Mostly Disfavor
19.7% (27)
19.7% (27)
Absolutely Disfavor
57.7% (79)
57.7% (79)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Donald Trump Executive Actions General

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Jux:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?_r=1

The whole thing is worth a read, but this is my favorite part.

Mr. Priebus bristles at the perception that he occupies a diminished perch in the West Wing pecking order compared with previous chiefs. But for the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president?s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump?s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.

He signs things without knowing what they say. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

That is horrible. What if he signs to destroy a country and Steve Bannon tells him it is an order for him to bake a cake? How is this guy allowed to sign executive orders?- Oh yeah, an entire country elected him because the alternative of maintaining a garbage status quo under Hillary Clinton. Then again, this is still pretty awful. At least read what you sign geez.

Congratulations we got 100 votes now in our thread meaning The Escapist has conducted its own solid political survey. 79% of The Escapist Mostly or Absolutely disfavors Donald Trump's executive actions.

Reuters: Trump's pick for labor secretary admits to employing illegal immigrant

Epyc Wynn:
Congratulations we got 100 votes now in our thread meaning The Escapist has conducted its own solid political survey. 79% of The Escapist Mostly or Absolutely disfavors Donald Trump's executive actions.

Reuters: Trump's pick for labor secretary admits to employing illegal immigrant

Not really a shock. Even the people who defend Trump around here don't really praise him.

So, just going to drop this here real quick, because Trump was probably (HOPEFULLY) joking.

That and bigger news, imo, is the official response Ayatollah Khamenei (head of Iran) has made to Trump's travel ban and new sanctions, which can best be summed up as; gratitude.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/middleeast/trump-iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei.html?_r=0

The statement doesn't surprise me. =P ISIS and other radical Islamic groups will no doubt be using the same message in their recruiting drives, which is exactly what made this kind of approach by the Trump administration so counter-intuitive. It will not protect the United States from attacks carried out by U.S. residents who have been radicalized, and will only serve to make it easier for organizations like ISIS to recruit new followers. This isn't even getting into how much more difficult finding informants and allies from these countries would become for the Western world.

Organizations like ISIS and its ilk aren't satisfied with a few hundred deaths here or there, the purpose of their attacks has always been to instill fear because the actions people take when scared can work in ISIS' favor. They want an army, they want enough numbers to inflict real damage, to have their Jihad truly be a war, rather than handfuls of skirmishes. But because they can't convince enough Muslims that America is their enemy to have their grand war, the next step is to convince America that Muslims are their enemy, and then take the actions the U.S. make under that mindset back to Muslims saying "See?! I told you America was your enemy, they treat you as one!'

SeventhSigil:
So, just going to drop this here real quick, because Trump was probably (HOPEFULLY) joking.

You're forgetting rule one of dealing with an autocrat. And for Trump in particular why would we write this off as a joke? The dude goes on about his 'enemies' more than anyone I've ever seen. You can bet your ass he'll at least look for a way to ruin that senator.

Jux:

SeventhSigil:
So, just going to drop this here real quick, because Trump was probably (HOPEFULLY) joking.

You're forgetting rule one of dealing with an autocrat. And for Trump in particular why would we write this off as a joke? The dude goes on about his 'enemies' more than anyone I've ever seen. You can bet your ass he'll at least look for a way to ruin that senator.

To be honest, it's more than the list of Trump stuff has gotten so obscene I'm finding myself having to basically prioritize what I focus on, cause there's too much TO focus on. xP It's gotten to the point where shit like this can just completely slip under my radar for days because the bombardment of other stuff quickly drowned it out.

SeventhSigil:

Jux:

SeventhSigil:
So, just going to drop this here real quick, because Trump was probably (HOPEFULLY) joking.

You're forgetting rule one of dealing with an autocrat. And for Trump in particular why would we write this off as a joke? The dude goes on about his 'enemies' more than anyone I've ever seen. You can bet your ass he'll at least look for a way to ruin that senator.

To be honest, it's more than the list of Trump stuff has gotten so obscene I'm finding myself having to basically prioritize what I focus on, cause there's too much TO focus on. xP It's gotten to the point where shit like this can just completely slip under my radar for days because the bombardment of other stuff quickly drowned it out.

At this point, I think it's a calculated effort on their part. Two part strategy really. Bombardment not only overwhelms you with volume and keeps you from being able to see everything they're doing, but it also wears you down. This is a battle of attrition, and Trumps team is basically hoping to wear people down to the point they're just tired of protesting, because they will be protesting everything.

Jux:

At this point, I think it's a calculated effort on their part. Two part strategy really. Bombardment not only overwhelms you with volume and keeps you from being able to see everything they're doing, but it also wears you down. This is a battle of attrition, and Trumps team is basically hoping to wear people down to the point they're just tired of protesting, because they will be protesting everything.

Basically, and it's why I'm trying to kind of focus the bulk of my 'wordy' posts on stuff like I mentioned above, while just dropping 'Oh, and by the way' links for stuff that is either lower on my to-do list, or I don't feel qualified enough to really dig into, such as Dodd Frank. In the case of Trump's statement, it's less about whether he wouldn't do the thing, and more about the fact that right now he has plausible deniability if confronted on the statement. The room even laughed, so 'Was just a joke, butthurt fake news!' is something he could get away with pretty easily.

It's also why I'm TRYING (sometimes without success,) to avoid getting too involved in Executive Drafts, though the one relating to religious discrimination obviously sucked me right in. It's occurred to me that a part of this strategy- especially given Bannon would certainly bring a wealth of knowledge on combating the media to the table- could be circulating drafts that are highly alarming and guaranteed to draw a lot of attention if leaked. So the media spends articles and hours of discussion talking about an Executive Order that may not (MAY NOT) materialize, which will only help Trump point at them and scream 'FAKE NEWS.

Federal Court held up the suspension on the travel ban. I wonder if people are still going to try and bullshit me into saying that the ban was constitutional, even though the court systems have made it perfectly clear it isn't.

erttheking:
Federal Court held up the suspension on the travel ban. I wonder if people are still going to try and bullshit me into saying that the ban was constitutional, even though the court systems have made it perfectly clear it isn't.

Not that I agreed with the ban, but to be fair to the system, its not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules on it.

Silentpony:

erttheking:
Federal Court held up the suspension on the travel ban. I wonder if people are still going to try and bullshit me into saying that the ban was constitutional, even though the court systems have made it perfectly clear it isn't.

Not that I agreed with the ban, but to be fair to the system, its not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules on it.

If something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is just the definitive say on it. (Though as humans are flawed, even that doesnt guarantee it is actually "constitutional" or not.)

Silentpony:

erttheking:
Federal Court held up the suspension on the travel ban. I wonder if people are still going to try and bullshit me into saying that the ban was constitutional, even though the court systems have made it perfectly clear it isn't.

Not that I agreed with the ban, but to be fair to the system, its not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules on it.

What Saelune said. It's not that it isn't unconstitutional yet, it's that it hasn't been officially declared to be unconstitutional. But since it's 0-2 for the ban, I'd say it's a safe bet that it isn't.

Also, Trump is responding to this...over twitter. Like he does. Jesus Fucking Christ. Oh, and he's in all caps mode. This is serious business. (I can't decide if I want to laugh or cry)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

erttheking:

Silentpony:

erttheking:
Federal Court held up the suspension on the travel ban. I wonder if people are still going to try and bullshit me into saying that the ban was constitutional, even though the court systems have made it perfectly clear it isn't.

Not that I agreed with the ban, but to be fair to the system, its not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules on it.

What Saelune said. It's not that it isn't unconstitutional yet, it's that it hasn't been officially declared to be unconstitutional. But since it's 0-2 for the ban, I'd say it's a safe bet that it isn't.

Also, Trump is responding to this...over twitter. Like he does. Jesus Fucking Christ. Oh, and he's in all caps mode. This is serious business. (I can't decide if I want to laugh or cry)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

While I hope it stands it's not a safe bet at all, the 9th circuit court is the most often overturned circuit as being California Washington and Oregon make them very liberal and very activist. The ruling only supported the injunction as the court did not support the White Houses claim that the court system should not be able to review and rule on executive orders the consitutionality hasn't been decided yet.

There is definitely a fair chance the whole thing will end up being ruled as constitutional, Its kind of like the fight that started in the courts over the ACA, the SC will almost definitely decide to hear the case, and its outcome is definitely up for debate, I could see it going either way.

Holy shit legal documents are dense. @_@

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf

So, I've been TRYING to make heads or tails of this, and here's the best summary I can come up with of each section, which I'll spoiler tag for length. Lacking a lot of little details and stuff, but hopefully I haven't gotten something flat-out wrong.

So, my admittedly grossly uneducated opinion seems to be that the Government's stance isn't one of justifying the ban, but that the ban does not need to be justified, because the courts should get no say in it and/or the states shouldn't be allowed to sue at all. Basically, the Government only has to say "Presidential authority, terrorists, national security." and that should be the end of that, at least with regards to immigration, where the Executive does have broad powers.

But it is the court's opinion, at least so far, that these powers do not exempt the Executive Branch from breaches of the Constitution, specifically in this case the Fifth and First Amendments. When it comes to the Fifth, it's been determined that the Order does not permit those effected rights under Due Process; the Government's claim is these people have no such rights, the court disagrees. When it comes to the First, a far more loaded issue, the court has chosen not to make a ruling at this time, but Trump's big, fat mouth blabbing 'Muslim ban' look to be included in these considerations.

Finally, and this could be the biggest weakness to the Trump administration's case; they can't ACTUALLY prove there is a clear and imminent threat, beyond very vague 'Those countries have people who MIGHT get in and MIGHT cause us harm!' that could apply to a whole bunch of countries not on the list. Because of this, they can't prove that blocking the ban temporarily would cause harm, since the country has been fine WITHOUT the ban for years now; on the flip side, the States HAVE proven that reinstating the ban at this time would cause harm to the States and multiple "other parties interested in the proceeding."

So for now, the States are in the lead. From what I can tell, things will likely shift to Trump's favor if one of three things happen;

1) The Supreme Court decides that the President's powers ARE in fact unreviewable, and that they have no jurisdiction on the Order at all.
2) They uphold that a) those affected by the ban do NOT have the rights of Due Process, and b) Trump's statements on 'Muslim Ban,' his statement on favoring Christians, AND the statement by Rudy Giuliani are somehow not admissible or relevant to the issue of a First Amendment breach.
3) The administration can provide evidence of a more specific and pressing threat than it currently has.

Beyond that, not sure if Trump has any other recourse to see his ban upheld by the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the administration may seek a compromise, as they did when it came to removing the block on their ban; so, for example, restoring Visas, but otherwise blocking refugees or new travelers with no prior clearance to enter the U.S. In this case such a compromise was denied because the courts determined it did not satisfy potential Fifth Amendment violations, but the Supreme Court might have a different take.

Phew. x_x

SeventhSigil:
1) The Supreme Court decides that the President's powers ARE in fact unreviewable, and that they have no jurisdiction on the Order at all.
2) They uphold that a) those affected by the ban do NOT have the rights of Due Process, and b) Trump's statements on 'Muslim Ban,' his statement on favoring Christians, AND the statement by Rudy Giuliani are somehow not admissible or relevant to the issue of a First Amendment breach.
3) The administration can provide evidence of a more specific and pressing threat than it currently has.

Beyond that, not sure if Trump has any other recourse to see his ban upheld by the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the administration may seek a compromise, as they did when it came to removing the block on their ban; so, for example, restoring Visas, but otherwise blocking refugees or new travelers with no prior clearance to enter the U.S. In this case such a compromise was denied because the courts determined it did not satisfy potential Fifth Amendment violations, but the Supreme Court might have a different take.

Phew. x_x

The Supreme Court isn't likely to overturn the 9ths ruling. Clifton signed on to the ruling, and as a Bush appointee, removes a lot of suspicion that this was just partisan politics at work.

DoJ overplayed their hand when they claimed the courts didn't have purview over Executive branch when it came to stuff like immigration and national security. Even with Korematsu v. United States being the shit decision that it was, it at least set the precedent that courts could countermand executive orders in areas where immigration intersected with national security.

There are other cases that can be referenced too. Boumedienne v. Bush ruled that noncitizen prisoners at Gitmo could contest the legality of their detention, so we have precedent for non citizens having certain constitutional rights (in this case, due process, a decision concurrent with the 9ths most recent ruling).

If this went to SCOTUS after Gorsuch gets in, my hunch is that it goes 7-2 in upholding the 9ths ruling, with Roberts, Kennedy and Gorsuch joining the liberal bloc, and Alito and Thomas in dissent.

Jux:
-Snippity doo da snippity day-

I hope you're right, it's hard to remain optimistic though.
It's starting to feel like just about anything is possible these days.

Come on benevolent alien dictatorship

Jux:

The Supreme Court isn't likely to overturn the 9ths ruling. Clifton signed on to the ruling, and as a Bush appointee, removes a lot of suspicion that this was just partisan politics at work.

DoJ overplayed their hand when they claimed the courts didn't have purview over Executive branch when it came to stuff like immigration and national security. Even with Korematsu v. United States being the shit decision that it was, it at least set the precedent that courts could countermand executive orders in areas where immigration intersected with national security.

There are other cases that can be referenced too. Boumedienne v. Bush ruled that noncitizen prisoners at Gitmo could contest the legality of their detention, so we have precedent for non citizens having certain constitutional rights (in this case, due process, a decision concurrent with the 9ths most recent ruling).

If this went to SCOTUS after Gorsuch gets in, my hunch is that it goes 7-2 in upholding the 9ths ruling, with Roberts, Kennedy and Gorsuch joining the liberal bloc, and Alito and Thomas in dissent.

It looks like the administration may agree on that count, they've gone on record to state that they have no current plans to try and appeal this decision before the Supreme Court. (Though I'm pretty sure Trump is still insisting that he totally would win if he did, ala Trump University.)

From what he's hinting, it might be that they intend to try and craft a new executive order relating to immigration. Exactly what's going to be in it, I guess we'll have to wait and see. =P if I had to had to guess, they probably try to keep as many elements from the old one as possible, while avoiding constitutional violations so that the courts lose their jurisdiction.

SeventhSigil:

Jux:

The Supreme Court isn't likely to overturn the 9ths ruling. Clifton signed on to the ruling, and as a Bush appointee, removes a lot of suspicion that this was just partisan politics at work.

DoJ overplayed their hand when they claimed the courts didn't have purview over Executive branch when it came to stuff like immigration and national security. Even with Korematsu v. United States being the shit decision that it was, it at least set the precedent that courts could countermand executive orders in areas where immigration intersected with national security.

There are other cases that can be referenced too. Boumedienne v. Bush ruled that noncitizen prisoners at Gitmo could contest the legality of their detention, so we have precedent for non citizens having certain constitutional rights (in this case, due process, a decision concurrent with the 9ths most recent ruling).

If this went to SCOTUS after Gorsuch gets in, my hunch is that it goes 7-2 in upholding the 9ths ruling, with Roberts, Kennedy and Gorsuch joining the liberal bloc, and Alito and Thomas in dissent.

It looks like the administration may agree on that count, they've gone on record to state that they have no current plans to try and appeal this decision before the Supreme Court. (Though I'm pretty sure Trump is still insisting that he totally would win if he did, ala Trump University.)

From what he's hinting, it might be that they intend to try and craft a new executive order relating to immigration. Exactly what's going to be in it, I guess we'll have to wait and see. =P if I had to had to guess, they probably try to keep as many elements from the old one as possible, while avoiding constitutional violations so that the courts lose their jurisdiction.

Most likely it will be narrower in scope, with exemptions for green card and visa holders, maybe with just 'extra vetting' for them (what that would consist of I have no idea, our system is already pretty rigorous).

What I'm waiting to see is if they do a blanket limitation, or if they still target predominantly muslim countries. The problem is that Trump poisoned the well for himself on the campaign trail. Between talking about a muslim ban, and his surrogates talking about a muslim ban, and guliani straight up admitting Trump asked him to help craft an EO that targeted muslims, the courts are going to have to look at any travel restrictions through that lenses. At this point it will be really hard for him to do any kind of ban that appears to target muslims, or it's going to get struck down under the establishment clause.

I already know that on the legal immigration front, he's working with Tom Cotton to try and basically halve the amount of immigrants we're legally letting in. Which is fucking stupid, because a large number of the legal immigrants are highly skilled workers in tech. What do they think is going to happen when Silicon Valley can't recruit the best from around the world? Good luck getting American tech companies to actually stay here.

I wonder which will come first: this thread hitting 10k views, or Donald Trump getting impeached. Based on the news I have read, the latter.

Also here is the latest news I have read from Mr. Flip Flop:

Reuters: Trump says U.S. committed to Japan security, in change from campaign rhetoric

By the way, I figured out a neat trick for instantaneous reliable news.

Bookmark this page: Reuters | The Wire

Download this Google Chrome extension (it's free): Google Chrome Webstore Easy Auto Refresh

Set the extension to refresh the aforementioned bookmarked page every 45 seconds, or however you prefer.

This has proven to be an extremely useful setup for me since I post news on Reddit a lot.

Epyc Wynn:
I wonder which will come first: this thread hitting 10k views, or Donald Trump getting impeached. Based on the news I have read, the latter.

Also here is the latest news I have read from Mr. Flip Flop:

Reuters: Trump says U.S. committed to Japan security, in change from campaign rhetoric

By the way, I figured out a neat trick for instantaneous reliable news.

Bookmark this page: Reuters | The Wire

Download this Google Chrome extension (it's free): Google Chrome Webstore Easy Auto Refresh

Set the extension to refresh the aforementioned bookmarked page every 45 seconds, or however you prefer.

This has proven to be an extremely useful setup for me since I post news on Reddit a lot.

at first a was quite surprised he went back on a campaign promise since he seems commited to doing most of the things he said he would. but then i see how they came to an aggrement. you have to give him credit, he said he would run the country like a business and he is.

lionsprey:
you have to give him credit, he said he would run the country like a business and he is.

Now if only he was a good businessman, there wouldn't be so many worries.

Observer: The Spy Revolt Against Donald Trump Begins

United States spies have been and are continuing to withhold information from the White House. They are doing this because it is believed among the intelligence community that the White House is now crawling with Russian informants put into it by Donald Trump, as well as Donald Trump himself being a Russian informant.

"What's going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that "since January 20, we've assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM," meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. "There's not much the Russians don't know at this point," the official added in wry frustration."

"In light of this, and out of worries about the White House's ability to keep secrets, some of our spy agencies have begun withholding intelligence from the Oval Office. Why risk your most sensitive information if the president may ignore it anyway? A senior National Security Agency official explained that NSA was systematically holding back some of the "good stuff" from the White House, in an unprecedented move. For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president's eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets."

"This is a risky situation, particularly since President Trump is prone to creating crises foreign and domestic with his incautious tweets. In the event of a serious international crisis of the sort which eventually befalls almost every administration, the White House will need the best intelligence possible to prevent war, possibly even nuclear war. It may not get the information it needs in that hour of crisis, and for that it has nobody to blame but itself."

People are outright admitting there are people and spies in the Trump administration giving away secrets to Russia.

There are no trials for treason in the works over this right now.

There is no impeachment in the works over this right now.

Republicans in congress have kept eerily silent on this matter.

It should also be noted that the intelligence community has found more information supporting the dossier which insinuated the Kremlin groomed Trump; in addition to the "piss tapes".

CNN: Russian Dossier Update

So, why are you wall just watching? Do something about it or accept your fates.

Epyc Wynn:

So, why are you wall just watching? Do something about it or accept your fates.

Us personally? Well, I hate to break it to you, but we have no more power than you do, and "I heard this on the internet" is hardly compelling evidence with which to convince others, whether or not it comes from news outlets. In the case of the latter link in particular, there's nothing to act on. The article indicates that what has been corroborated is incidental stuff, not the damning stuff, and while that does necessarily create greater confidence in the report as a whole, jumping on it now would ultimately only undermine the critics and criticism by making us seem overeager. You want him out of the White House? Wait. As the idiom goes, give him enough rope, and he'll hang himself with it. And we are not at that point just yet.

Asita:

Epyc Wynn:

So, why are you wall just watching? Do something about it or accept your fates.

Us personally? Well, I hate to break it to you, but we have no more power than you do, and "I heard this on the internet" is hardly compelling evidence with which to convince others, whether or not it comes from news outlets. In the case of the latter link in particular, there's nothing to act on. The article indicates that what has been corroborated is incidental stuff, not the damning stuff, and while that does necessarily create greater confidence in the report as a whole, jumping on it now would ultimately only undermine the critics and criticism by making us seem overeager. You want him out of the White House? Wait. As the idiom goes, give him enough rope, and he'll hang himself with it. And we are not at that point just yet.

I think he will get rid of or replace the intelligence community before they will be able to hang him.

He is a man of action.

If you wait, we are going to be the ones at the end of the noose not him.

Epyc Wynn:
So, why are you wall just watching? Do something about it or accept your fates.

Because the greater majority of us have no power, no influence, no means to actually get our elected officials to get on with it. We saw it with DeVos' confirmation "Oh yeah, I got thousands of calls and messages asking me to not confirm. I confirm." The current balance of powers is not in favor of We The People, and the only other option would be a new revolution, and I don't believe we've hit the point where that's become necessary - not to mention how ill-conceived a new revolution would be, taking into consideration the military resources at the government's disposal.

We could try to win over more Republican politicians, but convincing career politicians to do something that's not explicitly beneficial to them in the short-term is like trying to build a house with a child's toy tools. Not only that, but currently we're stuck playing the waiting game. Between the Democrats Resolution of Inquiry that was filed just recently, and Rep. Bill Pascrell using an obscure 1924 tax law to force Trump's tax documents out of him, we can't do anything yet until these filings are resolved.

There are whisperings about Congress stepping in to "do something" if it turns out that NSA's Mike Flynn's lies about contact with Russia goes all the way to Trump. But again, we're waiting for the information to come out so we can act or direct the ones who have power to act.

Politics has become gamified. People care more about their side winning than making things better. This attitude has permeated so many aspects of our society that people would rather advocate for horrible things to be done to their ideological opponents (like those heartless, sadistic villains that advocate firing people for mean words online) than making sure their side has standards and improving the our engagements. When a party is in power they now seem to do everything in their power to counter any gains made by their opponents. This is to the detriment of us all.

FriendoftheFallen:
Politics has become gamified. People care more about their side winning than making things better. This attitude has permeated so many aspects of our society that people would rather advocate for horrible things to be done to their ideological opponents (like those heartless, sadistic villains that advocate firing people for mean words online) than making sure their side has standards and improving the our engagements. When a party is in power they now seem to do everything in their power to counter any gains made by their opponents. This is to the detriment of us all.

Okay I'm just gonna put this out there, because I feel a lot of people need to hear this real loud and clear.

I blame the vast majority of Republicans in power.

They backed Donald Trump, they backed him willingly, and they're massive pansies afraid to stand against him.

McCain is a diamond in the rough, but otherwise he is a diamond among dirt-covered turds.

Donald Trump is to blame especially and he is the prime embodiment of this problem.

The Democrats have a rigged and corrupt system for picking presidents and they deserve Donald Trump for that, and I want that system to be made illegal and the Democrats responsible for that system to be forever shamed.

Let it be known that every Republican in power who did not stand against Donald Trump was a coward or supported his destruction of ethics and plundering of our secrets for Russia's horrendous dictatorship which exists under the guise of democracy.

And if you, or other people, feel that way, then run for office and learn to be an effective political power.

New players need to take the field.

Trump's senior adviser Stephen Miller (chosen by Donald Trump):

"The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media, and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial, and will not be questioned."

So, how does it feel to know the president's power will not be questioned?

I find this lack of ability to question the president's power, questionable, and thus further question the power the president actually has.

Maybe you should all wake up and revolt against this fascist bullshit already.

Epyc Wynn:

The Democrats have a rigged and corrupt system for picking presidents and they deserve Donald Trump for that, and I want that system to be made illegal and the Democrats responsible for that system to be forever shamed.

I have been denouncing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for months now. She is a large part of why we ended up here.

Though there is something very sad but true about the statement "If only the first "viable" female presidential candidate had listened to her husband, she may have won." He had a list of rust belt counties he begged her to campaign at. He encouraged her to do St Patty's Day at Notre Dame. "Her team told the event?s organizers that ?white Catholics were not the audience she needed to spend time reaching out to.? Her campaign team told her to spend time reaching out to groups that wouldn't ever vote for Trump in the first place. Wasserman-Schultz and Podesta messed up. A lot of people messed up.

This is Monday morning a few months after the game quarterbacking, though.

liek I said, politics has become gamified. As long as its working for your "team" to win instead of examining individual principles then we will be stuck in this quagmire.

Epyc Wynn:
Maybe you should all wake up and revolt against this fascist bullshit already.

As much as I do agree with this, as much as I want to march into the White House and kick Trumplethinskin to the curb, we can't just simply "revolt". We need to play within the system - for now - if that means pulling obscure bullshit like the Republicans have done, then we do it. But we can't just launch headlong into a revolution, otherwise we'll just lend even more legitimacy and further empower what we oppose. When the system shows signs of failing (Though, of course, the argument can be made that the system has already failed since we're at this point), then we can start looking at more metaphorically nuclear options, but blowing our load too early would only hurt us in the end.

We need more demonstrations, more court rulings against the Administration, revelation of information, confirmation of that info. We have so few pieces on the board that we have to take every move into careful consideration. It's such an idiotic little dance that we're being forced to do, and I fucking hate it, but dance we must - for now.

Dr. Thrax:

Epyc Wynn:
Maybe you should all wake up and revolt against this fascist bullshit already.

As much as I do agree with this, as much as I want to march into the White House and kick Trumplethinskin to the curb, we can't just simply "revolt". We need to play within the system - for now - if that means pulling obscure bullshit like the Republicans have done, then we do it. But we can't just launch headlong into a revolution, otherwise we'll just lend even more legitimacy and further empower what we oppose. When the system shows signs of failing (Though, of course, the argument can be made that the system has already failed since we're at this point), then we can start looking at more metaphorically nuclear options, but blowing our load too early would only hurt us in the end.

We need more demonstrations, more court rulings against the Administration, revelation of information, confirmation of that info. We have so few pieces on the board that we have to take every move into careful consideration. It's such an idiotic little dance that we're being forced to do, and I fucking hate it, but dance we must - for now.

If there is one thing I have learned from playing by the rules on websites and in real life organizations, it's that the people won't fundamentally change how things are run unless you force them to. People hate change, people fear change, they might talk big individually, but in groups they always run from real change because they fear the shifting of power.

Taking the rules-based route isn't going to necessarily work.

I am going to be real honest here.

I expect fully that Donald Trump is not going to be taken down legally.

I expect we are going to first run out all our legal options, and then take the illegal route.

I expect the branches of government to fail to stop Trump, and I would not be surprised if the intelligence community will be charged at the end of the day with reconfiguring our government so that it never breaks down like this again. Considering their general hate of what Trump is doing, I am willing to let them take a shot at it. But that is what I expect will happen.

And should, the intelligence community be tasked with fixing things, since congress is a heaping ball of worthless shit at this point, I hope their first actions will be to eliminate the problems of gerrymandering and the electoral college completely.

That's all just a guess, of course. But I have a very strong suspicion that is how it will all play out at the end of the day. At this point I would trust the intelligence community more than I would trust the congressional community with fixing the government. Perhaps that is elitist, which is counter-intuitive to my typical populism, but they are elites rooted in intelligence, not power, so I am fine with that since the elitism will for once be rooted in genuine intelligence and an ethics that at bare minimum upholds the constitution before it upholds a fascist president.

Epyc Wynn:

Asita:

Epyc Wynn:

So, why are you wall just watching? Do something about it or accept your fates.

Us personally? Well, I hate to break it to you, but we have no more power than you do, and "I heard this on the internet" is hardly compelling evidence with which to convince others, whether or not it comes from news outlets. In the case of the latter link in particular, there's nothing to act on. The article indicates that what has been corroborated is incidental stuff, not the damning stuff, and while that does necessarily create greater confidence in the report as a whole, jumping on it now would ultimately only undermine the critics and criticism by making us seem overeager. You want him out of the White House? Wait. As the idiom goes, give him enough rope, and he'll hang himself with it. And we are not at that point just yet.

I think he will get rid of or replace the intelligence community before they will be able to hang him.

He is a man of action.

If you wait, we are going to be the ones at the end of the noose not him.

Hang himself. You aren't waiting for the intelligence community to beat him. You're waiting for him to damn himself. Borrowing from law for a minute, you're jumping on weak circumstantial evidence and demanding trial. While circumstantial evidence can lead to convictions, you need either strong circumstantial evidence or a lot of weaker circumstantial evidence to have a reasonable chance of conviction. Pushing for trial early is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive.

It's a combination of crying wolf and galvanizing your opposition. You don't want to do either. Now, between his rhetoric and actions, it's clear to me that Trump is horribly ill suited to the job, but I'm not the person who needs to be convinced of it. The people who voted for him need to be convinced of it. Trump, however, also seems to be operating under the assumption that the President is some absolute authority whom everyone must bend to the will of without question. So as I see it, it's not a question of if he'll wear out his welcome even among his fanbase, it's a question of when he'll cross a line they can't tolerate, and that's when getting him out of office becomes feasible. Again "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself with it".

Update:

HOLY SHIT EVERYONE REACT THIS IS BIG

New York Times: Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence

You should be going nuts. This IS either the beginning of his impeachment or the beginning of his fascist takeover (the latter being unlikely but you have to keep in mind this is Trump we are talking about).

Watergate, isn't going to hold a candle to this.

Nixon was nearly impeached for obstruction of justice. This news shows Trump colluded with a foreign power during his campaign to undermine the United States.

More information has been trickling in at a rapid pace so make sure to stay up to date by doing your searches and following this thread for discussion.

P.S. Happy Valentines Day

So... I might be mistaken, but it appears that Trump has decided to hold a rally for himself, possibly in a bid to start his reelection campaign as soon as possible. On my mobile, forgive short post and scant details. The rally announcement is on his Twitter.

If this is the case though, it wouldn't be surprising. His rallies have probably been the part of the entire presidential experience he favoured the most; crowds of people cheering him on, smiling faces stretched to the horizon. Considering his term so far has been basically him getting a ragdoll from one scandal and fuck up to another, not surprising that he'd be feeling nostalgic for the good old days when he was in an echo chamber. It'll also give him a Headstart over anyone the Democrats end up nominating.

Perhaps most importantly however, it will give him additional platforms to push his rhetoric, perhaps in an effort to curb the fact that it tends to leak into many of his otherwise unrelated speeches. Or just to further saturate the airwaves with it. Either way, he might sehe it as a chance to cut loose and basically rant about all the shit he's alluded to over the past month. The evil media, the evil courts, how super gigantic his election win was, how super illegal all the votes that cost him the popular vote were, etc.

Or hey, maybe he won't be batshit crazy. Always a small chance of that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here