The Former Trump Presidency Thread

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:04 am

Cant be so lucky.

I have had and continue to have this weird feeling that we have an unmarried President. I know he IS married but it just feels like he is a single President.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:31 am

The wall is in Mexico now?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:22 am

Fitzy wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:31 am The wall is in Mexico now?

M is for Military? I'd guess his genius plan to make Mexico pay for the wall now includes stealing money from the military budget.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:47 am

Kinda surprising Mexico hasn't already built the wall...to keep Trump out.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:10 am

Daehawk wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:04 am I have had and continue to have this weird feeling that we have an unmarried President. I know he IS married but it just feels like he is a single President.

Well, I think there's pretty good odds that he'll be firing Melania soon. Of course, he'll probably replace her with Ivanka, if she can survive a Senate confirmation. Or maybe Sean Hannity.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:01 am

Max Peck wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:22 am
Fitzy wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:31 am The wall is in Mexico now?
M is for Military? I'd guess his genius plan to make Mexico pay for the wall now includes stealing money from the military budget.

If that's true, I hope Congress steps up and stops it. The money wasn't appropriated for the wall. He can't just shift it. That would be an outright violation of the Constitution I'd think.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:05 pm

Fitzy wrote:
Max Peck wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:22 am
Fitzy wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:31 am The wall is in Mexico now?
M is for Military? I'd guess his genius plan to make Mexico pay for the wall now includes stealing money from the military budget.
If that's true, I hope Congress steps up and stops it. The money wasn't appropriated for the wall. He can't just shift it. That would be an outright violation of the Constitution I'd think.

Enemy combatants pouring into our country? Wtf.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:07 pm

See, illegal immigrants are enemy combatants. Conveniently, that lets us bypass a lot of Constitutional protections!

Man, between these enemy combatants and the media being the enemy of the people, we're in a real war for our country!

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:45 pm

Hearts and minds

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:01 pm

Chaz wrote:See, illegal immigrants are enemy combatants. Conveniently, that lets us bypass a lot of Constitutional protections!

Man, between these enemy combatants and the media being the enemy of the people, we're in a real war for our country!

Illegal immigrants are great multitaskers. They smuggle drugs, are terrorists, and take white people jobs!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:13 pm

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:01 pm
Chaz wrote:See, illegal immigrants are enemy combatants. Conveniently, that lets us bypass a lot of Constitutional protections!

Man, between these enemy combatants and the media being the enemy of the people, we're in a real war for our country!
Illegal immigrants are great multitaskers. They smuggle drugs, are terrorists, and take white people jobs!

All while being lazy takers who don't work!

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:05 pm

Holman wrote:
$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:01 pm
Chaz wrote:See, illegal immigrants are enemy combatants. Conveniently, that lets us bypass a lot of Constitutional protections!

Man, between these enemy combatants and the media being the enemy of the people, we're in a real war for our country!
Illegal immigrants are great multitaskers. They smuggle drugs, are terrorists, and take white people jobs!
All while being lazy takers who don't work!

You see? The best multitaskers!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:08 pm

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9792089088
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 7572745216

Donald Trump wrote:Many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case...don’t believe the Fake News narrative that it is hard to find a lawyer who wants to take this on. Fame & fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted. Problem is that a new......

Donald Trump, finishing his sentence in just nine minutes, also wrote:....lawyer or law firm will take months to get up to speed (if for no other reason than they can bill more), which is unfair to our great country - and I am very happy with my existing team. Besides, there was NO COLLUSION with Russia, except by Crooked Hillary and the Dems!

"All the best lawyers want to work for me because lawyers are greedy famewhore assholes, but cowards! Also, it is unfair that law is hard! Also I love and am happy with my permanent legal team that keeps quitting! Also NO COLLUSION so who needs lawyers right??"

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:30 pm

We need a Joseph Welch moment to just end this shit. Isn't it time?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:07 pm

When discussing lawyers, he tied an onion to his belt, which was the style at the time.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:14 am

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:33 amNo, I meant I can't read it because it will piss me off that a hardworking, patriotic man's retirement could be destroyed by a single act of a petty conman who honors nothing, not even himself.

Despite it all, McCabe doesn't regret a thing.

Article wrote:There is nothing like having the opportunity to be a part of the greatest law-enforcement organization in the world, working every day for goals that you respect and cherish. It is the best job you will ever have. Even if a president decides to attack you and your family. Even if you get fired on a Friday night, one day from your retirement.

I hope somewhere in the gears of government, they're able to round off his tenure and give him his proper retirement.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:03 am

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/sta ... 59809?s=09

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:33 am

Paingod wrote: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:14 am Despite it all, McCabe doesn't regret a thing.

Well of course not. Except for the whole "getting fired days before getting his full pension" thing.

Why would he regret the rest of his career?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:54 pm

Holman wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:43 am https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 8364171264

Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!
Did he have a stroke?

So good, he needed to remind us.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:58 pm

I see he did a speech Friday. my wife is watching her soaps she DVRd and I heard him yakking. Blah blah blah blah bladiblah. They should turn the little bitch over so he can talk out of his mouth. I dont know how he breaths sitting on his face.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:03 pm

Pro tip: When you use a dollar sign, don't spell out "dollars."

Trump offends my editorial sensibilities with every keystroke, but that one in particular peeves me -- even more so in a format with a character limit.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:10 pm

And they have him double the characters that almost everyone else gets.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:17 pm

It's like the letters I've been editing for the past couple of weeks. Don't start with "I can't begin to say everything that's great about ____ in just 300 words," because you just wasted 14 of them.

We now return to our regularly scheduled Trump bashing.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:42 am

Trump administration to add citizenship question back into census

The decennial census generally included a citizenship inquiry for more than 100 years through 1950, according to the Commerce Department. And other, smaller population surveys, such as the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey, continue to ask respondents about it.

“The census numbers provide the backbone for planning how our communities can grow and thrive in the coming decade,” said Mr. Becerra. “What the Trump administration is requesting is not just alarming, it is an unconstitutional attempt to discourage an accurate census count.”

Others argued that an undercount in regions with high immigrant populations would lead not only to unreliable data but also to unfair redistricting, to the benefit of Republicans.

“Adding this question will result in a bad census — deeply flawed population data that will skew public and private sector decisions to ensure equal representation, allocate government resources and anticipate economic growth opportunities — for the next 10 years,” Vanita Gupta, the chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a deputy attorney general in the Obama administration, said in a statement Monday night. “The stakes are too high to allow this. We urge Congress to overturn this error in judgment.”

The announcement of the citizenship question comes at a troublesome time for the Census Bureau: Its top two positions have interim occupants, and it has been forced to skip two of its three trial runs for the 2020 census because of funding shortfalls. If response rates for the census are low, critics worry that the bureau may be unable to adjust the data or deploy enough census takers to low-response communities.

The bureau is required to submit a final list of the 2020 census questions to Congress by the end of March.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:17 am

They'll get sued and lose. If not... Another way to fuck over a whole bunch of people.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:27 am

tjg_marantz wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:17 am They'll get sued and lose. If not... Another way to fuck over a whole bunch of people.

eh, I doubt that there's a strong argument that the administration cannot as a constitutional matter include a citizenship question. Not that I doubt the administration's ability to fuck this kind of thing up by admitting that they're doing this for a discriminatory purpose, but at a minimum I wouldn't assume that they'll lose on this.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:38 am

I wouldn't assume they'll lose either. California will have to make a convincing argument that including the question will undermine the accurate count. It'll be funny if the administration's ICE crackdown is used against them here.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:56 am

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0307505153

That Fucking Moron wrote:THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:38 am

malchior wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:56 am https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0307505153

That Fucking Moron wrote:THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!

A lot of single issue voters will hold their noses once again and vote R. But it looks like there are a lot of new single issue voters on the other side now.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:49 am

His implication that the Supreme Court needs to be controlled in perpetuity by the Republicans, further establishing it as a partisan institution, is not helpful. Not that the SCOTUS isn't working on that themselves but this is unprecedented for a President. He is a termite chewing away at Democracy.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:59 am

malchior wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:49 am His implication that the Supreme Court needs to be controlled in perpetuity by the Republicans, further establishing it as a partisan institution, is not helpful. Not that the SCOTUS isn't working on that themselves but this is unprecedented for a President. He is a termite chewing away at Democracy.

The Supreme Court has been a selling point of the presidency for as long as I can remember. He's just unabashedly using it as a threat.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:03 am

malchior wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:49 am Not that the SCOTUS isn't working on that themselves but this is unprecedented for a President.

FDR disagrees.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:57 am

msteelers wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:03 am
malchior wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:49 am Not that the SCOTUS isn't working on that themselves but this is unprecedented for a President.
FDR disagrees.

Fair enough. Though I'll note that FDR's party acted against him whereas the Republican party specifically enables Trump.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:10 am

malchior wrote:His implication that the Supreme Court needs to be controlled in perpetuity by the Republicans, further establishing it as a partisan institution, is not helpful. Not that the SCOTUS isn't working on that themselves but this is unprecedented for a President. He is a termite chewing away at Democracy.

I’m more bothered by the fact that he thinks the Supreme Court could find a new amendment unconstitutional.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:11 am

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but continuing to call Trump's actions "unprecedented" bothers me (when used to imply that "unprecedented" = "egregious").

1. That is EXACTLY what his base eats up. It's like fuel for the Trumpster fire. If I were to try to argue with a Trump supporter, and used "but his actions are unprecedented!" Their reaction would likely be "No shit! That's one of the main reasons I voted for him!"
2. Speaking for myself, as an avowed anti-Trumper (that even possible?

), this descriptor gives me fits. "Unprecedented" is not necessarily evil. I am quite open to new ideas and change, on EITHER side, so the implication that he's doing things that no president did before him is weak sauce criticism IMO. Criticize the idiocy of his actions, not the fact that they are different or new.

/rant

Not attaching you, Malchior, sorry, that word just sets me off for some reason.
I love you, man.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:16 am

I think we can just use the word rational people tend to mean when they use unprecedented in Trumpian context: unacceptable. Just mentally swap the two and you'll feel better.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:27 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:59 am
malchior wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:49 am His implication that the Supreme Court needs to be controlled in perpetuity by the Republicans, further establishing it as a partisan institution, is not helpful. Not that the SCOTUS isn't working on that themselves but this is unprecedented for a President. He is a termite chewing away at Democracy.
The Supreme Court has been a selling point of the presidency for as long as I can remember. He's just unabashedly using it as a threat.

As a president should. I couldn't figure out why that wasn't the topic of discussion in 2016. Even though he never said it out loud, it was for FuckOTUS and his support group and that's what his opponent should have been hammering non stop as Congress was holding up the nomination. Non stop.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:33 am

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:16 am I think we can just use the word rational people tend to mean when they use unprecedented in Trumpian context: unacceptable. Just mentally swap the two and you'll feel better.

You can make your own Chrome plugin.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:47 am

Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:11 am 1. That is EXACTLY what his base eats up. It's like fuel for the Trumpster fire. If I were to try to argue with a Trump supporter, and used "but his actions are unprecedented!" Their reaction would likely be "No shit! That's one of the main reasons I voted for him!"

Not attaching you, Malchior, sorry, that word just sets me off for some reason.
I love you, man.

No worries - Zaxxon got it right. Unprecedented in my head at this point when applied to Trump is defined as "no reasonable person much less a President should say these things."

That his base eats it up is something I don't care about. They are idiots. They'll vote stupidly and without reason no matter what. They are the sunk cost of Democracy. I can't worry about them. We need to worry about reaching people with judgement. And that's the rub - judgement shifts based on the landscape of the time. For example, some people naturally seek the center of arguments. The right has spent inordinate amounts of resources and time re-framing everything so far to the right that the center is on the outskirts of crazy town now.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:51 am

malchior wrote:They are the sunk cost of Democracy.

Bravo.