*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

I have a co-worker who's an over-enthusiastic muslim. I successfully avoided him for a while, but he finally catches me and rattles down Thomas of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of god. I point out to him that those are Thomas of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of god and that they're not as fresh as he believes them to be - being reasonably proud of myself for remembering the name Thomas of Aquinas. Then he comes at me with the fine-tuned universe argument. I explain how the anthropic principle does away with that, now wallowing in self-satisfaction for remembering the anthropic principle. He agrees that I have made a good point and we go on our way.
A couple months later he makes the same point, and I tell him we've had the exact same conversation a while back, and I write "the anthropic principle" on a piece of paper and tell him to look it up.
Yesterday I overheard him ask someone else about the fine-tuned universe. I don't think he's being deliberately obtuse, I think he's incapable of absorbing information that clashes with his core belief system, and to a pretty ridiculous degree at that.

It's interesting how that works... I don't know how that works, but it seems to be a very human thing to do.

[Poopadoop]

It's perfectly legal for Trump to encourage anyone anywhere to investigate anyone anywhere.

I think this needs qualification though. He can't encourage people to investigate someone for his personal gain. And especially not a foreign power.

Not saying he's the first one to do it, he's just the first one to do it so blatantly as to get caught.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think this needs qualification though. He can't encourage people to investigate someone for his personal gain. And especially not a foreign power.

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that he can use his own personal resources to do things on his own behalf, and if that involves investigating a political rival, that's fine.

Using his words to encourage an investigation is not using national resources for his personal gain.
He can encourage China or any other nation to investigate Biden. He can hire China or any other nation with his own personal money to investigate Biden.

What he can't do is use US national resources for non-national gains. I.e. he cannot use taxpayer money to dig up dirt on his political rivals, whether or not any foreign nation is involved.

Not saying he's the first one to do it, he's just the first one to do it so blatantly as to get caught.

He's not technically been caught at anything, yet.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still the standard, here.

[oskar]

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...rkey-1.7795409

Is this a war crime? Because this looks like a war crime. This is from 6 days ago. After Kurds agreed to the deal and gave up their anti-air defense, Trump gave the greenlight, and right at this moment Turkey is actively slaughtering Kurds who have been the most important US ally in fighting Isis. What is this even about? If Wuf is still here: what Trump is saying is an obvious lie because this is not about american soldiers fighting in foreign wars, this is about allowing Turkey to commit genocide on a US ally without repercussions.

If I didn't think Trump was mentally retarded, I'd be scrambling for reasons, but the most likely reason is that he's just a total idiot and has no fucking idea what he's doing, and he's just rolling over for Erdogan because he's such a dumb bitch.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think he's being deliberately obtuse, I think he's incapable of absorbing information that clashes with his core belief system, and to a pretty ridiculous degree at that.

It's interesting how that works... I don't know how that works, but it seems to be a very human thing to do.

Solidarity, brother.

[Poopadoop]

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that he can use his own personal resources to do things on his own behalf, and if that involves investigating a political rival, that's fine.

Using his words to encourage an investigation is not using national resources for his personal gain.
He can encourage China or any other nation to investigate Biden. He can hire China or any other nation with his own personal money to investigate Biden.

Well he did tell Russia to go find Hillary's emails and nothing happened. So yeah, I guess he can.

It confuses me though because I've heard that you can't accept help from a foreign power in an election. Presumably the same goes if you're an incumbent looking for dirt on your opponent. I'm not sure I understand where the lines get drawn here.

[oskar]

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that he can use his own personal resources to do things on his own behalf, and if that involves investigating a political rival, that's fine.

Using his words to encourage an investigation is not using national resources for his personal gain.
He can encourage China or any other nation to investigate Biden. He can hire China or any other nation with his own personal money to investigate Biden.

What he can't do is use US national resources for non-national gains. I.e. he cannot use taxpayer money to dig up dirt on his political rivals, whether or not any foreign nation is involved.


He's not technically been caught at anything, yet.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still the standard, here.

Dems are handling this horribly. Throw Hunter Biden under the bus! Of course the little shit got the job because his last name is Biden. Of course the company hired him because they were hoping for favors from the Vice President... How dumb do you think your voters are? Why are they even trying to deny that? Everyone knows how that works.

Current situation seems to be that the white house will not recognize impeachment as a thing. So it'll go to the Supreme court which will then decide if you still have a democracy. Fun times, huh?

[Poopadoop]

He's not technically been caught convicted of anything, yet.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still the standard, here.

He's definitely been caught.

If you have videotape of someone committing a murder AND he's id'd by a bunch of witnesses AND he has his fingerprints all over the gun, he's been caught. The conviction is a mere formality of law. Though more complicated in this case obviously because politics.

[Poopadoop]

Current situation seems to be that the white house will not recognize impeachment as a thing.

And by doing so they're obstructing congress and/or justice depending on who you ask.

No-one even takes that stance seriously, everyone can see it's just a delaying tactic.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well he did tell Russia to go find Hillary's emails and nothing happened. So yeah, I guess he can.

It confuses me though because I've heard that you can't accept help from a foreign power in an election. Presumably the same goes if you're an incumbent looking for dirt on your opponent. I'm not sure I understand where the lines get drawn here.

I think you're right. That exposes an assumption I had made, but not stated.

Violating election law is not the same as treason, and I was talking about treason.

[Poopadoop]

I think you're right. That exposes an assumption I had made, but not stated.

Violating election law is not the same as treason, and I was talking about treason.

But treason is giving aid to an enemy power in a time of war. So I don't think what he's done this time is treason. He's still working his way up to that lol.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...rkey-1.7795409

Is this a war crime? Because this looks like a war crime. This is from 6 days ago. After Kurds agreed to the deal and gave up their anti-air defense, Trump gave the greenlight, and right at this moment Turkey is actively slaughtering Kurds who have been the most important US ally in fighting Isis. What is this even about? If Wuf is still here: what Trump is saying is an obvious lie because this is not about american soldiers fighting in foreign wars, this is about allowing Turkey to commit genocide on a US ally without repercussions.

If I didn't think Trump was mentally retarded, I'd be scrambling for reasons, but the most likely reason is that he's just a total idiot and has no fucking idea what he's doing, and he's just rolling over for Erdogan because he's such a dumb bitch.

Even the R's are going nuts over this one...if he's really trying to get the Senate behind impeaching him, he's sure going about it the right way.

More likely though he's just an idiot.

And what did Erdogan say to him that made him throw the Kurds under the bus?

"I'll let you build a casino in Istanbul?"

"I'll send you a cheque?"

"I'll make Ivanka an honorary princess of the Ottoman Empire?"

[MadMojoMonkey]

But treason is giving aid to an enemy power in a time of war. So I don't think what he's done this time is treason. He's still working his way up to that lol.

Hmm..
Had to look it up. found this

Article III, Section III of the US Constitution says this:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

So you're probably right. It'd be a stretch to call this, "giving aid and comfort" to an enemy of the US.

...
Then what is the law he's supposedly breaking? Is it a constitutional law? Some legal precedent?

[MadMojoMonkey]

WTF?
This is all just a campaign finance law violation?

Just shoot me now. He's not gonna get impeached over campaign finance, guys.
C'mon, guys.
Just...
c'mon

[Poopadoop]

Then what is the law he's supposedly breaking? Is it a constitutional law? Some legal precedent?

I'm not sure it's even a law per se that he's breaking. It's just such a blatant abuse of power that congress has to investigate?

[Poopadoop]

WTF?
This is all just a campaign finance law violation?

Just shoot me now. He's not gonna get impeached over campaign finance, guys.
C'mon, guys.
Just...
c'mon

The US constitution states a president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanours".

I think this level of corruption counts as a "high crime and misdemeanour." And they'll probably throw in the obstruction as well.

[wufwugy]

It's interesting how that works... I don't know how that works, but it seems to be a very human thing to do.

Extremely. If the input isn't one of the 6 principles of persuasion, their mind usually will stay the same.

[wufwugy]

I mean... I guess we already got our answer. Wuf isn't even paying attention. He simply presumes the negative things said about Trump are fake news.

Even the positive things about Trump are fake news.

More specifically, I integrate the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect into everything I hear from people whose expertise is storytelling.

[wufwugy]

If Trump did something to deserve impeachment, I hope it happens. I fear that it wouldn't happen because the cacophony impeachment du jour has lost credibility.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Even the positive things about Trump are fake news.

I didn't mean that as a negative.
FFS, I've been trying to follow this and I thought what they were saying is that it was treason to use national assets for personal gain.
It's not.

If the dots connect, and it's not 100%, then all he's done is violate election finance "law." Law is in quotes because technically election finance rules are laws, but the thing is that they're rarely enforced. They're more guidelines than laws in practice.

Pickles on the window was a colorful and apt metaphor.

More specifically, I integrate the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect into everything I hear from people whose expertise is storytelling.

I was thinking, "Gell-Mann... as in Murray Gell-Mann? Nobel Prize winner? the physicist who named the quark? That Gell-Mann?"
Turns out, yeah... that Gell-Mann.

Funny thing is that the quote I found was by Michael Crichton. The same Michael Crichton that was a physician (no shit), novelist and director.

The quote is interesting, but it's just a cute quote from Crichton in 2002. It has no direct relation to physics or to Gell-Mann aside from Crichton saying they talked about it. I don't see any scientific study or psychological findings that support the assertion as a widespread phenomenon.

... but people are pretty dumb and anecdotally, it's apparent everywhere.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's hard to know what the current political measure of an impeachable action is. After reading this wikipedia a bit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._United_States

It's clear that Trump has already gotten away with far more than Andrew Johnson did.

Two of the articles against President Andrew Johnson were based on rude speech that reflected badly on the office: President Johnson had made "harangues" criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority, refusing to follow laws, and diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act,

Game's on us. This is clearly Trump's best troll, yet.
"Hey, Rudy. Wanna do everything on this list of things that other president got impeached for, but we get away with it?"

***
Turns out that while I know a bit about the process of impeachment, I now nothing about the reasons it happens.

[Jack Sawyer]

So, about that Fake News

[Jack Sawyer]

Gun to the head, I'd say he wins >50% of the time, but my confidence is nowhere near what it was for 2016, and he could get beat convincingly.

Who do you think would beat him convincingly?

[wufwugy]

Who do you think would beat him convincingly?

Great question.

I think every candidate can beat him by greater than a narrow margin, and that this can go either way. He has a strong chance against them all as they do against him.

I don't think there is any viable candidate he doesn't stand a chance against.

A lot of people don't like his character or think he could be a racist. All it takes is enough of that and anybody could beat him.

[boost]

MMM

Two things:

1) a quid pro quo is certainly heavily implied and requires willful obtuseness to miss, but nonetheless it's absolutely not necessary for impeachment here. Using the weight on the office and the institutions of government to further his personal interests, in this case Trump's reelection effort, is impeachable. Compounding that violation is using the office and the institutions to undermine a political rival. This is impeachable because if there were no remedy for these transgressions, we're rolling the dice until we land on a dictator for life.

2) Impeachment does not require the breaking of any laws. There are ways in which duly granted powers can be used without breaking a law which nonetheless break out democracy.

All democracies are constantly playing Wack-a-Mole with would be dictators. Republican Rome's fatal flaw, or at least the one that ultimately was exploited by Caesar, was the structure of the military which not only allowed for but incentivized generals to seek and codify the loyalty of their ranks to themselves personally. Impeachment is written into our constitution with intentionally vague parameters-- the best worded laws have loopholes, and loopholes in the limits of power lead to dictators. On the other hand, in the powers of impeachment, the constitution has entrusted in Congress the power to use their sole discretion to decide whether or not our democracy is being broken by a president.

Hey wuf. Hope you're well. Clever move to claim (whether true or not) that you're ignorant of the details as a way to pivot and throw shade at the Democrats. The boy who cried wolf analogy doesn't apply here. It's not the Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi who will get eaten, it's the whole village-- it's all of us.

[MadMojoMonkey]

1) a quid pro quo is certainly heavily implied and requires willful obtuseness to miss, but nonetheless it's absolutely not necessary for impeachment here. Using the weight on the office and the institutions of government to further his personal interests, in this case Trump's reelection effort, is impeachable.

Willful obtuseness is a requisite element of partisan politics, so check that box.

What Trump has already gotten away with is so far above and beyond the precedent for non-POTUS impeachment. Saying what he's done is "impeachable" is not directly true, IMO. Impeachable for someone else in another position, or that same someone at a different time is not really saying that what he's done is impeachable for him today.
Take that quote about Andrew Johnson. The first thing is "rude speech that reflected badly on the office." Trump's "rude speech" is a significant factor in why he was elected. His criticism of Congress and refusal to follow laws is seen as a good thing by Rep voters. Those simply aren't impeachable actions for this POTUS at this time, IMO.

Compounding that violation is using the office and the institutions to undermine a political rival. This is impeachable because if there were no remedy for these transgressions, we're rolling the dice until we land on a dictator for life.

This is significant, but the political powers we have don't care and wont care until/unless we, the constituents, demand they care. The problem is that the constituency is so deeply divided along partisan lines that there's no action.

I mean
I'm dubious that people elected without term-limits are really anti-lifetime political appointment. I.e. Congress has no term limits, and they are primarily focused on keeping their job for life by being re-elected every time election happens. They're clearly in favor of political monopoly. They're clearly in favor of nepotism.
My point is that the ethos that our leaders are interested in leading us is hogwash.

So long as Rep voters are ignoring the criticism of Trump, and will not themselves support impeachment, it is not politically tenable for the Rep Senate to impeach. Unless the Senators are actually concerned that not impeaching Trump threatens their job, they wont impeach.

... is the precedent we've seen over the past many years. ... and if what's past is prologue...

2) Impeachment does not require the breaking of any laws. There are ways in which duly granted powers can be used without breaking a law which nonetheless break out democracy.

Yes. I only recently learned this.
It's actually common for impeachment to happen between the time a person is elected and the time they are sworn into office. Not so much on the national level, mind.

All democracies are constantly playing Wack-a-Mole with would be dictators. Republican Rome's fatal flaw, or at least the one that ultimately was exploited by Caesar, was the structure of the military which not only allowed for but incentivized generals to seek and codify the loyalty of their ranks to themselves personally. Impeachment is written into our constitution with intentionally vague parameters-- the best worded laws have loopholes, and loopholes in the limits of power lead to dictators. On the other hand, in the powers of impeachment, the constitution has entrusted in Congress the power to use their sole discretion to decide whether or not our democracy is being broken by a president.

I can't speak to Rome.

I'm dubious that Congress actually cares that much about "our democracy," so much as they care about "their own job / income / appearance on TV."
I think so long as we the constituents are ignoring each other, ignoring each other's news, pretending our bubbles of like-minded people we talk politics with are "right," that politicians are encouraged to do the same.

I fear its going to take a real breakdown of democratic principles to re-establish a sense of love for democracy in America. Right now, all we have is lip-service to our ideals. Sooner or later, that superficial veneer of justice will flake off and it's going to take a real disaster to wake us up.

I simply cannot get over how we call ourselves the land of the free and put so many of our own people into prisons that we have NGO prisons. I can't get over that we lock people up for non-violent crimes. I can't get over how all this increased punishment has had no effect on the crime rates, and we still have politicians who want to increase punishments to lower crime rates. It's the veneer. It sounds good, so people vote for it. Even though the evidence is everywhere that it's just wrong.

[wufwugy]

Hey wuf. Hope you're well. Clever move to claim (whether true or not) that you're ignorant of the details as a way to pivot and throw shade at the Democrats.

I am well, thank you.

Could you imagine if the opposition had been level-headed and fair for the last 3 years? They'd annihilate Trump if they came upon legitimate enough reason for impeachment. He would stand no chance against credible impeachment.

[oskar]

Who would? The republican majority congress in the first two years? The senate? Who are you talking about? Impeachment inquiry has been going on since months after democrats took back congress, but the white house is blocking people from testifying, is not cooperating with subpoenas and is threatening to sue anyone who does.

Is your theory honestly that if the president is above the law, then he couldn't have done anything wrong because if he did he would have been convicted?

Every day he does something impeachable. This week alone: he's asking China and Ukraine to investigate Biden on camera on the white house lawn. He's breaking a week old treaty with US allies so they can be killed by Turkey - claims it's to end america's involvement in endless wars. Today he sends 1800 more troops to Saudi Arabia. If it was up to anyone with a conscience, Trump would be removed immediately, but legally you can't do that because the constitution wasn't written with a clown fascist in mind, and politically you can't do that because it could start a civil war (it still might).

[oskar]

Do you have thoughts on any of this? What do you think about Manafort as Trumps campaign chairman giving internal polling data to Kilimnik and thereby russian intelligence?

What about half his team including his son and step son meeting with russians at Trump tower explicitly to exchange kompromat on Hillary for lifting of sanctions under the magnitsky act and everyone involved lying about it every step of the way until records showed up.

What about Trump stating he fired Comey because of the russia investigation also telling russian officials in the white house about firing Comey “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

What about the unprecedented act of moving all records of conversations with foreign leaders to a code-level secure server? Doesn't concern you at all? You didn't know about it? You think it's a hoax?

What about white house lawyers actively arguing in court to overturn Flores ruling which states that minor detainees have to be held in safe and sanitary conditions and cannot be held indefinitely. The white house is actively fighting both. They want to be legally able to hold children without soap, toothpaste or blankets, and they want to be able to hold them indefinitely without a trial. What about that? You don't know about it, you don't care or is it a hoax?

[Poopadoop]

Every day he does something impeachable.

Not true. A lot of those days he's too busy having "executive time" to do any work at all.

[Poopadoop]

Impeachment inquiry has been going on since months after democrats took back congress, but the white house is blocking people from testifying, is not cooperating with subpoenas and is threatening to sue anyone who does.

The Impeachment Inquiry only got officially started with the whistleblower thing. Those myriad other investigations are just "oversight."

It does look like he might be going down this time. He's gotten away with far too much criminal behaviour for far too long that I don't think it will be hard to convince the electorate he has to go.

[oskar]

This is probably not protocol but imo it should have started when Rashida Talib announced "We're going to impeach the motherfucker!" because that was the right sentiment.

They have been subpoenaing documents since January. I guess that was under house oversight then.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/s...659569664?s=20

Ben - who-has-been-mentioned-in-a-mass-murderer's-manifesto - Shapiro says murder is the only remedy if someone wants to tell his children that being gay is ok.

#CivilWarOfFuckingRetards
Make it happen!

[Poopadoop]

I don't know how much of this is fake news, but apparently Trump and hs gang decided to sack the ambassador to Ukraine 'cause she wouldn't play ball with his greasy ways. Also, Rudy and others have been talking to Ukraine for quite a while looking to make 'deals' of varyng sorts of scuzziness.

The GOP seems ok with that as they understand most of their voters only watch Fox and the ongoing Trump ball licking that goes on there. But the Kurd thing has taken them out of their comfort zone a bit; even McConnell and Graham are sayings pulling out the troops was a terrible idea.

[oskar]

I'm just going to wait it out on this one. It seems too bizarre. Trumps former lawyer claiming he's now representing Giuliani's two Stooges who are being accused of laundering russian money into the GOP, in a letter to congress in comic sans font in which he claims the house intelligence committee's timeframe for the subpoena to be too hasty and requests more time. Days later Larry and Curly hop on a plane to Vienna on a one-way ticket where they hope to meet Giuliani only to be arrested at the airport.

They say it is Richard Linkletter's worst story yet.

I cannot follow this. This not ok. Too much.

[oskar]

You of course remember John Dowd as Frustrated Trump Attorney from this episode:

Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’ ”

“John, I understand,” Mueller replied, according to Woodward.

Later that month, Dowd told Trump: “Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”

But Trump, concerned about the optics of a president refusing to testify and convinced that he could handle Mueller’s questions, had by then decided otherwise.

“I’ll be a real good witness,” Trump told Dowd, according to Woodward.

“You are not a good witness,” Dowd replied. “Mr. President, I’m afraid I just can’t help you.”

The next morning, Dowd resigned.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...370_story.html

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status...042170368?s=20

#CivilWarOfFuckingRetards
Get it trending! I called it two years ago! Let's go!

[wufwugy]

Question to all:

What is your number one thing that Trump could be doing better on policy?

[wufwugy]

Do you have thoughts on any of this?

I've stayed out of it because the drivers of the stories have a track record of lying to me.

[oskar]

Most of the things I listed are on public record, and the driver of the story is the actual thing happening in front of your eyes.

Asking Ukraine and China to investigate his political opponents: https://youtu.be/HwmlZ85RHPI?t=31

Here's a Trump appointee arguing that children don't need soap water or blankets:
most important parts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjUyr_36MY
complete hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LFv7L58jRA

Since this hearing, they have begun fighting the Flores act which provided the grounds on which these judges rejected the notion that children don't need "safe and sanitary conditions". In fact I believe homeland security, which has gone through two secretaries in the last two months is still actively fighting to dismantle the Flores Settlement. Do you think brown children have a right to soap and water? If you do, you are at odds with the Trump administration, and you better inform yourself.

[oskar]

Question to all:

What is your number one thing that Trump could be doing better on policy?

Get the children out of the camps, and do everything possible to reunite the families he separated.

[wufwugy]

Get the children out of the camps, and do everything possible to reunite the families he separated.

How would you do it?

[oskar]

I'd start by giving them soap water and blankets and then publish a .gov site where people whose children have been taken by border patrol and ICE can get information. But that's not going to happen. Cruelty is the point, and they have said so publicly. Multiple Trump officials have called this a deterrent. 7 children have died in the camps as of May. The people who have been inside the camps have said all the children complain about being cold and hungry.

[oskar]

He's spending hundreds of millions of military construction budget on an unclimbable wall. Obviously the funds are there to care for a couple thousand children.

[CoccoBill]

I think the main issue with Trump isn't his policies, apart from the obvious human right conflicting ones. Your political beliefs may be aligned with some of his (mainly economical) policies. The point is how far you're willing to go to achieve your economic goals. I doubt anyone can disagree that Trump is an immoral lying sack of shit. For some that's a non-issue, as long as they get what they want (see the GOP being able to stay the dominant party), for others it's a moral/ethical issue, where no matter if his policies have a positive effect (which I'd say is at best debatable), having a lying sack of shit hold the nuclear launch codes is not beneficial for the US, nor the human kind. Looking at this show from the outside, my feeling is there's never been a point in time where the US has been seen as a less dependable ally, trading partner or even a party that should be taken seriously.

[wufwugy]

I'd start by giving them soap water and blankets and then publish a .gov site where people whose children have been taken by border patrol and ICE can get information. But that's not going to happen. Cruelty is the point, and they have said so publicly. Multiple Trump officials have called this a deterrent. 7 children have died in the camps as of May. The people who have been inside the camps have said all the children complain about being cold and hungry.

Sounds like a lot can be done. It's certainly not acceptable to point out that Obama had the same issue. Trump's thing is solving the unsolvable problem. He should fix this.

[wufwugy]

I think the main issue with Trump isn't his policies, apart from the obvious human right conflicting ones. Your political beliefs may be aligned with some of his (mainly economical) policies. The point is how far you're willing to go to achieve your economic goals. I doubt anyone can disagree that Trump is an immoral lying sack of shit. For some that's a non-issue, as long as they get what they want (see the GOP being able to stay the dominant party), for others it's a moral/ethical issue, where no matter if his policies have a positive effect (which I'd say is at best debatable), having a lying sack of shit hold the nuclear launch codes is not beneficial for the US, nor the human kind.

You couldn't have said it better for why he's so electorally vulnerable. He may be the least popular president we've ever had. There are so many people that otherwise would be with him on policy but hate him because they (1) don't like his character and/or (2) think he might be a racist.

Looking at this show from the outside, my feeling is there's never been a point in time where the US has been seen as a less dependable ally, trading partner or even a party that should be taken seriously.

It could matter where. He's ridiculously popular in some parts of the world, typically not the developed western part.

[oskar]

I think the main issue with Trump isn't his policies, apart from the obvious human right conflicting ones. Your political beliefs may be aligned with some of his (mainly economical) policies. The point is how far you're willing to go to achieve your economic goals. I doubt anyone can disagree that Trump is an immoral lying sack of shit. For some that's a non-issue, as long as they get what they want (see the GOP being able to stay the dominant party), for others it's a moral/ethical issue, where no matter if his policies have a positive effect (which I'd say is at best debatable), having a lying sack of shit hold the nuclear launch codes is not beneficial for the US, nor the human kind. Looking at this show from the outside, my feeling is there's never been a point in time where the US has been seen as a less dependable ally, trading partner or even a party that should be taken seriously.

Exactly, you can forget about anyone taking US diplomacy seriously in any way for a very long time. Withholding military funds from the Ukraine when they're under immense pressure from Russia, for as far as we know: no other reason than to blackmail them into fabricating dirt on Biden. Signing a deal with the Kurds and Turkey to get the Kurds to remove anti-air from the border, and a week later greenlighting Turkey to attack... That's LAST WEEK. Breaking with the Iran deal, pulling troops from Syria apropos of nothing... declaring Isis has been defeated, which lead to a resurgence of Isis in Syria (who had not been defeated).

It is absolute insanity that his core base has not moved an inch through all of this.

[oskar]

Sounds like a lot can be done. It's certainly not acceptable to point out that Obama had the same issue. Trump's thing is solving the unsolvable problem. He should fix this.

This is a lie. I know you have no source for this because it's a fabrication, but you can go look if you want. Family separation is a Trump policy.

[oskar]

Can I just get you on record real quick that you think this is ok:

Asking Ukraine and China to investigate his political opponents: https://youtu.be/HwmlZ85RHPI?t=31

[wufwugy]

This is a lie. I know you have no source for this because it's a fabrication, but you can go look if you want.

I could be more clear: separations were not as prominent under Obama because his admin didn't prosecute the adults for the crime committed to the same degree that Trump admin is.

Both Obama and Trump have the same issue of having to deal with the border crisis, and the results for both have been unsightly.

[wufwugy]

Can I just get you on record real quick that you think this is ok:

I'm unsure what you're asking me. Do you think this statement is illegal?

[wufwugy]

The border separations is a great example of my biggest issue with Trump. He takes a step towards good governance (prosecuting crime), but then the unintended consequences aren't appropriately dealt with. Some of those get out of hand.

[oskar]

What about the camps? Do you think it's ok to hold children indefinitely without a trial, and to deny them soap, toothpaste and blankets? This is obviously not a money issue. They're paying hundreds of dollars per day and child. This is a deliberate policy. Do you think it's ok to deny soap toothpaste and blankets as a deterrent for south americans not to try to seek asylum in the US?

This is not an unintended consequence. This is a deliberate policy. What about this do you think is unintended?

[oskar]

I'm unsure what you're asking me. Do you think this statement is illegal?

I don't think I could have been more clear. I'm not asking about the legality. I'm asking you if you think this is fine. Are you ok if this sets a precedent? Should the incumbent be free to use the power of his office to gain leverage on his opponent in an upcoming election?

[wufwugy]

What about the camps? Do you think it's ok to hold children indefinitely without a trial, and to deny them soap, toothpaste and blankets? This is obviously not a money issue. They're paying hundreds of dollars per day and child. This is a deliberate policy. Do you think it's ok to deny soap toothpaste and blankets as a deterrent for south americans not to try to seek asylum in the US?

It absolutely is not okay.

This is not an unintended consequence. This is a deliberate policy. What about this do you think is unintended?

I'm paraphrasing politifact. The separations is because of the Trump policy change to prosecute more adults for illegal border crossing crime.

[wufwugy]

I don't think I could have been more clear. I'm not asking about the legality. I'm asking you if you think this is fine. Are you ok if this sets a precedent? Should the incumbent be free to use the power of his office to gain leverage on his opponent in an upcoming election?

I see public statements as mostly political maneuvers.

On that dimension, I don't know what I think, because the primal part of me wants him to frame the Communist Party of China as the genocidal maniacs they are.

[Poopadoop]

I'm paraphrasing politifact. The separations is because of the Trump policy change to prosecute more adults for illegal border crossing crime.

And he's been recorded as asking for alligators and moats ("price this out for me"). Then shooting people in the legs. Surely this tells you he's not fit for office? Or do you just not believe those stories? (And I might add, there appears to be a non-stop stream of such things coming out of his mouth in private...)

[wufwugy]

And he's been recorded as asking for alligators and moats ("price this out for me"). Then shooting people in the legs. Surely this tells you he's not fit for office? Or do you just not believe those stories? (And I might add, there appears to be a non-stop stream of such things coming out of his mouth in private...)

I'd be looking for ways to have far more intense messaging. One of the most important jobs of the government is to make people think that they're getting in big trouble if they break the law.

On the flip side, most Americans don't understand this, so there can be a problem of backlash (which we are seeing). So that's a good reason why the level of intensity of messaging may need to be toned down.

And the messaging does need to fit the crime.

Lots of variables to consider.

[Poopadoop]

Kinda missing the point.

[wufwugy]

Kinda missing the point.

Okay. I would like to understand your point.

[Poopadoop]

I thought i made it.

[Poopadoop]

He's seriously suggesting to build a moat filled with alligators, asking people to find out how much it costs. Then when people around him say 'hmm dunno', he comes up with shooting people in the legs. This isn't 3D chess, it's a guy who's completely out of touch with how to be POTUS.

[wufwugy]

That he leaves everything on the table and appears like he can make any decision at any time is perhaps his greatest negotiation strength.

[Poopadoop]

Not sure we're in the same conversation Wuf.

[oskar]

lol

[wufwugy]

Not sure we're in the same conversation Wuf.

Why do you think he says those things?

[Poopadoop]

I think he says those things because he's an idiot and has no internal filter. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

[CoccoBill]

That's the thing. From the outside, he seems to be doing flawed 1st level thinking. Some people interpret that to mean he's doing brilliant 2nd level thinking. I believe occam's razor applies here, if he were smart he would have slipped out a glimpse of that by now.

[Poopadoop]

I was going to reference Occam's Razor actually. When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck why look for reasons to call it a hamster?

[wufwugy]

He may not have an internal filter. It could be by happenstance that his lack of filter aligns with what seasoned and successful negotiators say works.

[wufwugy]

Which of the successes of the administration so far should not have happened since he's a bumbling fool?

[wufwugy]

[CoccoBill]

What are those successes?

[CoccoBill]

I suppose it's hard to distinguish an idiot with a backup team, that part time says idiotic shit that pops in his mind and sometimes follows the coordinated plan from a genius, that tries to appear like the common joe.