US Politics: Lock Him Up!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

[LongRider]

I wonder if the fact of these Russian corpses isn't scaring Prez Birther.  It's been rather weird (but sadly, not really) that Russian ambassadors and other officials are just suddenly having heart attacks and being found dead and stuff.  Is Trumpy worried?  I would be. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Wait, how many is that this week?  I'm losing track.

[LongRider]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Wait, how many is that this week?  I'm losing track.

Six.

Quote

Vitaly Churkin, 64, was rushed to hospital from his office at Russia’s UN mission on 20 February, after becoming ill without warning on his way in to work.

It was initially reported that Mr Churkin may have suffered a heart attack, but following an autopsy medical examiners said the death required further study................

Media company Axios note that not only is Mr Churkin’s death unexplained, but it is also remarkably similar to the deaths of Russia’s Ambassador to India on 27 January, the country’s consul in Athens on 9 January, and a Russian diplomat in New York on US election day, 8 November.  The three other deaths were all also labelled “heart attacks” or the result of “brief illnesses”............

Two more diplomats died more clearly violent deaths in the same period: Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was assassinated by in Ankara at a photography exhibition on 19 December, and on the same day another diplomat, Petr Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment. 

Additionally, an ex-KGB chief, Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping a British spy draft a dossier on Donald Trump, was found dead in the back of his car on boxing day, 26 December. Mr Erovinkin also was an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned oil company Rosneft.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-diplomats-deaths-theories-putin-kremlin-a7602201.html

 

[ThinkerX]

3 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Yeah, I still can't wrap my head around it. I think a big part of my denial is tied up in that I refuse to believe that half the voting public is this stupid. I need some sort of Russian Hack of the voting machines reveal to properly understand this.

With reluctance, I considered Trump becoming POTUS a very real possibility since about last June.  I was - and still am - reading the 'comments' sections of a great many political articles in an effort to get a 'real feel' for the situation.   That exercise told me two things: Trump was popular despite his many failings, and Clinton was just about the worst possible pick the democrats could have made.  Sanders, despite all the scorn heaped upon him here, was *FAR* more popular than Clinton in those conversations, and in my view, would likely have defeated Trump in the general.  The utter corruptness and ineptitude of the DNC in making Clintons campaign an attempted 'coronation' also went over very poorly.

My take for the future: unless the democrats put forth somebody genuinely popular with the masses (pretty much meaning a 'celebrity candidate' like Oprah or Zuckerberg) they *WILL* lose the next presidential election *REGARDLESS* of Trumps unpopularity or groundwork.   

 

[Fragile Bird]

He's not going to make it to the end of his term. He's emotionally unstable now, he'll only get worse as he ages. He'll be removed.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

He's not going to make it to the end of his term. He's emotionally unstable now, he'll only get worse as he ages. He'll be removed.

That has been my other contention with Trump since the beginning: he might get elected, but was highly likely to be impeached.  That is still possible, but it will be a god-awful messy process.

The problem is, that leaves us with Pence, who is:

A - competent; and

B - an evangelical zealot with crossover appeal between evangelical Protestants and Catholics.  

 

Dwelling in an area with a very strong fundamentalist Christian presence, and having spent years on a Christian debate site, I find a politician with that sort of crossover religious appeal...strange - and frightening. Previously, what kept the evangelical factions in check was the utter loathing they have (had?) for each other.  I cannot emphasize this enough: should Pence become POTUS and push through even part of the stated evangelical agenda, it will be a utter nightmare for most posters here, in excess of Kalbear's worse predictions.  It means the 'blue laws' make a comeback at the federal level.  It means women lose many of the rights they take for granted, possibly including the right to vote. 

  With Trump impeached, the best we could hope for is that Pence's ambitions get gridlocked until the 2020 election. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

With reluctance, I considered Trump becoming POTUS a very real possibility since about last June.  I was - and still am - reading the 'comments' sections of a great many political articles in an effort to get a 'real feel' for the situation.   That exercise told me two things: Trump was popular despite his many failings, and Clinton was just about the worst possible pick the democrats could have made.  Sanders, despite all the scorn heaped upon him here, was *FAR* more popular than Clinton in those conversations, and in my view, would likely have defeated Trump in the general.  The utter corruptness and ineptitude of the DNC in making Clintons campaign an attempted 'coronation' also went over very poorly.

My take for the future: unless the democrats put forth somebody genuinely popular with the masses (pretty much meaning a 'celebrity candidate' like Oprah or Zuckerberg) they *WILL* lose the next presidential election *REGARDLESS* of Trumps unpopularity or groundwork.   

 

No. Just no. The wheels of that celebrity clown car are already coming off. Sitting Presidents tend to win or lose elections. So I really don't think you can make predictions what Trump's chances will look like in four years. Let's wait and see how the RNC's healthcare adventures pan out. And yes, I agree with the first paragraph. Clinton and the DNC blew it. And the Democrats should most definately come up with a more relatable candidate than Hillary. But that doesn't mean Zuckerberg or Oprah. There are not enough cars in the US to make Oprah Winfrey president. I think she will come across as way out of touch. No idea, what Zuckerberg would look like, but I doubt that I am rich and a succesful businessman, thus I will make a good President will fly with the Democrats' electorate.

[denstorebog]

A lot of conclusions seem to be drawn re: the future where I'm very curious to understand how people see us getting there.

8 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

It means women lose many of the rights they take for granted, possibly including the right to vote. 

As much as I agree that taking away women's right to vote would be a wet dream of Pence and many others in the current administration, I have to ask how on Earth this would ever be carried out. Most erosions of rights are either slow, or they come about as a reaction to some pressing issue of urgent interest to the public. The Muslim ban being an example of the latter which I could concievably see as a starting point for witch hunts and internment camps for Muslims down the line. That shit don't require no imagination.

But women's right to vote? Where would you begin that process? As a solution for what pressing problem? How do you see a Pence administration introducing such an idea, politically, and how do they prevent their administration from tanking in the polls as a result? The conservative base consists of plenty of women who would happily go back to a barefoot-in-the-kitchen lifestyle, but certainly also enough men/women who wouldn't able to defend something like that.

So I'm genuinely curious as to how you imagine this happening within an administration's lifetime (or even several)?

7 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

He's not going to make it to the end of his term. He's emotionally unstable now, he'll only get worse as he ages. He'll be removed.

This is another conclusion where I don't necessarily disagree, but where I'm having a hard time seeing the roadmap. Trump currently owns the Republican party. Yes, he has lots of political opponents, but overwhelming support among his voters. Hanging on to Trump might be harmful to Congress, but trying to remove him could be utterly suicidal with Trump's current support. Numbers like these change over time, but with Trump we're seeing a new kind of devotion from voters. With the country and the media landscape being so polarized, I think there's a pretty high floor for how low he can sink in terms of approval from his base. If there wasn't, he would already be there. Outlets like Breitbart and Drudge are the sole purveyors of news for a shitload of right-wingers, and those outlets are never, ever going to turn on Trump barring an actual, videotaped murder in the street.

So how do you see us get to the point where Congress could plausibly impeach Trump without getting completely demolished by dissent from their own base?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

That has been my other contention with Trump since the beginning: he might get elected, but was highly likely to be impeached.  That is still possible, but it will be a god-awful messy process.

The problem is, that leaves us with Pence, who is:

A - competent; and

B - an evangelical zealot with crossover appeal between evangelical Protestants and Catholics.  

 

Dwelling in an area with a very strong fundamentalist Christian presence, and having spent years on a Christian debate site, I find a politician with that sort of crossover religious appeal...strange - and frightening. Previously, what kept the evangelical factions in check was the utter loathing they have (had?) for each other.  I cannot emphasize this enough: should Pence become POTUS and push through even part of the stated evangelical agenda, it will be a utter nightmare for most posters here, in excess of Kalbear's worse predictions.  It means the 'blue laws' make a comeback at the federal level.  It means women lose many of the rights they take for granted, possibly including the right to vote. 

  With Trump impeached, the best we could hope for is that Pence's ambitions get gridlocked until the 2020 election. 

 

I'm reading a book about Roger Williams, the founding of Rhode Island and the religious underpinnings of the Seperation of Church and State.  Massachusetts was founded by people (John Winthrop in particular) who believed the State had a duty to force people onto the straight and narrow path of proper religious behavior.  The Puritians fined, exiled, and executed people for what they saw as improper religious behavior.

Roger Williams was among those exiled because he had the timerity to state publicly that using State Power to compel religious belief was fundamentally wrong.  That "Forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God".

We, those if us who are theists (I am one) need to remember this man, his courage, and what he taught.  Compelled worship is not worship and never will be worship.

[denstorebog]

 Is it just me, or is this final line from a recent Politico article just the perfect summary of the Trump presidency?

After making the explosive claims – and trashing Arnold Schwarzenegger's TV ratings – in aTwitter rant, the president headed to the golf course near his Mar-a-Lago resort.

[Martell Spy]

Really pathetic, America. There was another one of those hate crimes like in Kansas, but in a city I grew up in. Really hits home.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/us/washington-sikh-shooting/

Sikh man's shooting in Washington investigated as hate crime

[OldGimletEye]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

My take for the future: unless the democrats put forth somebody genuinely popular with the masses (pretty much meaning a 'celebrity candidate' like Oprah or Zuckerberg) they *WILL* lose the next presidential election *REGARDLESS* of Trumps unpopularity or groundwork.   

I don't think this is right. At least I hope it's not right.

I totally loathe the idea of the Democratic Party resorting to gimmicks like running somebody like Zuckerberg or Oprah. I have nothing against either of them. But, neither has any record government service. I'm pretty sure every sitting president, except for the current doofus, has some record of prior government service before taking the office of the presidency.

I think it would be a truly sorry state of affairs if the new normal is that only big name celebrities, with no record of government service, start being considered the only viable candidates for the the presidency. 

The Democratic Party has serious problems. We as voters should demand they fix them. And we should demand they do better than resorting to cheap gimmicky bullshit to address those issues.

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm reading a book about Roger Williams, the founding of Rhode Island and the religious underpinnings of the Seperation of Church and State.  Massachusetts was founded by people (John Winthrop in particular) who believed the State had a duty to force people onto the straight and narrow path of proper religious behavior.  The Puritians fined, exiled, and executed people for what they saw as improper religious behavior.

Roger Williams was among those exiled because he had the timerity to state publicly that using State Power to compel religious belief was fundamentally wrong.  That "Forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God".

We, those if us who are theists (I am one) need to remember this man, his courage, and what he taught.  Compelled worship is not worship and never will be worship.

Amen brother, this atheist agrees!  Learning about the religious persecution history of our country is really important and it didn't stop there.  I would suggest religious persecution continued on and still exists today (see treatment of many Jews and Muslims).  The separation of church and state is so important to all citizens, religious or not. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

The only person with no prior direct Political Experience the Democratic Party should run is Michelle Obama.

This is an issue where the Democratic Party lose an oppritunity:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/keystone-pipeline-us-steel-trump/

Quote

PALM BEACH, Fla. — The Keystone XL oil pipeline won’t use American steel in its construction, despite what President Donald Trump says.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Friday that’s due to language in a presidential directive Trump issued in January. The directive applies to new pipelines or those under repair. Sanders said it would be hard to do an about-face on Keystone because it’s already under construction and the steel has been acquired.

Trump said as recently as last week that Keystone and the Dakota Access pipeline must use American steel “or we’re not building one.”

 

[LongRider]

Quote

 

There is a startling new development in the ongoing Trump/Russia story.

Last week I wrote about Michael Cohen and his extensive network of personal and business relationships in the Ukrainian-American emigre community. One of those was a man named Alex Oronov, who runs a major agribusiness concern in Ukraine. Oronov was a partner in the ethanol business Cohen and Cohen's brother Bryan set up in Ukraine about a decade ago. Oronov is Bryan Cohen's father-in-law. Today we learned that Oronov apparently organized that 'peace plan' meeting that brought together Ukrainian MP Artemenko, Cohen and Felix Sater. About four hours ago Andrii Artemenko, the Ukrainian parliamentarian who came to New York with that 'peace plan', went on Facebook to announce that Alex Oronov has died.

 

Another Russian with ties to Trump, bites the dust. 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/new-development-on-the-michael-cohen-peace-plan-meeting

[James Arryn]

Just to be clear, in case there is any doubt: I AM NOT RUSSIAN!

 

Well, I mean I have a bit of Russian, but that's alongside literally 8 other heritages. And I HAVE NEVER MET PUTIN, OR KNOW ANY OF HIS SECRETS. 

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Just to be clear, in case there is any doubt: I AM NOT RUSSIAN!

 

Well, I mean I have a bit of Russian, but that's alongside literally 8 other heritages. And I HAVE NEVER MET PUTIN, OR KNOW ANY OF HIS SECRETS. 

So, do you have any ties to Trump tho?        That is the real question.   

[James Arryn]

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

So, do you have any ties to Trump tho?        That is the real question.   

NONE that I know of!

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

NONE that I know of!

Well, perhaps you're safe then.  Perhaps.