RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

morepork wrote:It beggars belief that any semi-functional human adult could consider this thundercunts remedial mewlings in any way shape or form a constructive contribution to government. He specialises in making a pig's arse out of everything he touches, can barely read and speak, and is frighteningly pig ignorant. Yet here we are, one year out from a general election, and the entire apparatus of government is shanghaied into covering for this blanket incompetence at the expense of practically everything else. It wouldn't make for the most favourable performance review anywhere else, so what the fuck do people see in this idiot?

I think you are asking the wrong audience.

I've got nowhere else to go.

morepork wrote:

Banquo wrote:

morepork wrote:It beggars belief that any semi-functional human adult could consider this thundercunts remedial mewlings in any way shape or form a constructive contribution to government. He specialises in making a pig's arse out of everything he touches, can barely read and speak, and is frighteningly pig ignorant. Yet here we are, one year out from a general election, and the entire apparatus of government is shanghaied into covering for this blanket incompetence at the expense of practically everything else. It wouldn't make for the most favourable performance review anywhere else, so what the fuck do people see in this idiot?

I think you are asking the wrong audience.

I've got nowhere else to go.

Fair. It is a complete sh*t show.

morepork wrote:

Banquo wrote:

morepork wrote:It beggars belief that any semi-functional human adult could consider this thundercunts remedial mewlings in any way shape or form a constructive contribution to government. He specialises in making a pig's arse out of everything he touches, can barely read and speak, and is frighteningly pig ignorant. Yet here we are, one year out from a general election, and the entire apparatus of government is shanghaied into covering for this blanket incompetence at the expense of practically everything else. It wouldn't make for the most favourable performance review anywhere else, so what the fuck do people see in this idiot?

I think you are asking the wrong audience.

I've got nowhere else to go.

Try your closest evangelical church.

Lots of groups went all in, not just religious.They are not backing down now after drawing the battle lines.

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote: withered principles. But twas ever thus in politics, sadly.

No it wasn't. Not even slightly. If you believe this is normal then you're swallowing Trumps bullshit. There has been no point in American history where major party would sanction the use of $400 million of taxpayers money to blackmail another country to interfere in its elections.

Well that’s quite the over reaction. I was merely implying that principles often get sacrificed in pursuit of political power. It’s hardly new or revelatory. Trump does take it to an obscene level.

Actually it's a gross under-reaction. Again, placing this on a continuum of business as usual is exactly what Trump wants people to think. It isn't. This is a wholly different category.

Clearly what Trump has done around Biden and the Ukraine is just god awful, but would people like to see him removed from office over it, or some strong rebuke being handed down and the public having their say next year?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: No it wasn't. Not even slightly. If you believe this is normal then you're swallowing Trumps bullshit. There has been no point in American history where major party would sanction the use of $400 million of taxpayers money to blackmail another country to interfere in its elections.

Well that’s quite the over reaction. I was merely implying that principles often get sacrificed in pursuit of political power. It’s hardly new or revelatory. Trump does take it to an obscene level.

Actually it's a gross under-reaction. Again, placing this on a continuum of business as usual is exactly what Trump wants people to think. It isn't. This is a wholly different category.

Not my intention to do so, your extrapolation.

Digby wrote:Clearly what Trump has done around Biden and the Ukraine is just god awful, but would people like to see him removed from office over it, or some strong rebuke being handed down and the public having their say next year?

There is no “strong rebuke” option. Impeachment results in removal if guilty. The line “ let voters decide” is a republican one to justify voting against removal when impeachment proceedings take place in the senate.

gransoporro wrote:

Digby wrote:Clearly what Trump has done around Biden and the Ukraine is just god awful, but would people like to see him removed from office over it, or some strong rebuke being handed down and the public having their say next year?

There is no “strong rebuke” option. Impeachment results in removal if guilty. The line “ let voters decide” is a republican one to justify voting against removal when impeachment proceedings take place in the senate.

I don't imagine there'll be any impeachment proceedings in the Senate, what would Moscow Mitch gain from letting that happen? I'm expecting Congress will probably vote to impeach as loudly as possible, the Senate will take that instruction and then vote to end the process. Though that wasn't a question about what would happen, more just wondering what the general preference would be vis a vis removal ahead of the 2020 election?

Digby wrote:

gransoporro wrote:

Digby wrote:Clearly what Trump has done around Biden and the Ukraine is just god awful, but would people like to see him removed from office over it, or some strong rebuke being handed down and the public having their say next year?

There is no “strong rebuke” option. Impeachment results in removal if guilty. The line “ let voters decide” is a republican one to justify voting against removal when impeachment proceedings take place in the senate.

I don't imagine there'll be any impeachment proceedings in the Senate, what would Moscow Mitch gain from letting that happen? I'm expecting Congress will probably vote to impeach as loudly as possible, the Senate will take that instruction and then vote to end the process. Though that wasn't a question about what would happen, more just wondering what the general preference would be vis a vis removal ahead of the 2020 election?

He has to. He may rig proceedings, but he has to, and quickly, after the impeachment articles are voted by the House.

Regarding general preference, as I said, there is no other option now. Trump basically forced the impeachment by stonewalling any request, even small, and asserting far fetching executive privilege that now extends to all the cabinet and anyone talking to the president, even if they are not in the administration. He likes his presidential powers absolute.

gransoporro wrote:

Digby wrote:

gransoporro wrote:
There is no “strong rebuke” option. Impeachment results in removal if guilty. The line “ let voters decide” is a republican one to justify voting against removal when impeachment proceedings take place in the senate.

I don't imagine there'll be any impeachment proceedings in the Senate, what would Moscow Mitch gain from letting that happen? I'm expecting Congress will probably vote to impeach as loudly as possible, the Senate will take that instruction and then vote to end the process. Though that wasn't a question about what would happen, more just wondering what the general preference would be vis a vis removal ahead of the 2020 election?

He has to. He may rig proceedings, but he has to, and quickly, after the impeachment articles are voted by the House.

Regarding general preference, as I said, there is no other option now. Trump basically forced the impeachment by stonewalling any request, even small, and asserting far fetching executive privilege that now extends to all the cabinet and anyone talking to the president, even if they are not in the administration. He likes his presidential powers absolute.

He's blocking some people, against which a good number have defied his orders and Sondland has just remembered what he originally testified in support of Trump is actually a load of old bollocks. None of which speaks to whether he should be removed from office or whether the public should get their say

Digby wrote:

gransoporro wrote:

Digby wrote:

I don't imagine there'll be any impeachment proceedings in the Senate, what would Moscow Mitch gain from letting that happen? I'm expecting Congress will probably vote to impeach as loudly as possible, the Senate will take that instruction and then vote to end the process. Though that wasn't a question about what would happen, more just wondering what the general preference would be vis a vis removal ahead of the 2020 election?

He has to. He may rig proceedings, but he has to, and quickly, after the impeachment articles are voted by the House.

Regarding general preference, as I said, there is no other option now. Trump basically forced the impeachment by stonewalling any request, even small, and asserting far fetching executive privilege that now extends to all the cabinet and anyone talking to the president, even if they are not in the administration. He likes his presidential powers absolute.

He's blocking some people, against which a good number have defied his orders and Sondland has just remembered what he originally testified in support of Trump is actually a load of old bollocks. None of which speaks to whether he should be removed from office or whether the public should get their say

Rebellious: state department, NAtional security council
Loyal: office of management and budget, White House counsel

Loyal but not involved directly: department of justice

There are the guidelines of who is going to testify and who is not.

Impeachment: the constitution says: treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.

They are going for bribery. That will cut the need to explain why it is a high crime. To that effect:

Using his powers to benefit himself (his 2020 campaign) - check
Quid pro quo - check* (that is still not clear cut, and that is why OMB officials refuse to testify)

Now there is also obstruction of congress, obviously.

Polls say that 49% support impeachment and removal, with additional 4% supporting impeachment only. So there is substantial support but not enough to break the republican dam.

Was it for me, I would have removed Clinton: he lied under oath. The Senate decided that the crime was in the private sphere and did not affect his performance as president. So he was acquitted because it did not raise to “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

In this case, it is too early to say. Republicans and Trump still have to call witnesses, present arguments, cross the witnesses, and so on. You have to give them that chance. Still the “there was no quid pro quo” defense is burned.

At this point, if guilty enough, he should be removed. If not, voters will decide anyway. However this is my personal position. I represent 1.

Thundercunt Jr. has apparently been tweeting out the name of the alleged whistleblower after prompts from conspiracy theory websites. A cowardly attempt at intimidation of a witness. These people are fucking lowlife.

morepork wrote:Thundercunt Jr. has apparently been tweeting out the name of the alleged whistleblower after prompts from conspiracy theory websites. A cowardly attempt at intimidation of a witness. These people are fucking lowlife.

That has to be against the law??

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

WaspInWales wrote:

morepork wrote:Thundercunt Jr. has apparently been tweeting out the name of the alleged whistleblower after prompts from conspiracy theory websites. A cowardly attempt at intimidation of a witness. These people are fucking lowlife.

That has to be against the law??

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I am sure the Attorney General will be all over Don Jr.

Once he is back from his world tour to find the origins of the Muller probe, that is.

Pop quiz, which world leader, and don't necessarily be swayed by the thread on which this is posted, on being presented with several pages of documents to review pertaining to an important decision instead of reading the documents threw the pages away and declaimed 'WTF is this? These are just words, a bunch of words, it doesn't mean anything!'?

This from a new anonymous book out from someone supposedly with experience of working in the WH who came to realise when going in to brief the orange one even a brief powerpoint presentation with 2-3 themes was too much for the Child in Chief to sit through, and your only chance was to have one point you'd try to make and which you'd have to keep trying to drag the conversation back to as the cockwomble went off on a tangent or ten

I like the idea he thinks written words have no meaning, it rather seem to suit.

Well, as Stephanie Grisham has commented, people are "totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President".

You just know he laps that shit up, but to go on record saying it with a serious face....

Digby wrote:Pop quiz, which world leader, and don't necessarily be swayed by the thread on which this is posted, on being presented with several pages of documents to review pertaining to an important decision instead of reading the documents threw the pages away and declaimed 'WTF is this? These are just words, a bunch of words, it doesn't mean anything!'?

This from a new anonymous book out from someone supposedly with experience of working in the WH who came to realise when going in to brief the orange one even a brief powerpoint presentation with 2-3 themes was too much for the Child in Chief to sit through, and your only chance was to have one point you'd try to make and which you'd have to keep trying to drag the conversation back to as the cockwomble went off on a tangent or ten

I like the idea he thinks written words have no meaning, it rather seem to suit.

I wish I could remember the origin of the thing I read where a memo had gone around advising staff that if you actually want him to read anything you give him it must have the word TRUMP in caps at least every 3 or 4 of sentences.

It's been a big adjustment for those used to dealing with the WH, typically they'd prepare dense 50 page documents in advance which the President would study and then expect to go into meetings and have a detailed back and forth (oftentimes argument) on what was contained in the report and what should be policy going forwards. Now it's down to a couple of words on one side being winners and the other losers, there's no back and forth, and if he sees something which distracts him on TV you're fucked getting a decision out of him

America is screwed (as perhaps is the world, as a side-effect). Sure, Trump is a bit of an outlier, but they've seen that it works - someone completely clueless but with the complete confidence of the truly ignorant can actually survive in this position. They'll be lining up more reality TV front men for this - they'll win the election, while future Dick Cheneys rule from the background.

Pretty much. Most billionaires seem to want "Presidential candidate" on their CVs these days too. The days of the professional public servant seem numbered. The fallacy of running government like a business is entrenched now, no matter how stark the data to the contrary. Cracks are papered over with some good old populist rhetoric, amplified on social media. Truely FUBAR.

FDR wasn't exactly poor when he did what in hindsight might be judged some strong work on the social justice front

Probably worth noting Trump earlier put out a statement saying

'I'm the only person I know, perhaps the only person in history...'


And arguably it reads better for Trump if you do actually stop reading the statement at that point

Son of Mathonwy wrote:America is screwed (as perhaps is the world, as a side-effect). Sure, Trump is a bit of an outlier, but they've seen that it works - someone completely clueless but with the complete confidence of the truly ignorant can actually survive in this position. They'll be lining up more reality TV front men for this - they'll win the election, while future Dick Cheneys rule from the background.

The problem with a Trump is that there is no organising mind like Cheney. There's just his vanity and grift.

“I rarely get emotional, if ever,” Trump Jr. wrote in his new book, “Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us.” “Yet, as we drove past the rows of white grave markers, in the gravity of the moment, I had a deep sense of the importance of the presidency and a love of our country.”

He also had another revelation as he watched his father standing in front of the tomb, surrounded by more than 400,000 graves, listening to the Army Band bugler playing taps: The Trump family had already suffered, he recalled thinking, and this was only the beginning.
“In that moment, I also thought of all the attacks we’d already suffered as a family, and about all the sacrifices we’d have to make to help my father succeed — voluntarily giving up a huge chunk of our business and all international deals to avoid the appearance that we were ‘profiting off the office,’” Trump Jr. wrote.

In the book, Trump Jr. contends that his father’s assumption of the most powerful political position on the planet “was a big sacrifice, costing us millions and millions of dollars annually.”
“But it was a sacrifice we were more than happy and willing to make,” he wrote. “Of course, we didn’t get any credit whatsoever from the mainstream media, which now does not surprise me at all.”


Junior rites a book. He is the reel victum here, the insufferable whiney little twat.

morepork wrote:

Junior rites a book. He is the reel victum here, the insufferable whiney little twat.

If this speaks to anyone it's probably you



And really is we can't show sympathy to billionaires being asked to pay a little more in tax whilst remaining billionaires what have we come to as a people?


Edit, actually if anyone wants more detail on his diatribe on the poor much maligned billionaires then here's another 8 minutes or so of him setting out why the 1% of the 1% need some love