Wtf is Brett whining about lol

I'm aware the constitution worked and I fully expected it to. — Baden

Well, not at all really when in came to the impeachment proceedings, particularly regarding the majority leader publicly confessing that he could not execute the unique responsibility bestowed upon Senators during an impeachment of the president.

He should have been forced to recuse himself.

was wondering what the point of contention was. If there is none, great. — Baden

None. Peace, brother.

Official Republican party of Arizona urging it's supporters to... what?... die? Not sure that's the best electoral strategy but they're clearly thick as shit so there's probably not a strategy in there.

Before Trump came on the scene the gutter press could end a political campaign if the candidate happened to scream awkwardly. They had no power here, and overestimated their king-making status. They failed and lashed out because of it. — NOS4A2

This is directly from the populist playbook, actually. The populist has to give the image of being somebody else, being not part of the elite. Best way to use rhetoric that "ordinary" politicians don't use. A lot of it is simply talk. Never mind if the actual policies are similar or simply fail.

Trump in happier times with friends:

You don’t mention that Trump acted the same with pretty much every other leader he met—only Putin. — NOS4A2

Lol! That is an absolutely hilarious statement from you. He definately has not acted the same with every other leader he has met. He has complained, bickered, all in the way to create the "acting tough" image. Yet when it comes to Putin, he hasn't dealt similarly with him.

That's again a fact. Just watch yourself the press conferences, his statements. The actual remarks. Without no journalist on telling his or her view.

But I guess reality doesn't mean much for Trump supporters.

The nice thing about appointments for life is that once someone is on the SC, they effectively have their own powerbase and are independent from whoever appointed them. They'd have to be pretty stupid to risk that powerbase by challenging the election results without plausible reasons.



I think you're kinda missing the bigger picture here. We cannot really know what the GOPs strategy was here. Perhaps there wasn't one. But assuming that they could have done more to support Trump's challenges but decided not to, one of the core reasons might have been the senate runoffs.

In the scenarios "wargamed" before the election, it was clear that control of the senate was crucial to sustain any extra-legal attempt to elect a candidate who didn't actually get the votes. And of course control of the senate is crucial for the GOP strategy for other reasons as well. At the same time, Trump was never a long-term investment, and the myth of the stolen election will do its work for the GOP without them outwardly having to lift a finger.

So the fact that, this time around, democracy, or what passed for democracy, has prevailed, shouldn't cause any illusions about the resilience of US institutions and the US Constitution.

Do you mean if the Supreme Court leaned towards Trump their actions could backfire in the Senate runoffs?

Do you mean if the Supreme Court leaned towards Trump their actions could backfire in the Senate runoffs? — Brett

I don't think the SC will necessarily do what the GOP wants. But if there was unambiguous support for Trump's claims from the party leadership, together with perhaps a different legal team working for the party rather than Trump personally, the chances to get at least some injunction from the SC would have been much better.

Note that such a move would likely have included local party officials, who could have lend their weight to fraud claims in the state.

So you’re looking at it in terms of association.? They’d rather be associated with the party as opposed to Trump.

Or are you suggesting they haven’t received pressure from GOP?

I don't think the GOP has applied pressure on it's members to contest the election.

Concerning the Justices, I don't think this is a matter of the GOP directly putting pressure on them. They're not beholden to them. It would be more likely a situation where the GOP can present a case that "the people" want a certain result and the candidate in question just happens to also support the kinds of things the religious conservatives find important.

The Supreme Court seems to have performed as expected, although it seems to matter whether they were appointed by a Republican or Democrat. Seems to be a sure fire way of swaying the opinion they way that party wants. In this case it did not make a difference, however there was dissent as to whether to hear the case or not, since dissent is allowed it seems to be a numbers game after all, in some cases, at least.

What an embarrassing stimulus bill. Good thing President Trump is still in office.

Well, he lives in his fantasy land, and if you will just send him money, you can (continue to) live in his fantasy land too.

And, I of course have not read the bill, nor even set eyes on it. Have you? Or are you willing to take his word for what he says, and in the context of this site to be his endorser/guarantor?

So our wise and courageous leader will veto, right? :razz:

Quite the usual stuff similar to the stimulus packages during Obama, actually. And of course, it's his administration, but seems like he is already commenting on a Biden administration.

Trump has pardoned the four American citizens who committed the Nisour Square massacre.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/23/trump-pardons-blackwater-contractors-jailed-for-massacre-of-iraq-civilians

It's difficult now to believe that Trump isn't a troll president, a man dedicated to using his office as a means to be as evil a prick as is humanly possible.

Never saw it any other way, myself. And he’s not done yet.

Also two people convicted by the Mueller probe, three former Republican Congressmen convicted of corruption, and two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting and wounding an unarmed undocumented immigrant and then covering it up.

That stimulus bill was passed under his watch. You know, when he could've used his leverage over the GOP to pressure McConnell into passing a bigger bill than even the Democrats are asking for (least, that was what he was claiming he was gonna do) instead of spending the last few weeks obsessively trying to overthrow the will of the people and scamming idiots like you.

Some chit-chat found elsewhere ...

Mark my words. Trump is going to try to restart real estate project discussions in Russia after he leaves office, which will go a long way to explain why he was so averse to criticizing Russia during his presidency, even taking the word of Putin over the unified assessment of America's intelligence services regarding the Russia attack on our election, and explaining why he is now dismissing the present Russia cyberattack. He doesn't want to offend the potential spigot of money from Russia. — RM

Without the legal support of the DOJ and presidential immunity he may defect, but if he goes to Russia, he’s never coming back. Either US intelligence will kill him before he can divulge state secrets, or the Russians will find him a cozy place to dictate all the secrets. This because on top of being weak, he lacks moral fortitude and character. — JS

I'm not sure Russia will give a damn about him once he loses power. They might let him live next to Edward Snowden to pump him for information when it's convenient for them. But that might be all he's worth at this point. — RS

Ex-presidents are still given security briefings. Russia could exploit that. — RM

Keep in mind most of his real estate dealings with Russians aren’t in Russia. They are in New York, Florida, Kazakhstan etc. “Trump Moscow” is just going to be the least secret, but we already know he sold a lot of Trump Tower condos to Russian oligarchs, got a bonus $50 million flipping a Florida estate to one, etc. — MG

A tad bit speculative, but we'll see if RM's prediction holds I guess.
Either way, potential security/political interests inside the borders of Russia probably shouldn't count themselves safe.

Well, he lives in his fantasy land, and if you will just send him money, you can (continue to) live in his fantasy land too.

And, I of course have not read the bill, nor even set eyes on it. Have you? Or are you willing to take his word for what he says, and in the context of this site to be his endorser/guarantor?

Congress didn’t even read it.

Either way it likely it would have passed silently had the president not objected.

Either way it likely it would have passed silently had the president not objected. — NOS4A2

Makes no difference unless it's significantly revised, besides the posturing.

There is a huge difference between knowledge and ignorance. At least now you know. But it will make no difference if you refuse to hold your lawmakers accountable.

Oh right, like this package is sooo unusual. :roll:

It’s true. Selling out Americans and bleeding the country dry is nothing new. What is new is a president who is willing to push back against Congress. I don’t recall Bush or Obama pushing back against the recovery act.

No other president has been pathetic enough to posture this way, sure.

No other president has been pathetic enough to posture this way, sure.

I suspect the anti-Trumpism is working overtime to churn out excuses as to why Trump shouldn’t be applauded for his criticism. Assume (without evidence) he has malicious intentions in order to avoid agreement. Pathetic indeed.

I wish he weren't just posturing and actually worked for a better deal, but I think he's too busy undermining American democracy.

@NOS4A2 He vetoed the bill, however, it has a veto-proof majority.

Who actually writes the bills then if Congress had no clue what's in it? Aren't they supposed to be the legislative branch? Hint hint. The US is even a bigger joke than I thought if the pork want added by Congress members themselves.