U.S. Politics: And a Happy "Shithole" Year

[OldGimletEye]

Trump is a very stable beauty.

[Dr. Pepper]

41 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I would guess that Trump is very insecure, but vain about his looks.  Bannon, he's so superior due to his intelligence that looks take a backseat.  I mean, consider Einstein, he wouldn't even comb his hair!

Bannon thinking he's intelligence is also such a joke.

I guess it would be an improvement if both these fuckshits stopped combing their hair.  Trump especially.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Bannon thinking he's intelligence is also such a joke.

I guess it would be an improvement if both these fuckshits stopped combing their hair.  Trump especially.

Bannon combs his hair?

[Jace, Extat]

34 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Trump is a very stable beauty.

That's a lie.

He's the MOST stable beauty.

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

That's a lie.

He's the MOST stable beauty.

He's the most stable beauty that you will ever interview and his stable beauty won the difficult to win Electoral College.  

[Jace, Extat]

25 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

He's the most stable beauty that you will ever interview and his stable beauty won the difficult to win Electoral College.  

He walks up to ideas and he just has them! He has them! And he can't stop having them, he can't help himself!

And they let you do it too! When you're the most stable beauty in the world you can just walk right up and grab the ideas by the fuck hole.

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

He walks up to ideas and he just has them! He has them! And he can't stop having them, he can't help himself!

And they let you do it too! When you're the most stable beauty in the world you can just walk right up and grab the ideas by the fuck hole.

Then you can take your stable beauty and some people are saying the best ideas, nobody ever has had such great bigly ideas as he has.  Takes them to the Winter Shithouse, Maro A needs fumigating in the kitchens Lago Golf Palace.  

[Mexal]

 

[Sivin]

Because he kind of just took a soft beating by the CNN panel, I will say something for Lindsay Graham. 

Regardless what you think of that orange bowel movement -ever ate subway too frequently?- the fact of the matter is, he's president. And Graham is a politician. A poor actor who shows a hugely disappointing dedication to serve his people rather than his donors, sure. But he's a politician.

I've been doing a lot of thinking for about three weeks now, especially on this issue. It is fair to question Graham and his integrity, even in this situation as he won't stop making friendly gestures to the president even as he displays his clear disgust. But let's look at the whole situation. Graham is antithical to the majority of things that I believe. I think he's an example of our disgraceful state run by disgraceful statesmen on all sides of the spectrum. And I think he should have done the right thing from the beginning and never cozy up to the man.

But I also think he's an elected official. One of poor quality, but nonetheless an elected official. And when I look at him I've never seriously doubted his fidelity to his country, even when he was bootlicking. 

He's a politician. He was -supposed to be- chosen to represent his people against the representatives of their neighbors and countrymen. 

I am obligated by my love of Democracy to give that man the benefit of the doubt. Not to put on blinders and ignore his mistakes, but instead to remove all impediments to my judgement. 

And I think it is fair to say that Graham could, could, simply be a compromised man who believes in his job despite his failures to live up to its standards. That does not make him a bad man. It means he is less than required of our public servants and should be held accountable by his constituents. 

So in my judgement, and I know this only applies to me, I find it reasonable to consider that Graham is an unacceptably flawed actor who holds many views I strongly disagree with. And his job, that in my judgement requires him to attempt a relationship with the President if at all possible in order to better serve his constituents, is being a politician. 

Politicians have to attempt to form relationships with their colleagues if they believe they can serve their constituents by doing so. 

Let me repeat that, because it's important.

Politicians have to attempt to form relationships with their colleagues if they believe they can serve their constituents by doing so. 

Democrats have no business forming relationships to Donald Trump. He is incapable of acting in a manner that is acceptable to what the majority of this country values. 

Lindsay Graham is not a Democrat. There are a lot of people who put him in office who are fond of God's Mistake. That's a fact. A simple fact, and if you deny it then you're as bad as they are. That doesn't mean he should bow to this racist and horrible Blight upon our Republic. 

But you bet your ass he better try and make it work with him if he can. That is what public service is. To do the task that's too dirty for citizens to individually manage. To put your hands into the rotten masses that exist so that they can keep theirs clean. 

That is what Democracy is. 

Democracy is not me, a Transgender Veteran who spent part of her life as a ward of the state, telling Paul in Kansas what my values are. And it sure as fuck isn't Paul telling me not to cut my dick of either. 

Democracy is sitting down with Paul, coming to a compromise. And as I've seen said earlier it's speaking truth and knowing that even if you have to swallow a pound of shit today, they're going to wake up one day and have a fucking mountain on their doorstep and no spoon to be had. 

That is why Schumer and Pelosi sat down with that Homunculus this summer to try and fix DACA. That is why Richard Durbin sat in that room full of bigots and racists with only his less-than-adequate friend Lindsay Graham to his right. To do what the rest of us can't stomach so that our Republic can last another day.

Say what you will about the man's failures, there's a laundry list. 

But I gained a great deal of respect for him today. I saw a man who was disgusted. Disgusted by the President of the United States and wasn't having it anymore. You can call that previous cowardice, but Richard Durbin is the man's friend and I think that gives me reason to think the best of Graham in this moment. To believe that he has never felt anything but contempt for this man, but because his job is to deal with him he tried to make a relationship. And last week the boundary was finally crossed.

It is quite simply unfair and unproductive to condemn a man when he finally reaches his limits for indecency. He should be held accountable for his past actions, but he should not be condemned with such casual frequency for finally realizing that enough was enough. 

If we do that, condemn instead of accounting, then there is no hope to be had at all. 

[Sivin]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

I remain mystified that there hasn't been a move to remove Mueller yet.  And now he's suboening (sp) Bannon?  It almost makes me hope that the GOP or enough members of the GOP have decided that firing the special council is the one think that they won't support.  But that's hard to believe given the rest of their behavior.  How to reconcile this situation?

I think Graham will not remove Mueller. And if he won't and one other person has a spine (Murkowski?) that's all it takes. 

[Fez]

38 minutes ago, Mexal said:

 

Very significant, and in four extremely Republican districts too. Democrats only picked up one of them, Wisconsin SD10, but continued Democratic overperformance compared to 2016 is heartening.

[Sivin]

Iowa is particularly interesting. They're only Republican because they're Republican. I've long thought that Iowa could be the rallying point of a new Democratic coalition. 

[Sivin]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

I...don't think that's how it works?  I think that as long as the Trump White House is willing to keep firing people in Rosenstein's seat they can majorly stall out the investigation. 

 

Graham and (McCain?) say "If you fire this man, nothing happens until the new congress is seated. We'll see what the American people say then."

End of story.

ETA: You don't find it possible that there's two Republicans who are disgusted internally by what's happening and have a line in the sand at the rule of law? Good god man, no wonder they feel a little attacked from time to time. 

Yes, they've failed and humiliated themselves and our nation, but if you're telling me that 2 Senators can't have a moral boundary that WILL NOT be crossed... That is not acceptable. That is not helping, you're adding to the problem. 

Attack them for what they've done, but don't let that take focus over trying to bring them to the light side of the force at the same time. God, no wonder people are freaking out about morale in the party. 

[Paladin of Ice]

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

Because he kind of just took a soft beating by the CNN panel, I will say something for Lindsay Graham. 

*SNIP*

Winter Fox, I just wanted to take a moment to say I think this was an excellent post with a variety of good insights, some of which I've attempted to articulate in the past, especially when talking to people who think politics should consist of "My reps should agree 100% with me and only do the things I want them to do!"

Would you mind if I quote some parts of it on another board or two where I talk politics?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

I think Graham will not remove Mueller. And if he won't and one other person has a spine (Murkowski?) that's all it takes. 

That has nothing to do with removing Mueller. The Senate has literally no say in it whatsoever.

[Kalbear]

45 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Graham and (McCain?) say "If you fire this man, nothing happens until the new congress is seated. We'll see what the American people say then."

End of story.

ETA: You don't find it possible that there's two Republicans who are disgusted internally by what's happening and have a line in the sand at the rule of law? Good god man, no wonder they feel a little attacked from time to time. 

Yes, they've failed and humiliated themselves and our nation, but if you're telling me that 2 Senators can't have a moral boundary that WILL NOT be crossed... That is not acceptable. That is not helping, you're adding to the problem. 

Attack them for what they've done, but don't let that take focus over trying to bring them to the light side of the force at the same time. God, no wonder people are freaking out about morale in the party. 

The next time said moral boundary occurs will be the first time. 

I do know a number of senators have stated openly that Mueller getting fired would mean no more appointments whatsoever, but that doesn't really matter that much. Trump wouldn't be impeached, he wouldn't be out of office, he wouldn't be forced to do anything and he'd simply rule by executive order. Who gets hurt if the senate clamps down isn't Trump - it's the senate, and specifically those senators who are refusing to do anything. They'll get primaried, and they'll lose.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

Graham and (McCain?) say "If you fire this man, nothing happens until the new congress is seated. We'll see what the American people say then."

End of story.

ETA: You don't find it possible that there's two Republicans who are disgusted internally by what's happening and have a line in the sand at the rule of law? Good god man, no wonder they feel a little attacked from time to time. 

Yes, they've failed and humiliated themselves and our nation, but if you're telling me that 2 Senators can't have a moral boundary that WILL NOT be crossed... That is not acceptable. That is not helping, you're adding to the problem. 

Attack them for what they've done, but don't let that take focus over trying to bring them to the light side of the force at the same time. God, no wonder people are freaking out about morale in the party. 

I bet that internally every Senator has a moral boundary that can't be crossed.  But politicians are forced to make compromises all the time.  

And I doubt that moral boundary would be this.  We've sat here and watched them cross a bunch of other moral boundaries.  Why would this one be the line in the sand?  What's so special about firing Mueller that it would be the instance of disregard for rule of law that makes someone stand up and say "nope, this is wrong!"?

[ThinkerX]

If this happens, things could get real ugly real fast.  But, maybe it's a stunt of some sort:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/doj-considering-arresting-sanctuary-city-politicians/ar-AAuMYp8?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

 

The Department of Justice is considering subjecting state and local officials to criminal charges if they implement or enforce so-called sanctuary policies that bar jurisdictions from cooperating with immigration authorities. Immigration advocates argue such a move would be illegal.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen made the disclosure Tuesday during a Senate committee hearing on the department’s operations.

 

 

[Sivin]

44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The next time said moral boundary occurs will be the first time. 

I do know a number of senators have stated openly that Mueller getting fired would mean no more appointments whatsoever, but that doesn't really matter that much. Trump wouldn't be impeached, he wouldn't be out of office, he wouldn't be forced to do anything and he'd simply rule by executive order. Who gets hurt if the senate clamps down isn't Trump - it's the senate, and specifically those senators who are refusing to do anything. They'll get primaried, and they'll lose.

I'm not talking about appointments, and I'm not talking about impeachment or censure or what's been said publicly yet. There's a great little line in Veep where Selena Meyer says regarding the House "it's like Caligula's Rome".

Great joke because it's true. In the House you have less impressive representatives for the most part compared to the Senate. And that's obviously the way you'd think it should work. Just because House investigators are clearly sabotaging and obstructing the investigation that does not mean the Senate is impotent. If you think that any member of our government is impotent due to anything but their own conscious choices not to take action in the moment, then you don't believe in the basic concept of Democracy. 

As I proposed. Is it not extremely easy to believe that Senators, who know they're supposed to pretend impartiality at least some of the time even if they're entirely compromised and in full knowledge that they took office to lie to the people for their own gain, would draw the line on firing a very respected public servant who most of them probably know personally? In your rush to condemn so forcefully that you can paint the situation as utterly beyond hope, and suggest that there is no path to redemption you are engaging in the type of absolutism that should be reserved only for the simple principles of Freedom and Democracy. Everything else is academic sir, and if you will sit at your computer and write that not 2 United States Senators could muster the moral courage required to take a stand against what would be a true and obvious TYRANT who is openly shutting down investigations against him rather than simply making himself look more guilty then you and I have a disconnect that I hope we can remedy tonight through spirited and honest conversation. 

Do not dismiss the minority who voted for Trump, that is not American, that is not Democracy. Do not relent to their insane demands or let them get away with what has been a horrific year for the state of our Republic that I personally raised my hand and swore to defend when I was 18 years old. But do not turn your back on them. Vitriol and hate begets further abuse and eventually bloodshed. Be the bigger man. Have the courage to believe that while a man can make the wrong choices because of his own misguided beliefs without being a traitor to his nation. Have pride in knowing that you stand on the side of truth and Democracy, and let that knowledge serve as a bulwark against the inane madness that spills from the mouths of our political opposites. But understand sir that you are talking about Americans and American Senators in generalities that I find no more helpful than referring to Haiti as a shithole. 

If you insist in wallowing in doubt and delusion rather than having the confidence to weather the storm of evil that has broken on us, I hope you can find the integrity that I know is in every person and fully examine what it means to you. And when that happens, when you can sit down and think about the sacred inheritance every scion of destiny in this country was born with and many more wish to attain in its full meaning. You will find the courage to withstand their hate and evil without giving in to illogical doubt. 

I'm not a religious person, Bear. But I know that there is something indelible to the human spirit. The something that brought humanity from a simple beast into the only known intelligent life in the universe. It's intangible. And despite its presence we are a flawed and imperfect creature. But the knowledge that we are flawed is itself part of that unidentified 'human nature'. And the knowledge of imperfection is the gateway to improvement. 

We are imperfect, and a lot of us have imperfect opinions. But our imperfection is what makes us so beautiful. It's what has built monuments that have withstood millennia, what has driven man to perform great deeds that still echo powerfully through the ages into every boy and girl who has the capacity to experience awe. 

You ask for perfection by dismissing our countrymen. I say that perfection is overrated. 

The cockroach is the perfect organism. It can survive weeks without food and water, it's radiation resistant and hard to eradicate and you never see one cockroach call another infestation a Shit Hole.   

Given the choice between commonality and total homogeneity, absence of strife. And the great works of man, both physical and mental, along with all of the hate. 

I choose not to be a cockroach sir.  

@Paladin of Ice I thank you for your kind words and would be extremely humbled and honored if you would like to use them elsewhere. But at the end of the day, all I'm doing is telling the truth. Openness to wrong, as I'm not the first to point out here, and the self courage to address it with compassion is what will win the day. 

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

As I proposed. Is it not extremely easy to believe that Senators, who know they're supposed to pretend impartiality at least some of the time even if they're entirely compromised and in full knowledge that they took office to lie to the people for their own gain, would draw the line on firing a very respected public servant who most of them probably know personally? In your rush to condemn so forcefully that you can paint the situation as utterly beyond hope, and suggest that there is no path to redemption you are engaging in the type of absolutism that should be reserved only for the simple principles of Freedom and Democracy. Everything else is academic sir, and if you will sit at your computer and write that not 2 United States Senators could muster the moral courage required to take a stand against what would be a true and obvious TYRANT who is openly shutting down investigations against him rather than simply making himself look more guilty then you and I have a disconnect that I hope we can remedy tonight through spirited and honest conversation. 

Sure.

What can the senators do? Let's say that Graham and some random one decide that they aren't going to ever do anything for Trump again, or they're going to go out of their way to ensure that they do whatever is in their power to defeat Trump. What does that look like?

• They can't impeach him - they have to wait for the House to do that.
• They can't stop any executive orders, because they won't have the 60 votes to vote into law anything that opposes them.
• Graham personally sits on the appropriations, budget and judiciary panels - but he isn't enough to defeat any of those things by himself.

What he can do, basically, is refuse to do any laws. But, and here's the thing - the senate already doesn't have that much power for a Republican. Because of filibuster rules they have to have 60, meaning that already Republicans are hosed. The sole exception to this is reconciliation, which can be used only once a year and can only be on budget-neutral things - and chances are good they're hosed on that for a while. 

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

We are imperfect, and a lot of us have imperfect opinions. But our imperfection is what makes us so beautiful. It's what has built monuments that have withstood millennia, what has driven man to perform great deeds that still echo powerfully through the ages into every boy and girl who has the capacity to experience awe. 

You ask for perfection by dismissing our countrymen. I say that perfection is overrated. 

It's a cute speech, but it's bullshit. I'm not saying that Graham and others can't oppose Trump; I'm saying that their opposition is entirely impotent and easily defeated. There's a reason so many republicans have turned tail and gone to Trump's side for the most part, and that is because Trump is more popular and is well liked by the base. That is a very big stick to wield. 

Another way to say it is this: if you are going to be pinning your hopes on Trump's failure on Lindsey Graham, you're not just optimistic, you're manic.