Discussion of Concerns for Trump Presidency

[Horseman 2,467]

3 hours ago, Fnord said:

I'm not talking about advocacy, I'm talking about expertise. Vance can put on a good show, but he's a politician. He doesn't know any more about the logistical steps or the realities of what needs to be done than you or I. But he's ready to support shutting down the government agency that is charged with knowing what needs to be done.

The intense disdain from MAGA for expertise is among the most alarming aspects of the movement. It shows a lack of curiosity, deep mistrust, and ultimately will compound problems when shlt hits the fan and the government finds itself with no answers because those that may have had them were deemed "deep state" and were fired.

 

Experts, experts like Fauci?   "Experts" never work for the low paying government, they work for high paying corporations. That's what Trump and Vance are good at, they rely on the more capable private sector to clean up the messes.  Win-Win 

[Fnord 2,280]

47 minutes ago, Horseman said:

 "Experts" never work for the low paying government, they work for high paying corporations. 

Thanks, Manure, for once again showing everyone how warped your perspective is. Here's a hint for LIFE WINNERS: not everybody is solely motivated by personal gain and wealth. Some people actually care about others and work to do the right thing, like civil service. Considering your personality, it's obvious that you cannot even fathom those people being extant. Because of that fact, you believe the above, which is absurd and demonstrably wrong. 

 

[The Real timschochet 6,786]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Thanks, Manure, for once again showing everyone how warped your perspective is. Here's a hint for LIFE WINNERS: not everybody is solely motivated by personal gain and wealth. Some people actually care about others and work to do the right thing, like civil service. Considering your personality, it's obvious that you cannot even fathom those people being extant. Because of that fact, you believe the above, which is absurd and demonstrably wrong. 

 

@Horseman has got to be a fictional creation designed to troll us right? Impossible to believe that somebody could be this genuinely and openly stupid and awful in real life. 

[Horseman 2,467]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Thanks, Manure, for once again showing everyone how warped your perspective is. Here's a hint for LIFE WINNERS: not everybody is solely motivated by personal gain and wealth. Some people actually care about others and work to do the right thing, like civil service. Considering your personality, it's obvious that you cannot even fathom those people being extant. Because of that fact, you believe the above, which is absurd and demonstrably wrong. 

 

Great. Thanks for the speech. Most every expert does not work for the government.  Your speech didn't change that fact.  

[Horseman 2,467]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

@Horseman has got to be a fictional creation designed to troll us right? Impossible to believe that somebody could be this genuinely and openly stupid and awful in real life. 

Weakling. Scared of his own shadow.  

[The Real timschochet 6,786]

Just now, Horseman said:

Great. Thanks for the speech. Most every expert does not work for the government.  Your speech didn't change that fact.  

It’s not true at all. Heard of NASA? What a dumbass you are. 

[Fnord 2,280]

3 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Great. Thanks for the speech. Most every expert does not work for the government.  Your speech didn't change that fact.  

Did I say they did? No. I said you were wrong.

Frankly I'm surprised you admitted to reading my post. I was expecting a tl:dr with your trademark dipshit syntax error.

[Horseman 2,467]

26 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s not true at all. Heard of NASA? What a dumbass you are. 

Compare them to SpaceX now dummy.  Elon Musk has more satellites in orbit right this second than all of the other satellites in history combined.  

I rest my case. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

Good news shitlibs, Rep Al Green will be filing articles of impeachment for what he says are “dastardly deeds”.  lol. 

[lod001 1,344]

Retarded rep Al Green - "The movement to impeach the President has begun. I rise to announce that I will bring Articles of Impeachment against the President for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done.”

Elon Musk - "No one cares"  Yes, that was his reply. 

[BirdGang 385]

1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Retarded rep Al Green - "The movement to impeach the President has begun. I rise to announce that I will bring Articles of Impeachment against the President for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done.”

Elon Musk - "No one cares"  Yes, that was his reply. 

The clown party had cried wolf too many times. How do they not see no one with a brain takes them seriously?

[lod001 1,344]

No more trannies in women's sports. Signed today. Democrats could care less, they re focused on their gravy train being dismantled, USAID. Right now the Ds are the ones saying fock off trannies. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

16 minutes ago, lod001 said:

No more trannies in women's sports. Signed today. Democrats could care less, they re focused on their gravy train being dismantled, USAID. Right now the Ds are the ones saying fock off trannies. 

So true! 

[Voltaire 5,317]

2 hours ago, lod001 said:

Retarded rep Al Green - "The movement to impeach the President has begun. I rise to announce that I will bring Articles of Impeachment against the President for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done.”

Elon Musk - "No one cares"  Yes, that was his reply. 

A nice thing about Elon Musk is that dastardly deeds are done dirt cheap.

[TrailGuy 554]

On 11/13/2024 at 5:13 PM, jerryskids said:

Why would Trump object to Ukraine joining NATO?  I actually think that would be a great concession from Russia.   

[TrailGuy 554]

On 11/8/2024 at 6:01 PM, jerryskids said:

 If Trump institutes the tariffs in the way he's described, it would likely cause a significant increase in prices for a lot of everyday goods.  I've argued that this is part of his "art of the deal" to get China to negotiate, but that is my opinion only, so this is a valid concern.

I don't want to limit discussion, but I'll say right now that "he said he'd be a dictator on day one" is dumb and not going to make the cut, since this is childish and has been debunked.

[TrailGuy 554]

On 11/8/2024 at 7:25 PM, Mike Hunt said:

Others who are older saying "Trump us going to cut out SS and medicare..we are all screwed" That is not happening.

 

[lickin_starfish 1,938]

26 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

https://media.scored.co/scale/5oppvWMAMejq4zzd.jpeg

[The Psychic Observer 498]

On 11/8/2024 at 7:44 PM, Strike said:

Jerry has tried to explain it to you in the past but you're apparently incapable of understanding that Trump talks in big picture terms and you have to parse what the actual intent is.  His actions are intended to achieve a specific outcome.  The methodology isn't what's important to him.  So, when they get down to what the actual methodology is it may look markedly different than what he said in a speech, especially since so many of his speeches are off the cuff and not rehearsed over and over like Kamalatoe.  Just like Tariffs.  I will bet you $1000 right now that whatever he ends up doing on Tariffs will not be an across the board 20% Tariff.  If you truly believe that's what he intends to do here's your chance to make an easy grand. 

 

[Fnord 2,280]

The head of the DOJ's "weaponization" group, who is ostensibly supposed to prevent weaponization, has unsurprisingly weaponized the DOJ against Trump's perceived opponents.

If Justice Dept. Can’t Prosecute Trump’s Foes, It Will ‘Shame’ Them, Official Says

Some highlights:

Quote

President Trump has kept up a steady bombardment of suggestions, requests and demands to arrest, investigate or prosecute targets of his choosing — the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, various Democrats, officials who refuted his election lies, Beyoncé, the Boss.

But Mr. Trump’s directives have so far hit a stubborn snag. Few, if any, of those singled out have done anything to invite conventional prosecutorial scrutiny, much less committed prosecutable crimes to warrant an indictment under federal law.

But a Trump loyalist, given new, vague and possibly vast power, has found a workaround.

In recent days, Ed Martin, the self-described “captain” of the Justice Department’s “weaponization” group, made a candid if unsurprising admission: He plans to use his authority to expose and discredit those he believes to be guilty, even if he cannot find sufficient evidence to prosecute them — weaponizing an institution he has been hired to de-weaponize, in the view of critics.

“If they can be charged, we’ll charge them,” Mr. Martin told reporters before stepping down as interim U.S. attorney in Washington. “But if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed.”

He added, “That’s the way things work.”

 

That is not the way things have worked. The cardinal rule of prosecutors is to speak only through evidence and court filings. The department is supposed to abide by the dictum of charging crimes, not people. Naming and shaming is antithetical to its mission of pursuing justice impartially. And Mr. Martin’s statement appears to violate the department’s ethical and procedural rule book, which mandates “fair, evenhanded” investigations to safeguard “the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged” investigative targets.

“Outside of cases where you have someone whose conduct is open and notorious, the idea of targeting individuals is antithetical to the notion of the government investigating crimes, not people,” said Daniel C. Richman, a law professor at Columbia and a former federal prosecutor.

“And the person who will be picking out those people has no record of the prudential exercise of judgment in federal prosecutions, but in fact has a record of abusive invocations of government power,” he added.

Since taking office, Mr. Trump has blurred, and at times obliterated, the line between personal score-settling and running a country — threatening law firms that harbor his opponents and using presidential power to punish or intimidate individuals and institutions, often using the threat of Justice Department action as leverage to extract concessions.

Earlier this month, Republican senators blocked Mr. Martin’s nomination to permanently run the U.S. attorney’s office. In recompense, he was given control over the department’s pardon office and the weaponization group with authority to pursue Mr. Trump’s onetime investigators, including Jack Smith, the special counsel who indicted him twice.

Mr. Martin has virtually no investigative experience. Instead he has signaled he intends to subject the president’s accusers to humiliations and inconveniences comparable to what Mr. Trump endured, to right perceived wrongs.

 

[shadrap 228]

6 minutes ago, Fnord said:

The head of the DOJ's "weaponization" group, who is ostensibly supposed to prevent weaponization, has unsurprisingly weaponized the DOJ against Trump's perceived opponents.

If Justice Dept. Can’t Prosecute Trump’s Foes, It Will ‘Shame’ Them, Official Says

Some highlights:

 

I'm not getting a subscription to NYT in order to read it.  Any other sources?

[shadrap 228]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

The head of the DOJ's "weaponization" group, who is ostensibly supposed to prevent weaponization, has unsurprisingly weaponized the DOJ against Trump's perceived opponents.

If Justice Dept. Can’t Prosecute Trump’s Foes, It Will ‘Shame’ Them, Official Says

Some highlights:

 

not giving them my email and password either.

[Fnord 2,280]

2 minutes ago, shadrap said:

not giving them my email and password either.

Here ya go.

[shadrap 228]

3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Here ya go.

thanks.  Read it.  See how it plays out.

[Fnord 2,280]

1 minute ago, shadrap said:

thanks.  Read it.  See how it plays out.

Sure. No need to overreact for now.

Do you think that if a Democratic admin did this that conservatives would be fine with it?

[shadrap 228]

7 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Sure. No need to overreact for now.

Do you think that if a Democratic admin did this that conservatives would be fine with it?

Dems did it to Trump for 4 years so not sure what you are asking.

[Fnord 2,280]

Just now, shadrap said:

Dems did it to Trump for 4 years so not sure what you are asking.

We obviously disagree about this, so let me say it this way:

What if the Dems created a new position in the DOJ for a known Biden toadie who then went on to say the same things about Biden's enemies that Ed Martin did about Trump's?

“If they can be charged, we’ll charge them, but if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed."

Doesn't that sort of fly in the face of prosecutorial conduct?

[shadrap 228]

6 minutes ago, Fnord said:

We obviously disagree about this, so let me say it this way:

What if the Dems created a new position in the DOJ for a known Biden toadie who then went on to say the same things about Biden's enemies that Ed Martin did about Trump's?

“If they can be charged, we’ll charge them, but if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed."

Doesn't that sort of fly in the face of prosecutorial conduct?

I doubt that, but it's not right.  Biden & Company did it for 4 years, but that doesn't make it right either

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

We obviously disagree about this, so let me say it this way:

What if the Dems created a new position in the DOJ for a known Biden toadie who then went on to say the same things about Biden's enemies that Ed Martin did about Trump's?

“If they can be charged, we’ll charge them, but if they can’t be charged, we will name them. And we will name them, and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed."

Doesn't that sort of fly in the face of prosecutorial conduct?

This ball bag brings this up on the same day that it was revealed that the  Biden admin put Tulsi Gabbard on a terrorist watch list and surveilled her.  Good job. 

[shadrap 228]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

This ball bag brings this up on the same day that it was revealed that the  Biden admin put Tulsi Gabbard on a terrorist watch list and surveilled her.  Good job. 

I agree, they are all for law & order unless it's their guy doing the crap.  Tulsi is just the latest.  

[Fnord 2,280]

14 minutes ago, shadrap said:

I agree, they are all for law & order unless it's their guy doing the crap.  Tulsi is just the latest.  

Unlike the living, breathing non-sequitur you're responding to, you're better than this. I've never had a problem investigating anyone for whom the evidence justified it. I haven't heard about this story and won't comment other than to say Tulsi's allegiances have been in question since she identified as a Democrat, years ago.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

23 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Unlike the living, breathing non-sequitur you're responding to, you're better than this. I've never had a problem investigating anyone for whom the evidence justified it. I haven't heard about this story and won't comment other than to say Tulsi's allegiances have been in question since she identified as a Democrat, years ago.

I have to say I’m very surprised a knowledgeable, truth seeker like you hasnt heard about it. I guess it’s no big deal.  Now, about Trump! OMG! OMG! Authoritarian! 

[shadrap 228]

21 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Unlike the living, breathing non-sequitur you're responding to, you're better than this. I've never had a problem investigating anyone for whom the evidence justified it. I haven't heard about this story and won't comment other than to say Tulsi's allegiances have been in question since she identified as a Democrat, years ago.

Looks to me as if the surveillance on her took place in 2022 when she switched from Dem to Republican.  correct?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

Just now, shadrap said:

Looks to me as if the surveillance on her took place in 2022 when she switched from Dem to Republican.  correct?

That’s the allegiance he’s talking about. And we all know it.   But these cack suckers will probably slap a Russia! Sticker on it.  

[shadrap 228]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s the allegiance he’s talking about. And we all know it.   But these cack suckers will probably slap a Russia! Sticker on it.  

Paperwork shows she was tracked on flights in 2024.  Republican=enemy of the State.  Find something anything, Garland & his minions will take them down!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

Just now, shadrap said:

Paperwork shows she was tracked on flights in 2024.  Republican=enemy of the State.  Find something anything, Garland & his minions will take them down!

All this Russian collusion. So when exactly is the payoff? 

[shadrap 228]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

All this Russian collusion. So when exactly is the payoff? 

Not to worry, Schiff has promised us that what he has seen is solid, dependable, rock solid evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.  3 years of that, nightly with the media lapping it up & spouting it as truth.  Made up dossier paid for by Clinton.  Journalism?  gone away due to partisanship.  not good.

[Fnord 2,280]

33 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I have to say I’m very surprised a knowledgeable, truth seeker like you hasnt heard about it. I guess it’s no big deal.  Now, about Trump! OMG! OMG! Authoritarian! 

I don't have time to sit on my ass and stare at Fox or any other news outlet all day. 

I'm glad you're coming around to the truth about Trump at least.

[Fnord 2,280]

38 minutes ago, shadrap said:

Looks to me as if the surveillance on her took place in 2022 when she switched from Dem to Republican.  correct?

No idea, haven't seen anything about this story. She's been a known Assad apologist for longer than that, though. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,457]

Schroeders cat.