Trump

[Vertigo 7]

Motives behind the book?

$

I don't doubt that for a second. He's still a republican. Had he been a patriot, instead, he would have testified irregardless of Trump's orders.

[RegisterMe]

I agree.

[Vertigo 7]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuAHz4i3_x8

lol these Lincoln Project guys are not holding back.

[fiksal]

At one time the democrats thought segregation was moral. We all get it wrong sometimes.

And they also thought they could start a nation with slavery in its constitution. Didn't work out, States rights or not.

So what have you gotten wrong?

[Vertigo 7]

And they also thought they could start a nation with slavery in its constitution. Didn't work out, States rights or not.

So what have you gotten wrong?

Pssssst... those were right wing conservatives. Smooth brained people keep trying to spin this to say "democrats bad" because that's the best argument they can come up with. But it's always been conservatives, whether they're calling themselves democrats or republicans, that have run platforms on racism, spout racist bs, do their best to paint blacks as criminals and uncivilized. Conservatives were flying confederate flags during the civil war. They're still flying them today. But this is what you can expect when their primary education was from Faux News.

How many times in history have conservatives gotten their ass kicked by liberals? I'm loosing count.

[pjknibbs]

I don't doubt that for a second. He's still a republican. Had he been a patriot, instead, he would have testified irregardless of Trump's orders.

Maybe if somebody had thought to pay him $22.99 he'd have been happy spilling the beans back then...

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

I don't doubt that for a second. He's still a republican. Had he been a patriot, instead, he would have testified irregardless of Trump's orders.

Maybe if somebody had thought to pay him $22.99 he'd have been happy spilling the beans back then...

That's it. Money. It's all about money. It's all about lobbies. Trump is an egocentric brat and lobbies aren't stupid, they know he cannot be trusted.
When he didn't testify against the president, it was because it wasn't the right time, Trump was still too strong and republicans needed him. But now, after these last months have passed, it is clear he's not anymore the best horse for next rodeo. Would you part with a losing candidate, losing your face, or let him lose alone, shoving all responsibility into his and only his back?
Add to this consideration the fact next presidential term is going to be economically and socially horrible to manage, and here you have the "responsible right wing" dodging elections and let their rivals play in the mud for some years, while you can just point your finger at the things that won't work (almost everything, seeing the situation...).
That's how modern right wing parties work.
In Italy Meloni let slip through her lips something in the lines of "We were lucky our government fell, because that is a situation we would never want to be in power with.". Responsibility is not something this people likes, because they're basically coward. Now, with all the money coming from EU to pull up economy, they're again shouting about "democracy" and "we need people to choose because Conte wasn't elected by people". Which is true, because the Prime Minister NEVER gets elected by people, but is chosen by the Parliament.

[Vertigo 7]

I don't doubt that for a second. He's still a republican. Had he been a patriot, instead, he would have testified irregardless of Trump's orders.

Maybe if somebody had thought to pay him $22.99 he'd have been happy spilling the beans back then...

lol I'm sure he could have scored a fancy lunch.

All of that aside, here's the thing tho. As far as the claims in his book having any credibility, the Oompa Loompa king is simultaneously claiming that Bolton is lying AND divulging classified information. If his claims are lies, how can they be classified? Or vice versa? The few excerpts I've read have been completely in character for Trump and his sycophants. I don't think there's enough reasonable doubt to discredit the contents of the book at this point.

This is what, the 7th or 8th tell all book to come out of former white house staff under Trump? Even his niece is releasing a book that Trump is reportedly considering a lawsuit against for breach of his NDA - lol.

So on the one hand, we have Trump; a well established compulsive liar. On the other hand, we have a handful of people telling different stories but all painting the same picture of Trump, while making a buck at the same time (which I would argue should appeal to republicans as 'The American Way').

[fiksal]

And they also thought they could start a nation with slavery in its constitution. Didn't work out, States rights or not.

So what have you gotten wrong?

Pssssst... those were right wing conservatives. Smooth brained people keep trying to spin this to say "democrats bad" because that's the best argument they can come up with. But it's always been conservatives, whether they're calling themselves democrats or republicans, that have run platforms on racism, spout racist bs, do their best to paint blacks as criminals and uncivilized. Conservatives were flying confederate flags during the civil war. They're still flying them today. But this is what you can expect when their primary education was from Faux News.

How many times in history have conservatives gotten their ass kicked by liberals? I'm loosing count.

Oh of course, I know that.

This is just the "excuses" that conservatives use all the time.

The name indeed doesn't necessarily matter, it's the actions that do.

[fiksal]

That's how modern right wing parties work.
In Italy Meloni let slip through her lips something in the lines of "We were lucky our government fell, because that is a situation we would never want to be in power with.". Responsibility is not something this people likes, because they're basically coward.

Brilliant strategy) Hm... Maybe we should let Trump win.
Joking.

I was wondering how things playing out in Italy now

[Vertigo 7]

SCOTUS ruled in favor of DACA and called Trump's attempt to dismantle it "arbitrary and not justified".

This hot on the heels of last week's ruling in favor of LGBTQ rights.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

That's how modern right wing parties work.
In Italy Meloni let slip through her lips something in the lines of "We were lucky our government fell, because that is a situation we would never want to be in power with.". Responsibility is not something this people likes, because they're basically coward.

Brilliant strategy) Hm... Maybe we should let Trump win.
Joking.

I was wondering how things playing out in Italy now

Fine-ish: even if a lot of small shops took a hard beating for staying close 3 months, the scenario is carefully and slowly coming back to normality. New cases are close to zero in every region but Lombardia, the first to try and open offices (and public transport, the most dangerous place of infection) a little before the other ones despite having the highest number of cases (I believe ~60% of all Italian covid cases have been there).
Europe as a whole is recovering, but it's going to take a lot of time to be back on track, both morally and financially.
Thanks for asking.

[fiksal]

SCOTUS ruled in favor of DACA and called Trump's attempt to dismantle it "arbitrary and not justified".

This hot on the heels of last week's ruling in favor of LGBTQ rights.

Good stuff. So much for the " conservative " supreme court, that Republicans have been salivating about

[fiksal]

Fine-ish: even if a lot of small shops took a hard beating for staying close 3 months, the scenario is carefully and slowly coming back to normality. New cases are close to zero in every region but Lombardia, the first to try and open offices (and public transport, the most dangerous place of infection) a little before the other ones despite having the highest number of cases (I believe ~60% of all Italian covid cases have been there).
Europe as a whole is recovering, but it's going to take a lot of time to be back on track, both morally and financially.
Thanks for asking.

Good. For sure Italy took a beating. Hopefully things will return to normal economically and otherwise.
And no that second wave.

[Vertigo 7]

This has me cracking up.

Lawyers for Faux News, in a defamation suit against them, said, "Tucker Carlson doesn't have an obligation to investigate the truth of statements before making them on his show, and his audience doesn't expect him to report facts.", to a Federal Judge.

[Mightysword]

Good stuff. So much for the " conservative " supreme court, that Republicans have been salivating about

Gonna use this opportunity to talk about several semi-relative things.

- In this particular case, the reason for this ruling is because the administration skipped over one of the requirement to enact a law/order: reliance interests. It means that whoever wrote the law must laid out how it will affect the people effected by said law. I believe it doesn't even require an action to address the outcome, but at the very least, it requires the instigators must acknowledge the consequence of the law being passed. In this instance, because the consequence would be something unpopular, the administration just decided to skimp over that part of the document and the Supreme Court today basically just said "uh uh".

- The significant thing to understand here is that this ruling doesn't say an Administration can't abolish DACA. Right at the beginning, most parties already know this is something well within the power of an administration to do, it just says if it wants to do it, then do it right. If this rule is in any of the previous year then there is a little to celebrate about, it simply means the Administration can just try again, and do it right this time. Btw this is a fairly common tactic. Once a while you see some really ridiculous laws that at first glance everyone know wouldn't stand, and got fought all the way to the Supreme Court even the authors knew it has no chance to stand. The point is throw the first pass out there and see what stick, than take the court ruling, modify the draft accordingly and then try again. Given the current term is near at the end, DACA's supporters can rest easy and take this as a victory ... unless Trump wins again in November, then you can be assured DACA is pretty much 'guaranteed' to go because now they know the court's grievance, they will do it right next time.

- Another case to look at recently is how the court unanimously absolve the official involved in New Jersey's bridegate scandal a few months ago. It's very obvious these official were in the wrong, and investigation showed plenty of proof. So this riled up a lot of people, and they do what they always do: question the integrity of the court. That is because they don't understand what drives the ruling. The judges strike down the prosecutor case not because the official didn't do what they were accused to do, but because there is no existing laws saying those act can be punished (and thus the prosecutor were trying to pin some unrelated law to punish these officials). It was a signal from the judicial branch to the legislative branch: yes these people are arsehole and had done something morally wrong, but if you want to punish them, than create the law that says those act are punishable, can't just punish someone in the name of the laws just because you feel it wrong. In short, can't use the laws with emotional and mob justice.


It's very often people just focus only the result of the ruling, and the explanation they give themselves are usually based on ideology/party line. This is why the supreme court is a very reliable political tool to rile up the mass on both sides. Be it the appeasement of "we made a conservative majority bench!" from conservative for the fearmongering "we're doomed! Vote for us so we can pack the court!!" from liberal. I say what I always say before, the check and balance system of this country run much deeper that what people tend to give it credit for. I know there has been a string of feel good decisions recently, thus I use the current mood to inject hopefully making this post more digestible. But I bet wait until the next time this court make another unpopular ruling and people will be out for blood again.

[Vertigo 7]

Good stuff. So much for the " conservative " supreme court, that Republicans have been salivating about

Gonna use this opportunity to talk about several semi-relative things.

- In this particular case, the reason for this ruling is because the administration skipped over one of the requirement to enact a law/order: reliance interests. It means that whoever wrote the law must laid out how it will affect the people effected by said law. I believe it doesn't even require an action to address the outcome, but at the very least, it requires the instigators must acknowledge the consequence of the law being passed. In this instance, because the consequence would be something unpopular, the administration just decided to skimp over that part of the document and the Supreme Court today basically just said "uh uh".

- The significant thing to understand here is that this ruling doesn't say an Administration can't abolish DACA. Right at the beginning, most parties already know this is something well within the power of an administration to do, it just says if it wants to do it, then do it right. If this rule is in any of the previous year then there is a little to celebrate about, it simply means the Administration can just try again, and do it right this time. Btw this is a fairly common tactic. Once a while you see some really ridiculous laws that at first glance everyone know wouldn't stand, and got fought all the way to the Supreme Court even the authors knew it has no chance to stand. The point is throw the first pass out there and see what stick, than take the court ruling, modify the draft accordingly and then try again. Given the current term is near at the end, DACA's supporters can rest easy and take this as a victory ... unless Trump wins again in November, then you can be assured DACA is pretty much 'guaranteed' to go because now they know the court's grievance, they will do it right next time.

- Another case to look at recently is how the court unanimously absolve the official involved in New Jersey's bridegate scandal a few months ago. It's very obvious these official were in the wrong, and investigation showed plenty of proof. So this riled up a lot of people, and they do what they always do: question the integrity of the court. That is because they don't understand what drives the ruling. The judges strike down the prosecutor case not because the official didn't do what they were accused to do, but because there is no existing laws saying those act can be punished (and thus the prosecutor were trying to pin some unrelated law to punish these officials). It was a signal from the judicial branch to the legislative branch: yes these people are arsehole and had done something morally wrong, but if you want to punish them, than create the law that says those act are punishable, can't just punish someone in the name of the laws just because you feel it wrong. In short, can't use the laws with emotional and mob justice.


It's very often people just focus only the result of the ruling, and the explanation they give themselves are usually based on ideology/party line. This is why the supreme court is a very reliable political tool to rile up the mass on both side. Be it the appeasement of "we made a conservative majority bench!" from conservative for the fearmongering "we're doomed! Vote for us so we can pack the court!!" from liberal. I say what I always say before, the check and balance system of this country run much deeper that what people tend to give it credit for. I know there has been a string of feel good decisions recently, thus I use the current mood to inject hopefully making this post more digestible. But I bet wait until the next time this court make another unpopular rule and people will be out for blood again.

Ruling in favor of basic human rights is always reason to celebrate. Why would you try to diminish that?

If DACA was illegal, as Trump claims, then surely the supreme court would have sided with Trump, irregardless of his administration's ability to completely fill out paperwork, as you say.

[Vertigo 7]

Be it the appeasement of "we made a conservative majority bench!" from conservative for the fearmongering "we're doomed! Vote for us so we can pack the court!!" from liberal.

Ohh ohh, Trump is a liberal now!

These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

Be it the appeasement of "we made a conservative majority bench!" from conservative for the fearmongering "we're doomed! Vote for us so we can pack the court!!" from liberal.

Ohh ohh, Trump is a liberal now!

Yeah, he is. But only when he needs to be.
He's also conservative. But only when he needs to be.
In Italy we have a saying translating with "gay with another one's arse". Or "arm ourselves and (you) go to war!"
That's how a lot of politicians behave, and Trump makes no difference on this.

[Tycow]

SCOTUS ruled in favor of DACA and called Trump's attempt to dismantle it "arbitrary and not justified".

This hot on the heels of last week's ruling in favor of LGBTQ rights.

This is very good news, but they're guaranteed to go the other way on his tax return vote next week though.