The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cheesy said:
Great for Obama too. His reign will probably be looked back on even more fondly considering his Presidency will be sandwiched between two incompetent feck ups.
Click to expand...
On the other hand his presidency will always be the one that triggered this backlash. Not that its his fault per se, but it still happened. Without Obama I dont think Trump happens.
 
Adebesi said:
On the other hand his presidency will always be the one that triggered this backlash. Not that its his fault per se, but it still happened. Without Obama I dont think Trump happens.
Click to expand...

"Make America White Again"

Trump supporters wouldn't actually say it but they'd prefer a dumb, rapist white conman over a smart black guy in the White House any day of the week.
 
Adebesi said:
It really slapped me in the face when Bush, Clinton and Obama were all on stage together back in September, and Bush was laughing and making jokes with Obama. I caught myself doing exactly what you said, pining for the days when he was in charge. For a second I thought, actually he was a good guy wasnt he. I disagreed with him about pretty much everything politically, but he at least meant well. I thought about him being a bit of a lovable idiot, unfortunately surrounded by some admittedly bad people like Cheney and Rummy, but that he himself had actually been a man of integrity.

That all flashed through my head in an instant. But then I caught and corrected myself. Just because Trump is worse, doesnt mean Bush wasnt bad. And even if there is an element of truth in the "idiot that allowed himself to be influenced by bad people" theory, he still has to carry the blame. He was the President and even if Cheney was the evil one, Bush still has to take responsibility for it.
Click to expand...

As bad as Bush Jr was he wasn't trying to systematically weaken the federal government at every department AND colluding with a foreign adversary.
 
Over 200 anti-Trump protesters risk 60 years in jail. Is dissent a crime?

'On the morning of President Trump’s inauguration, police trapped and arrested more than 230 people. Some were anti-Trump demonstrators; some were not. The next day, federal prosecutors charged them all with “felony rioting”, a nonexistent crime in Washington DC. The prosecution then launched a sweeping investigation into the defendants’ lives, demanding vast amounts of online information through secret warrants.

Prosecutors eventually dropped a few defendants, like journalists and legal observers, but simultaneously increased the charges against everyone else. The most recent indictment collectively charged more than 200 people with felony rioting, felony incitement to riot, conspiracy to riot, and five property-damage crimes – all from broken windows.

Each defendant is facing over 60 years in prison.

The prosecution next obtained warrants focused on anti-Trump organizers. One sought a list of all visitors to a website that organizers used to promote Inauguration Day protests. A second sought information on all Facebook friends and related communications of two organizers, the host of a coalition Facebook page, and those who simply “liked” that page.

Despite legal challenges, a court recently decided to enforce the warrants, requiring only that personally identifiable information be redacted for “irrelevant” material. This unprecedented prosecution follows a drastic change in local law enforcement’s response to protest.

The DC Office of Police Complaints issued a report critical of the mass arrest, noting the departure from standard operating procedure and the likelihood that police lacked individualized probable cause to arrest everyone.'

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...p-administration-punishing-dissent-protesters
 
Last edited:
SteveJ said:
Those tweets about LaVar could easily be mistaken for a transcript of a TV wrestler making faux threats to his rival; that's how embarrassing & pathetic this 'president' is.
Click to expand...
Mark Hamill read a few of Trump's tweets in his Joker voice from the Batman cartoons, these would be perfect for that treatment
 
Nogbadthebad said:
God's Own Pedophiles.

Its killing the morality of organized evangelical religion and the republican party, all at once.
Click to expand...
Blessing in disguise, then? (Assuming we survive him)
Massive Spanner said:
Trump is the best thing that could've happened to Bush Jr. He probably never thought he'd be so shortly succeeded by someone more idiotic than him and far more hated, to the extent that it actually makes people pine for the days he was in charge again. He's revelling in it now.
Click to expand...
alg-billboard-miss-me-yet-jpg.jpg
 
What are the odds on him dressing Kushner up like a turkey tomorrow so that he can pardon him?
 
SteveJ said:
Over 200 anti-Trump protesters risk 60 years in jail. Is dissent a crime?

'On the morning of President Trump’s inauguration, police trapped and arrested more than 230 people. Some were anti-Trump demonstrators; some were not. The next day, federal prosecutors charged them all with “felony rioting”, a nonexistent crime in Washington DC. The prosecution then launched a sweeping investigation into the defendants’ lives, demanding vast amounts of online information through secret warrants.

Prosecutors eventually dropped a few defendants, like journalists and legal observers, but simultaneously increased the charges against everyone else. The most recent indictment collectively charged more than 200 people with felony rioting, felony incitement to riot, conspiracy to riot, and five property-damage crimes – all from broken windows.

Each defendant is facing over 60 years in prison.

The prosecution next obtained warrants focused on anti-Trump organizers. One sought a list of all visitors to a website that organizers used to promote Inauguration Day protests. A second sought information on all Facebook friends and related communications of two organizers, the host of a coalition Facebook page, and those who simply “liked” that page.

Despite legal challenges, a court recently decided to enforce the warrants, requiring only that personally identifiable information be redacted for “irrelevant” material. This unprecedented prosecution follows a drastic change in local law enforcement’s response to protest.

The DC Office of Police Complaints issued a report critical of the mass arrest, noting the departure from standard operating procedure and the likelihood that police lacked individualized probable cause to arrest everyone.'

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...p-administration-punishing-dissent-protesters
Click to expand...

This is truly scary. Thank you for posting that.

Next up 30 years for saying his crowd wasn't the largest? Given Americas affinity for prisons anything seems possible in these times :(.
 
Public opinion unlikely to curb a U.S. president’s use of nuclear weapons in war, Stanford scholar finds
Stanford scholar Scott Sagan found that a majority of Americans prioritize protecting U.S. troops and achieving American war aims, even when doing so would result in the use of nuclear weapons and the deaths of millions of civilians in another country.

The results showed little support for the so-called “nuclear taboo” thesis, or that the principle of “noncombatant immunity” – civilian protection from such weapons – has become a deeply held norm in America. This month marks the 72nd anniversary of the atomic bomb used against Japan to help end World War II. Hiroshima was bombed Aug. 6 and Nagasaki was bombed on Aug. 9, 1945.

Sagan said it suggests that the U.S. public’s support for the principle of noncombatant immunity is “shallow and easily overcome by the pressures of war.”

When considering the use of nuclear weapons, the majority of Americans prioritize protecting U.S. troops and achieving American war aims, even when doing so would result in the deliberate killing of millions of foreign noncombatants, according to Sagan and Valentino.

Sagan noted, “The most shocking finding of our study is that 60 percent of Americans would approve of killing 2 million Iranian civilians to prevent an invasion of Iran that might kill 20,000 U.S. soldiers.”

They explain that a number of variables – Republican Party identification, older age, and approval of the death penalty for convicted murderers – significantly increase support for using nuclear weapons against Iran.
Click to expand...

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/08/08/americans-weigh-nuclear-war/

Nations were a mistake.
 
Poll: Plurality supports House tax plan, but many expect to pay more

Based on what they’ve seen, read or heard about the bill, 39 percent of those surveyed said they “strongly” or “somewhat” support it, while 31 percent oppose it and the rest are undecided. Support ticked up to 41 percent and opposition dropped to 29 percent after respondents were told about key details of the plan.


However, 36 percent expect to pay more federal, state and local taxes under the plan, despite Republicans touting it as a tax cut for most Americans. Twenty percent said it would lower their taxes and 19 percent said they would stay about the same. Twenty-five percent weren’t sure what affect it would have on them or offered no opinion.
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/22/poll-house-tax-plan-184169

This is very, very, very significant.
 
berbatrick said:
Public opinion unlikely to curb a U.S. president’s use of nuclear weapons in war, Stanford scholar finds
Stanford scholar Scott Sagan found that a majority of Americans prioritize protecting U.S. troops and achieving American war aims, even when doing so would result in the use of nuclear weapons and the deaths of millions of civilians in another country.



https://news.stanford.edu/2017/08/08/americans-weigh-nuclear-war/

Nations were a mistake.
Click to expand...

The study is a bit flawed in that it does not seem to consider the number of civilian lives that would be lost in An invasion. The question really should be nuke killing 2 million vs invasion killing 20,000 us troops plus X amount of Iranian civilians.

The alternative they consider is a bombing campaign killing 100,000 thousand civilians vs the invasion but again without calculating in civilian deaths in the invasion.

It also fails as a comparison to the 1945 decision since the estimates of US military casualties from an extended land campaign coupled with the expectations of millions of Japanese casualties (civilian and military).
 
Adebesi said:
I am not American and didnt follow even British politics, let alone US politics, anywhere near as closely back then as I do now, so I cant really say. But while Bush was alarming (even to the casual observer I was at the time) because of his lack of attention to detail, and the whole neo-con thing, he didnt come across as proudly bigoted as Trump, did he? I mean the whole "grab them by the pussy" thing, the incendiary language about immigrants, openly advocating bombing the families of terrorists as a proxy for dealing with the terrorists themselves - I dont think Bush ever said anything comparable? Back then saying something like "iraq, Iran and North Korea form an axis of evil" was hugely controversial. If Trump said that it would be about the least controversial thing he said that day.

Im sure there are comparisons to be made between them. And like I said I may also be remembering Bush with rose-tinted glasses to some extent. It was his Presidency that really made me sit up and take notice of US politics (as well as the fact I was a young adult at that point and therefore more likely to start paying attention anyway). But while it seemed horrific then, and for sure it set a lot of shit in motion that we are still dealing with today, it all seems relatively innocent compared.
Click to expand...

Cheesy said:
Definitely not. There are speeches post 9/11 where Bush defends Islam and argues that people shouldn't tarnish all Muslims under the same brush. Trump doing the same now would be unimaginable.

Of course, there's an argument that someone being more official and statesmanlike in public doesn't mean if you're adversely affected by their regime, but yeah, Bush - while being a staunch Republican - was nowhere near as extreme as Trump for the most part, at least in his rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, JWB maybe more politically correct than Trump but he led a crusade into multiple middle east sovereign states, which would see over a million lives lost under the guise of reasoning that proved to be propoganda, ie lies, in order to be imperialistic and to benefit financially.

He also fecked over the victims of Huricane Katrina IIRC. Is Trump to the right of Bush on healthcare and gun control? I'm not sure.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Wait a minute, JWB maybe more politically correct than Trump but he led a crusade into multiple middle east sovereign states, which would see over a million lives lost under the guise of reasoning that proved to be propoganda, ie lies, in order to be imperialistic and to benefit financially.

He also fecked over the victims of Huricane Katrina IIRC. Is Trump to the right of Bush on healthcare and gun control? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Trump is also much less competent than W, so even if he is further to the right he lacks the ability to implement much of his agenda.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Wait a minute, JWB maybe more politically correct than Trump but he led a crusade into multiple middle east sovereign states, which would see over a million lives lost under the guise of reasoning that proved to be propoganda, ie lies, in order to be imperialistic and to benefit financially.

He also fecked over the victims of Huricane Katrina IIRC. Is Trump to the right of Bush on healthcare and gun control? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Freedom though.
 
Steve King is more or less an arch conservative who has intermittently dabbled in the fringe over his career.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Wait a minute, JWB maybe more politically correct than Trump but he led a crusade into multiple middle east sovereign states, which would see over a million lives lost under the guise of reasoning that proved to be propoganda, ie lies, in order to be imperialistic and to benefit financially.
Click to expand...

From everything we've seen and heard so far, Trump would have no qualms doing exactly the same, except where one person thought they had WMDs, Trump would do it because [insert country here]'s leader said they didn't like him. The points about how they both handle themselves respectively is a valid one. They're true regardless of the war in Iraq.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.