Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I keep reading all these quotes folks are picking out from Republican Senators regarding what they’ve previously said about appointing SC justices in an election — to wit, that they wouldn’t do it before and in some cases some have said or at least intimates they won’t do it now. It seems there’s a great groundswell now to throw those quotes right back in the faces of the senators who made them.

This effort demonstrates that a large number of people do not understand how cults operate. There will not be a single Republican Senator who will vote against a Trump nominee if one is brought forth for confirmation before November 3rd, save Mitt Romney and maybe — maybe I said — Murkowski. If these cowardly enabling courtier eunuchs cared an ounce about hypocrisy, we wouldn’t be where we are now. None of them will risk a Trump backlash, or the inevitable threat from the GOP to pull funding if they’re in a close race. Of course McConnell has the votes. It’s a A FUCKING CULT.
Click to expand...
Only needs 3



I count, so far, Romney and Collins.

I think two or three more will come out and take that position as well
 
SebastianBlue said:
I have lived in the US for the last few years, first in Boston, Massachusetts, and now in Portland, Maine. I came for an opportunity with my company (managed remote teams around America on both coasts, before recently taking leave for health reasons) and the Swiss missus, as her mother, father, and brother moved her at various times based on various circumstances (two sisters and other family still living in Switzerland). Her mother just became a naturalised US citizen so she could vote a few months ago (dual citizenship with Switzerland), her father is American who got Swiss citizenship 30 odd years ago after moving there and marrying her mother, and her brother is working to get citizenship as he just married an American and now lives on the west coast. My family still lives in or around Manchester, London, Zaragoza, and Barcelona (I am one of those ‘splitters’).

And I am indeed worried, mate. We are considering leaving if things get as bad as we fear they will, even though there will be losses if we do, in both new strong relationships built here and likely financial hits based on some investments I made when we came here (beyond the efforts I devoted to my company).

I know a few would reasonably say I am the pessimist of the bunch on this thread. But I have lived and worked in what were current or previous autocratic nations when I was younger and see many parallels in the way things are going. I see how many in the US still don’t seem to be taking notice of the gravity of what has already happened or the dangers on the horizon (or they are frighteningly in support of it). It all makes me extremely nervous.


Don’t worry, mate, if we leave it will likely be to Switzerland at this point.

But make sure to keep a room ready, just in case. ;-)


GOP
Grand Ole Party

www.history.com

Why Is the Republican Party Known as the GOP? | HISTORY

As early as the 1870s, politicians and newspapers began to refer to the Republican Party as both the “grand old party...
www.history.com www.history.com

Roe v Wade
The US Supreme Court case and subsequent decision that effectively laid the legal framework for the legalisation of abortion in America.

www.britannica.com

Roe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, Right to Privacy, & Overturning | Britannica

Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy.
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com

Lame Duck
In this context it refers to a politician that has lost a recent election (or is set to retire or be removed for some other reason) but is still in office for a short period of time until their current term ends, seeing another politician take their office. This is usually used to refer to someone that no longer as a popular mandate (due to losing an election as a sort of referendum on their performance) or de facto power even though they still hold their elected office, since the voters recently voted them out on a future date.

Donald Trump would be a “Lame Duck President” if he lost the upcoming general election, as he would still be in office until January (this is a transition period) but would be replaced thereafter (that is an unfortunate oversimplification this cycle, but we’ll leave it at that for this explanation).

Most of the time, in past political cycles, a ‘lame duck’ status would see the politician take a much more reserved stance and act conservatively, if not deferential, during the period after losing the election but before they officially left office. There are some prominent exceptions to this, but it *was* generally a political norm.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump, if he were to officially lose, is *very* unlikely to take such a stance. He would likely take a scorched earth approach, making sure to do as much damage as possible before he is dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming (or flailing and frothing, in his case).

A ‘Lame Duck’ Trump would be a danger to all. Which is unfortunate, given it is literally now the *best case* scenario available to America.

study.com

Lame Duck in Politics | Definition, Amendment & Famous Outcomes - Lesson | Study.com

What is a lame duck? Learn about the lame duck period and how it affects politicians. Find out what significant actions were taken by lame-duck...
study.com study.com
Click to expand...
Thanks Sebastian blue for that detailed response. As an outsider I truly hope Trump does not win a 2nd term.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I keep reading all these quotes folks are picking out from Republican Senators regarding what they’ve previously said about appointing SC justices in an election — to wit, that they wouldn’t do it before and in some cases some have said or at least intimates they won’t do it now. It seems there’s a great groundswell now to throw those quotes right back in the faces of the senators who made them.

This effort demonstrates that a large number of people do not understand how cults operate. There will not be a single Republican Senator who will vote against a Trump nominee if one is brought forth for confirmation before November 3rd, save Mitt Romney and maybe — maybe I said — Murkowski. If these cowardly enabling courtier eunuchs cared an ounce about hypocrisy, we wouldn’t be where we are now. None of them will risk a Trump backlash, or the inevitable threat from the GOP to pull funding if they’re in a close race. Of course McConnell has the votes. It’s a A FUCKING CULT.
Click to expand...
Fool me once - Shame on you.

Fool me twice - Shame on me.

Fool me ten time - You must be Susan Collins.
 
SWP's back said:
Only needs 3



I count, so far, Romney and Collins.

I think two or three more will come out and take that position as well
Click to expand...


Flakes tweet is promising but I think they will get this done. The only way it doesn't is some others find the backbone that has been missing for the last 4 years.
 
Gaudion M said:
Flakes tweet is promising but I think they will get this done. The only way it doesn't is some others find the backbone that has been missing for the last 4 years.
Click to expand...
The GOP bullies will whip their Senators into line with threats of a nasty tweet from Trump removal of party support for this and any subsequent elections.

I see one or two at best.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
The GOP bullies will whip their Senators into line with threats of a nasty tweet from Trump removal of party support for this and any subsequent elections.

I see one or two at best.
Click to expand...

Yes but there are 1 or 2 who are bowing out and may not care - they may even enjoy sticking it to Trump. And possibly 1 or 2 in more moderate states who pretty much know they are going to lose as is and think maybe standing up to Trump might be a curve ball worth throwing.

I don't think it will be stopped but its more of a problem for the GOP senate candidates than anyone else.
 
SWP's back said:
Only needs 3



I count, so far, Romney and Collins.

I think two or three more will come out and take that position as well
Click to expand...

Collins hasn’t said she won’t vote, mate.

She released the most ‘Collins’ of statements that said she doesn’t think there *should* be a vote before the election, but that Trump has the authority to nominate a new justice and she would not be opposed to the Senate Judiciary Committee beginning the process.

This is exactly the sort of “making a statement but not really committing to anything” move she has done over and over in the past. She did similar with both the Kavanaugh confirmation and the impeachment. She’s hedging, hoping Trump won’t try to push through a nomination, but you can put your mortgage on her voting to confirm if he does put someone forward that is widely supported by the GOP *and* the Republicans need her vote to confirm. She’ll vote no or abstain if they don’t need her vote, as a political expediency (again, as she has done this in the past).

Right now it is just Romney that *seems* like he might not vote but he still hasn’t publicly committed to it.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I keep reading all these quotes folks are picking out from Republican Senators regarding what they’ve previously said about appointing SC justices in an election — to wit, that they wouldn’t do it before and in some cases some have said or at least intimates they won’t do it now. It seems there’s a great groundswell now to throw those quotes right back in the faces of the senators who made them.

This effort demonstrates that a large number of people do not understand how cults operate. There will not be a single Republican Senator who will vote against a Trump nominee if one is brought forth for confirmation before November 3rd, save Mitt Romney and maybe — maybe I said — Murkowski. If these cowardly enabling courtier eunuchs cared an ounce about hypocrisy, we wouldn’t be where we are now. None of them will risk a Trump backlash, or the inevitable threat from the GOP to pull funding if they’re in a close race. Of course McConnell has the votes. It’s a A FUCKING CULT.
Click to expand...
You and I agree completely on this. The quotes I pulled out where to illustrate the coming apocalypse of hypocrisy only.

With that in mind, here is Graham’s new statements — to no one’s great surprise, he now seems to support filling a vacancy in the last months of a presidential term (and even the last few weeks before a general election).

 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
They technically have until inauguration day, but they could still jam it through before the election.
Click to expand...
This.

And there is absolutely no reason to believe the Trump camp and *especially* McConnell won’t try to ram the nomination through before the election (and they could succeed, as everything about this admin and even their previous confirmations have broken with precedent and ‘normal’ timeframes). Trump and McConnell have already made “chomping a the bit” statements in intention/support of it.

If for some reason they can’t, and Trump miraculously loses and “accepts” that he lost (I know, great joke), they *absolutely* will still try to do it before Trump leaves office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top