US Politics: Losing Appeals

[Week]

1 hour ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

You were behaving like a bit of a whore, or what you'd call a Tuesday. 

Get.a.room.

[Tywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, Week said:

Get.a.room.

You have to pay double to watch. Thems Masshole prices.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I think our first interaction here was on this subject. 

Don't judge young staffers unless they do something terrible. It's really fucking hard to get paid political jobs and often times you have to accept ones you either don't like from the jump or resent pretty quickly. Yes you have to live with working for pieces of shit and carrying their water, but it's the nature of the game. Sometimes that's the only way to build out your resume. And then you go home and develop a drinking problem. It's truly miserable work that rarely feels rewarding. 

That's similar to the drunk person causing a car accident excuse IMO. I was drunk officer so the accident wasn't my fault. Idiot kids shove their snouts into the political trough to climb the worst career ladder without really knowing what they're getting into. Do they not have any real skills to get a bit of life experience and wisdom before they jump into the cesspool?

[DireWolfSpirit]

On 3/21/2024 at 5:30 PM, Zorral said:

Tell us what we don't already know.

RNC Already Helping Raise Money For Trump’s Legal Bills, Despite Campaign's Claims
An invitation to an April fundraiser lists Trump’s Save America committee, which has been paying his various lawyers, as a recipient of donor money.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rnc-raising-money-trump-legal-bills_n_65fc8ddce4b01d7420ad3ba5

 

I dont know why, but I had assumed it was a illegal use of campaign funds to pay Trumps legal fees?

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I dont know why, but I had assumed it was a illegal use of campaign funds to pay Trumps legal fees?

One might think, but, you know?  There aren't any laws or rules any longer, particularly around politics, media, guns, elections and money, or anyone who has more than a few hundred thousand dollars or so, doing anything he feels like doing.  "Like God, I say so so it is so!"  Or so it appears from over here.

Edited March 23 by Zorral

[Zorral]

For ex -- if Santos had been very very very rich or backed by VERYVERYVERY rich ilks, his LI opponent wouldn't have been able to say this, right??

NY voters are SO EXCITEDEXCITEDEXCITED by this newsnewsnews!

George Santos Says He Is Done With the G.O.P. (The Feeling Is Mutual.)
Mr. Santos said he would no longer seek the Republican line in a House race on Long Island, and planned to run as an independent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/nyregion/santos-leaves-republicans-independent.html

Quote

 

.... Mr. LaLota said in a statement that just as Mr. Santos’s expulsion had been good for the nation, his resignation from the Republican Party was good for “common-sense conservatives.”

He added: “Santos can watch the November election results from his prison cell.” ....

 

 

[mcbigski]

On 3/22/2024 at 1:27 AM, DMC said:

But..if he was, you plainly would cognitive dissonance it away anyway, so what does that matter?  You'd just dismiss that in the same way you just dismissed a jury of six men and three women finding Trump liable for sexual abuse, battery, and defamation.  Sorry, I know the facts hurt.

Facts are facts.  Trump has a judgement against for saying that a woman who claimed he sexually assualted her in a changing room at a high end Manhattan department store at some not quite determined point in the 80s was IIRC nuts.  Now she didn't press charges then, when Trump was probably merely a multi millionaire.  She didn't say anything when Trump was making 10's of millions or so from the Apprentice.  She didn't say anything when Trump was going to get run over by Hillary, savior of the people, but all of the sudden now, she's got beef.  

I'm not Sherlock Holmes myself, but if sexual assualts were rampant in high end NYC department stores in the 80s, there might have been a simultaneous press report that we'd have heard about before now.

 

On 3/22/2024 at 2:19 AM, polishgenius said:

Imagine how much of a gullible cretin you'd have to be to think Trump didn't assault E. Jean Carroll. 

I don't recall hearing Trump was a sexual assaulter prior to 2015 or so.

 I'd expect any later accusations are all political. From what I've seen Carroll, Marla Maples, Ivana, and Melania weren't all fishing in the same pond.

 

On 3/22/2024 at 7:55 AM, Larry of the Lawn said:

 

Most sexual assaults go unreported.  It's one of the least prosecutable crimes because it often hinges on one witness against another.  And that's before you even consider the fear and intimidation involved.  I'm sure you know all this. 

 Trump's on tape "you have to grab them by the pussy" c'mon man.  That's not "locker room talk".

but even without all this, Trump is a horrible presidential candidate.  What is he going to do that you think is better than Biden?  I don't particularly like Joe Biden.  But as far as being President it's not even fucking close.  Trump's an angry, hateful 14 year old boy in an old man body who couldn't even manage to not piss away his inherited super wealth.  He's not a good businessman, he's not a good person, and he's certainly not good at managing the country.  

 

Well, at least if you're going to accuse someone of sexual assault 30 years later, don't claim to be wearing fashion items that are on 28 years old.  And maybe put something on the record sooner.  Trump was President for 4 years.  So there was 20 years plus to tell your story before he surprisingly became President.  And 4 years while he was President, and 2 or so years after he wasn't President, but now that it's re-election time, got to speak up.  

That sounds far more like a partisan woman than a deeply hurting person whose courage only bubbled over once New York state changed their laws.

On the later parts, Trump was great as President.  Energy exporting, no new wars, lvery low minority unemployment, relatedly border control, but the big problem was that no new or ongoing wars don't make for much graft. 

Seriously, you're about 180 degrees off, the media is rowing against the people, but they are owned by billionaires mostly.  Dont get caught in the wake.

On 3/22/2024 at 8:27 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@mcbigski

And it’s interesting that you completely ignore Trump saying he wants to be a dictator on the first day and that he would abandon NATO allies to their fate if they are invaded.  Are you cool with those expressly stated Trump positions?  If not what about Trump makes you willing to ignore such positions?

Show me your proof about Trump wants to be a dictator on his 1,461st day.  Because that seems even less likely than Biden picking up just enough Wednesday votes in 6 states.  (Or Hunter spontaneously developing 6 figure per painting art talent.)

On 3/22/2024 at 3:57 PM, DMC said:

House Republican Mike Gallagher announced he's resigning on April 19, bringing the GOP majority down to 217-213 - which means they can afford only one defection to pass anything on a party-line vote.  

The interesting thing is the timing.  If he resigned by April 9, a special election would be triggered to serve out the remainder of the term.  Since he's resigning after that date, the seat will remain vacant until the next Congress in January.  Which kinda/sorta fucks over the GOP.

Almost correct. 

It's not fuck over the GOP.  It's fuck over the regular folks that support republicans by default.  Republican politics over the last decade at least, probably longer, has mostly been fuck my promises to the voters, I want to line my own pocket.  Which gets full buy in from the Democrats too.  It's a conspiracy against us, and they want us fighting.  I expect that every early retiring Republican rep retiring before the next election is going to land quite softly.

Edited March 24 by mcbigski

[Rorshach]

10 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I'm not Sherlock Holmes myself,

No shit, Sherlock.

[Tywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Now she didn't press charges then,

Right, because women have always been believed and it was so easy to accuse people back in the 80's.

Do you enjoy being a moron? 

Quote

I don't recall hearing Trump was a sexual assaulter prior to 2015 or so

His first wife literally said he raped her, then changed her story after that sweet hush money came and part of the deal was she could never publicly say a bad thing about him again. This is old news. 

Quote

The Daily Beast story, which posted Monday night, said Trump’s ex-wife had once accused Trump of “rape.” She later said that the alleged rape was not in a “criminal sense.”

The divorce was granted on the grounds of “cruel and inhuman treatment” of Ivana. She also has been issued a gag order that bars her from discussing her marriage to Trump without his permission.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ivana-trump-denies-accusing-donald-trump-rape-daily-beast-120721

Sounds healthy and normal, right?

[Tears of Lys]

On the topic of whether Trump is a womanizer, duh, yeah!   

However, E. Jean Carroll "author", is clearly motivated by politics - (ETA: and money!) .  She saw an opportunity for an easy buck (I'm sure even SHE never dreamed of how much a complicit judge would encourage the jury to award) and took it at a very opportune time. It also didn't hurt that the trial was conducted in an area that has no love for Trump.  A similar case in any other venue would never even approach the amount of this award.  

As for his ex-wife, et al., think about it - what kind of woman would be attracted to, let alone marry Trump?   Does the term "gold digger" ring any bells?   

You wouldn't catch me within 25 yards of him.  

Edited March 24 by Tears of Lys

[BigFatCoward]

Wtf did I just read? 

[Bironic]

3 hours ago, Tears of Lys said:

On the topic of whether Trump is a womanizer, duh, yeah!   

However, E. Jean Carroll "author", is clearly motivated by politics - (ETA: and money!) .  She saw an opportunity for an easy buck (I'm sure even SHE never dreamed of how much a complicit judge would encourage the jury to award) and took it at a very opportune time. It also didn't hurt that the trial was conducted in an area that has no love for Trump.  A similar case in any other venue would never even approach the amount of this award.  

As for his ex-wife, et al., think about it - what kind of woman would be attracted to, let alone marry Trump?   Does the term "gold digger" ring any bells?   

You wouldn't catch me within 25 yards of him.  

It’s kind of victim blaming isn’t it? I wouldn’t call Trump a womanizer either, he thinks he is one, but as you stated most women would not engage in any sexual activities with him, which is basically the opposite of being a womanizer (aka a person that is very attractive to females)

Gold digging isn’t a crime, people might think of it as something morally bad, but in fact it’s probably a fairly effective way to escape (relative) poverty or get some money…

Rape, sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, etc. are crimes and given all we know about trump it’s fairly obvious that he has engaged in those

To be fair to @mcbigski Trump is probably not the only rich, famous, powerful man that has engaged in those. And given that all US presidents fall into at least two of the above categories I wouldn’t be too surprised if let’s say Clinton, Kennedy and Reagan were also sexual offenders of some kind… 

Edited March 24 by Bironic

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Somebody forgot the internet irony/sarcasm disclaimer.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Show me your proof about Trump wants to be a dictator on his 1,461st day.  Because that seems even less likely than Biden picking up just enough Wednesday votes in 6 states.  (Or Hunter spontaneously developing 6 figure per painting art talent.)

Here:

https://youtu.be/Vz8ANyXDCAA?si=5xS3tc8JuiRRWS3z

[Bironic]

5 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Facts are facts.  

On the later parts, Trump was great as President.  Energy exporting, no new wars, lvery low minority unemployment, relatedly border control, but the big problem was that no new or ongoing wars don't make for much graft. 

The media is rowing against the people, but they are owned by billionaires mostly.  

It's not fuck over the GOP.  It's fuck over the regular folks that support republicans by default.  Republican politics over the last decade at least, probably longer, has mostly been fuck my promises to the voters, I want to line my own pocket. 

Which gets full buy in from the Democrats too. 

It's a conspiracy against us, and they want us fighting.  

I agree.

No new wars: the most belligerent presidents (meaning that significant amounts of Americans died in unnecessary wars in the last 90 years) were Johnson, Nixon, Dubya Bush, so two republicans… the least were Carter, Trump and Biden,

with Clinton,Reagan, Ford, Kennedy, Bush Senior, Obama probably somewhere in the middle, so that can hardly explain the preference for Trump…

Not all media is owned by billionaires, and not all billionaires are the same. And Trump is a billionaire, so kind of a moot point…

if that’s your view of the Republican Party (which I would at least partially agree) why vote for them? Or do you just vote for trump and no other republicans? And then Trump and by extension his family seems to be even a bigger grifter than your average republican with all his business scams, refusal to show his taxes etc…

there’s even lower unemployment under Biden then under Trump… so not really an argument…

you just lost me…

[Jaxom 1974]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Wtf did I just read? 

Trump is obviously a terrible businessman, yet somehow he's found the secret to selling that sweet sweet "Jim Jordan Powdered Drink Mix"TM    

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Wtf did I just read? 

Did anyone expect something more coherent?

The most coherent pro-MAGA take is the most nakedly cynical one, like Steve Bannon's accelerationism. All else is some mix of compartmentalization, whataboutism, conspiratorial thinking, deep grievance, and wounded egos. In other words, a cranial zone thoroughly flooded with shit.

[Tywin et al.]

Don't forget the justification of violence against those you don't like! 

[DMC]

9 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Facts are facts.  Trump has a judgement against for saying that a woman who claimed he sexually assualted her in a changing room at a high end Manhattan department store at some not quite determined point in the 80s was IIRC nuts.

Yeah you conveniently left out the fact the jury's judgment also found Trump liable for sexual abuse and forcible touching of said woman.  Not to mention the only reason the jury did not find Trump liable for rape is the fact New York has an arcane legal definition of the term.

9 hours ago, mcbigski said:

It's not fuck over the GOP.  It's fuck over the regular folks that support republicans by default.  Republican politics over the last decade at least, probably longer, has mostly been fuck my promises to the voters, I want to line my own pocket.  Which gets full buy in from the Democrats too.  It's a conspiracy against us, and they want us fighting.  I expect that every early retiring Republican rep retiring before the next election is going to land quite softly.

This is actually the most reasonable thing you've posted on these threads in years.  It is true that resigning early instead of retiring by serving out one's term is violating their commitment to the voters.  It is also true that MCs usually do so to land a more lucrative job - or at least a job they desire more.  An example of the latter would be Ben Sasse resigning mid-term to become president of the University of Florida.

This is in no way a conspiracy, but both these points are entirely valid.

[DMC]

Breyer indicates support for age limits for Supreme Court Justices:

Quote

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Sunday that he would back age limits for justices, claiming the controversial policy would have helped his own decision-making about his retirement in 2022.

“I don’t think that’s harmful,” he said of Supreme Court terms in an NBC “Meet the Press” interview with Kristen Welker on Sunday. “If you had long terms, for example, they’d have to be long. Why long? Because I don’t think you want someone who’s appointed to the Supreme Court to be thinking about his next job.” 

“And so, a 20-year term? I don’t know, 18? Long term? Fine. Fine,” he said. “I don’t think that would be harmful. I think it would have helped, in my case. It would have avoided, for me, going through difficult decisions when you retire. What’s the right time? And so, that would be okay.”

I may be way off on this, but I can't recall any SC justice - sitting or retired - that has publicly come out in favor of term limits in any way.  So, kinda a big deal.