The Former Trump Presidency Thread

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:09 pm

This helps no one except Rip. Idiots. Color me annoyed.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/ann- ... -not-occur

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:33 pm

Maybe she was desperate for a good reason to remove the icon of her oppression?

That bumps the hoax count to ... what... like 14 out of 1,026?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:38 pm

Paingod wrote:Maybe she was desperate for a good reason to remove the icon of her oppression?

That bumps the hoax count to ... what... like 14 out of 1,026?

I don't know about counts. I know this was one specific egregious example that I personally pointed to and am now made the fool.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:57 pm

http://longisland.news12.com/news/nassa ... 1.12784876

Don't stop counting. Sounds like this guy was guilty of several by himself.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:06 pm

Rip wrote:http://longisland.news12.com/news/nassa ... 1.12784876

Don't stop counting. Sounds like this guy was guilty of several by himself.

Did he go to central casting and ask for the Jewiest Jew lawyer he could get?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:32 pm

LordMortis wrote:
despite the alternative being Trump
So much this. I assumed Clinton would win and we would have a resentful country for being forced to take that medicine. I was wrong. We had such a resentful country they refused the medicine.

When we talk about popularity, it seems odd to me. From where I sit, she was popular in no small part because her opposition was Trump. Her popularity was in the fact her opponent belittled crippled people, attacked minorities, and is publicly a misogynist. This was the ideal circumstance for her. Someone she could handily rally the people against.

I thought this topical because of how it's framed. Not "Americans who voted for Clinton" which would suggest her popularity but "American who voted against Trump"

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topofthe ... story.html

We didn't lose because Clinton didn't win. We lost because Trump won. We aren't suffering collective numb depression or dread because Clinton lost but because Trump won.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:44 pm

LordMortis wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
despite the alternative being Trump
So much this. I assumed Clinton would win and we would have a resentful country for being forced to take that medicine. I was wrong. We had such a resentful country they refused the medicine.

When we talk about popularity, it seems odd to me. From where I sit, she was popular in no small part because her opposition was Trump. Her popularity was in the fact her opponent belittled crippled people, attacked minorities, and is publicly a misogynist. This was the ideal circumstance for her. Someone she could handily rally the people against.
I thought this topical because of how it's framed. Not "Americans who voted for Clinton" which would suggest her popularity but "American who voted against Trump"

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topofthe ... story.html

We didn't lose because Clinton didn't win. We lost because Trump won. We aren't suffering collective numb depression or dread because Clinton lost but because Trump won.

From the LA Times article:

In a post-election survey, the Public Policy Polling organization found that 67% of Trump voters think unemployment increased during Barack Obama’s presidency while only 20% know the opposite is actually true. Though the stock market skyrocketed to record heights during the Obama years, 60% of those who voted for Trump either do not know it or do not believe it. Forty percent of Trump voters also say their candidate won the popular vote, even though Clinton now leads in the count by nearly 3 million ballots. Perhaps that is why friendly crowds at his victory rallies continue to cheer when Trump makes the obviously false claim that he won the election in a landslide. They do not know better.

Emphasis mine, highlighting the scary part. This is why I have more contempt than pity for so many of the Trumpers. It's not simply that I disagree with them, rather it's that their misinformed, smug certainty is flat out wrong, but their ideas gets to decide what happens to my life. Screw those people.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:29 pm

LordMortis wrote:
We didn't lose because Clinton didn't win. We lost because Trump won. We aren't suffering collective numb depression or dread because Clinton lost but because Trump won.

Well sure. Very few people beyond partisan Democrats actively looked forward to President Hillary, and if she had won we would be feeling collective buyer's remorse..."but at least she stopped Trump" because that would be a disaster.

Not even the oligarchs foresaw or wanted a kleptocracy. Yet here we are, facing an administration comprised of robber barons. Clinton would have turned the office to her financial advantage, too, but it would not have been her sole (or even main) objective, and she would have been circumspect about it. She will have the last laugh, and it will be a bone-chilling cackle devoid of mirth -- the biggest "I told you so" ever.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:43 pm

http://wreg.com/2016/12/21/mississippi- ... ote-trump/

Mississippi authorities have made an arrest in the burning of an African-American church spray-painted with the words, “Vote Trump.”

Mississippi Department of Public Safety spokesman Warren Strain says Andrew McClinton of Leland, Mississippi, who is African-American, is charged with first-degree arson of a place of worship.

McClinton was arrested Wednesday. Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Greenville, Mississippi, was burned and vandalized Nov. 1, a week before the presidential election.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:57 pm

Not really sure what you're trying to prove. We've all already admitted that some of these incidents are hoaxes.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:05 pm

And we all must also, if we're honest, admit that the number of real ones is unprecedented and appalling.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:06 pm

Skinypupy wrote:Not really sure what you're trying to prove. We've all already admitted that some of these incidents are hoaxes.

I'm trying to prove it isn't just a dozen that are hoaxes. It takes only a minute to make a hate crime accusation while it takes weeks or months to determine they were fake or that there is no supporting evidence. I strongly suspect that when all is said and done we will see that a third or more are just hoaxes.

So as long as people keep throwing up more hate crime accusations I will continue to throw up the ones determined to be hoaxes.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:09 pm

Holman wrote:And we all must also, if we're honest, admit that the number of real ones is unprecedented and appalling.

When you say real ones is that ones that have been proven to be perpetrated by racists or the ones that haven't just haven't been disproven? Because it takes lot longer to investigate one than it does to make the accusation. It is still way early to determine how much of an increase there has been in verified hate crimes. The last one I posted was from an accusation made from before the election even happened.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:23 pm

You must be aware there are lots of false crime reports, right? 5-10% of sexual assault reports are believed to be hoaxes for instance. But that doesn't mean the vast majority aren't true or reprehensible. Sheesh.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:27 pm

Kraken wrote: Well sure. Very few people beyond partisan Democrats actively looked forward to President Hillary, and if she had won we would be feeling collective buyer's remorse..."but at least she stopped Trump" because that would be a disaster.

Except that the percentage of Clinton voters saying they were explicitly voting for Clinton as opposed to against Trump was completely consistent with prior elections, like 1980, 1988 and 1992.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:16 pm

malchior wrote:You must be aware there are lots of false crime reports, right? 5-10% of sexual assault reports are believed to be hoaxes for instance. But that doesn't mean the vast majority aren't true or reprehensible. Sheesh.

I'm sure that would be right for hate crime hoaxes in normal times, but as you say when it comes to hate crimes these aren't normal times.

Riddle me this, why is there such an increase in non-physical hate crimes but not in hate crimes actually resulting in someone being physically injured? Just moderate Nazis?

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:19 pm

Rip wrote:
malchior wrote:You must be aware there are lots of false crime reports, right? 5-10% of sexual assault reports are believed to be hoaxes for instance. But that doesn't mean the vast majority aren't true or reprehensible. Sheesh.

I'm sure that would be right for hate crime hoaxes in normal times, but as you say when it comes to hate crimes these aren't normal times.

Riddle me this, why is there such an increase in non-physical hate crimes but not in hate crimes actually resulting in someone being physically injured? Just moderate Nazis?

Because there's lots of people are douchebags who would have no issue threatening someone verbally, but aren't actual psychos who are willing and/or capable of physical assault? Just a guess.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:28 pm

Skinypupy wrote:
Rip wrote:
malchior wrote:You must be aware there are lots of false crime reports, right? 5-10% of sexual assault reports are believed to be hoaxes for instance. But that doesn't mean the vast majority aren't true or reprehensible. Sheesh.

I'm sure that would be right for hate crime hoaxes in normal times, but as you say when it comes to hate crimes these aren't normal times.

Riddle me this, why is there such an increase in non-physical hate crimes but not in hate crimes actually resulting in someone being physically injured? Just moderate Nazis?
Because there's lots of people are douchebags who would have no issue threatening someone verbally, but aren't actual psychos who are willing and/or capable of physical assault? Just a guess.

Most of them aren't even verbal assaults, it is graffiti, the favorite of cowards everywhere. Thing is there are just as many douchebags who have no issue making it appear as though someone threatened them for nothing more than a few minutes of media attention. The combination of the two is what has resulted in this ridiculous increase.

Root cause, douchebags.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:30 pm

I am sure all of the Rips in this world trying to prove all of these incidents are nothing more than hoaxes does wonders for full and accurate reporting by victims.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:35 pm

Zarathud wrote:I am sure all of the Rips in this world trying to prove all of these incidents are nothing more than hoaxes does wonders for full and accurate reporting by victims.

I'm not trying to disprove or prove them that is the cops job, but until someone does like Schroedinger's
cat is alive and dead, these incidents are both true and false until someone does.

How many have actually resulted in someone being charged for actually doing them versus faking them?

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:28 am

There it is.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:41 am

geezer wrote:From the LA Times article:

In a post-election survey, the Public Policy Polling organization found that 67% of Trump voters think unemployment increased during Barack Obama’s presidency while only 20% know the opposite is actually true. Though the stock market skyrocketed to record heights during the Obama years, 60% of those who voted for Trump either do not know it or do not believe it. Forty percent of Trump voters also say their candidate won the popular vote, even though Clinton now leads in the count by nearly 3 million ballots. Perhaps that is why friendly crowds at his victory rallies continue to cheer when Trump makes the obviously false claim that he won the election in a landslide. They do not know better.
Emphasis mine, highlighting the scary part. This is why I have more contempt than pity for so many of the Trumpers. It's not simply that I disagree with them, rather it's that their misinformed, smug certainty is flat out wrong, but their ideas gets to decide what happens to my life. Screw those people.

The part you emphasis is the part that makes his supporters so contemptible. The part where he openly says he doesn't care about his campaign promises at those rallies without them getting even slightly worried that he tricked them is what makes them stupid.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:59 am

It is the worst of tribalism. You can't buy this kind of blind, idiotic loyalty and it's dangerous. The entire point of participating is to keep them accountable. Not to be a mindless cheerleader or turn a blind eye because it isn't your people getting the boot.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:14 pm

No more "drain the swamp". Trump didn't actually mean it after all, it was just a catchy campaign slogan for the rubes to chant when they got tired of "lock her up"...which he also reneged on. Funny how that happens.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:04 pm

So, until about four to eight years from now?

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:31 pm

How incredibly tone deaf he continues to be.

No way he lasts 4 years without getting impeached or arrested for doing something stupid/illegal.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:25 pm

And Newt will be there to tell us how his situation is completely different, and we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:35 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:And Newt will be there to tell us how his situation is completely different, and we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

No doubt: 99.99999%
Doubt: 0.00001%

Take the "benefit of the doubt," Newt. What does that do for you?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:39 pm

pr0ner wrote:How incredibly tone deaf he continues to be.

No way he lasts 4 years without getting impeached or arrested for doing something stupid/illegal.

In this hyper partisan (and gerrymandered) environment, where the vast majority of representatives have to worry far more about primary challenges than general election opponents, what do you think it would take for a President to get impeached by a Congress of his own party at this point?

Honestly, I think it would take something like a clearly documented instance of Trump ordering soldiers to fire into a crowd, or something on that scale. Maybe a recording of Trump getting a clear bribe from a foreign agent? I don't think even Watergate Redux would do it at this point, by contrast.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:26 pm

I don't think there is a scenario. That is what makes him all the more dangerous.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:30 pm

*DTS IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT "Draining the Swamp" FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRANDSTANDING. NO ACTUAL SWAMP DRAINING IMPLIED IMPLICITLY OR EXPRESSLY IS EXPECTED. DRAINING THE SWAMP MAY BE PROCEEDED BY PERIODS OF EXCESSIVE BLOVIATING, BOASTING, BRAGGING, AND BLUFFING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS BUT RESULTS ARE LIKELY TO BE TERRIBLE UNLESS RICH AND WHITE.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:35 pm

Defiant wrote:

What does this even mean? Is there a nuclear strike capability we don't currently have that would change anything in any way (serious question)?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:38 pm

(Needs a disclaimer)

*DTS IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT "Draining the Swamp" FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRANDSTANDING. NO ACTUAL SWAMP DRAINING IMPLIED IMPLICITLY OR EXPRESSLY IS EXPECTED. DRAINING THE SWAMP MAY BE PROCEEDED BY PERIODS OF EXCESSIVE BLOVIATING, BOASTING, BRAGGING, AND BLUFFING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS BUT RESULTS ARE LIKELY TO BE TERRIBLE UNLESS RICH AND WHITE.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:56 pm

geezer wrote:
Defiant wrote:

What does this even mean? Is there a nuclear strike capability we don't currently have that would change anything in any way (serious question)?

I imagine he just wants to restart the nuclear arms race against our enemy. Whether he intends it against Russia (who'll probably be wise enough not to take the bait) or against ISIL (who would have no chance of winning in such an arms race), he'll be able to declare victory whenever he chooses to.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:57 pm

malchior wrote:(Needs a disclaimer)

*DTS IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT "Draining the Swamp" FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRANDSTANDING. NO ACTUAL SWAMP DRAINING IMPLIED IMPLICITLY OR EXPRESSLY IS EXPECTED. DRAINING THE SWAMP MAY BE PROCEEDED BY PERIODS OF EXCESSIVE BLOVIATING, BOASTING, BRAGGING, AND BLUFFING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS BUT RESULTS ARE LIKELY TO BE TERRIBLE UNLESS RICH AND WHITE.

np, done.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:58 pm

Rip wrote:
*DTS IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT "Draining the Swamp" FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRANDSTANDING. NO ACTUAL SWAMP DRAINING IMPLIED IMPLICITLY OR EXPRESSLY IS EXPECTED. DRAINING THE SWAMP MAY BE PROCEEDED BY PERIODS OF EXCESSIVE BLOVIATING, BOASTING, BRAGGING, AND BLUFFING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS BUT RESULTS ARE LIKELY TO BE TERRIBLE UNLESS RICH AND WHITE.

Bad Newt! Bad! *smacks with rolled up newspaper*

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:04 pm

Skinypupy wrote:
Rip wrote:
*DTS IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT "Draining the Swamp" FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRANDSTANDING. NO ACTUAL SWAMP DRAINING IMPLIED IMPLICITLY OR EXPRESSLY IS EXPECTED. DRAINING THE SWAMP MAY BE PROCEEDED BY PERIODS OF EXCESSIVE BLOVIATING, BOASTING, BRAGGING, AND BLUFFING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS BUT RESULTS ARE LIKELY TO BE TERRIBLE UNLESS RICH AND WHITE.
Bad Newt! Bad! *smacks with rolled up newspaper*

You know what else, though. I heard someone else saying that he only used Drain The Swamp, even though he thought it was hokey and silly, because it seemed to get crowds riled up. Trump needs to talk to that guy and get him on the same page.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:08 pm

Trump team asked State Department for info on women’s issues programs, sparking fears of another witch hunt

I obtained a copy of the State Department request, which said each office should include information on all existing programs and activities that “promote gender equality, such as ending gender-based violence, promoting women’s participation in economic and political spheres, entrepreneurship, etc.”

The request did not ask directly for the names of the officials who work on these programs but stated that, in their reports, each office “should note positions whose primary functions are to promote such issues.”

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:19 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Skinypupy wrote:
Rip wrote:
*DTS IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT "Draining the Swamp" FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRANDSTANDING. NO ACTUAL SWAMP DRAINING IMPLIED IMPLICITLY OR EXPRESSLY IS EXPECTED. DRAINING THE SWAMP MAY BE PROCEEDED BY PERIODS OF EXCESSIVE BLOVIATING, BOASTING, BRAGGING, AND BLUFFING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS BUT RESULTS ARE LIKELY TO BE TERRIBLE UNLESS RICH AND WHITE.
Bad Newt! Bad! *smacks with rolled up newspaper*
You know what else, though. I heard someone else saying that he only used Drain The Swamp, even though he thought it was hokey and silly, because it seemed to get crowds riled up. Trump needs to talk to that guy and get him on the same page.