As first deadline approaches, Biden and Trump camps begin a delicate transition dance

[GMDino]

(05-04-2020, 05:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Whenever you want, but that's not what you asked. For instance you can go out in public today and say:

"I thought my mind was fertile; however, bfine let me know it was barron". 

Actually that sounds like something you would say...


"barron".

[BmorePat87]

(05-04-2020, 07:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually that sounds like something you would say...


"barron".

It means "supplies". 

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2020, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's not why 

I'm under no illusions that it was the ONLY reason people laughed at me.

[GMDino]

(05-04-2020, 08:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It means "supplies". 

I wonder how many dictionary definitions we can go through for it make sense?

[Belsnickel]

You know, when I see stuff like this it just adds to the concerns I have been having all along about the degradation of our democratic society. Slowly chiseling away at the ideals this country was founded upon. It's disgusting that those in power are doing this sort of thing, but it is depressing that there are people that don't care that their power in our government is being taken away.

[Dill]

(05-05-2020, 10:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know, when I see stuff like this it just adds to the concerns I have been having all along about the degradation of our democratic society. Slowly chiseling away at the ideals this country was founded upon. It's disgusting that those in power are doing this sort of thing, but it is depressing that there are people that don't care that their power in our government is being taken away.

If you convince them that the "liberal press" is taking away their power, and that their president SHOULD be above the law so he can protect them from  liberals, how could they know?

It's not that they don't care; it's that the way power is taken away makes them feel empowered. A thumb in the liberals eye whenever Trump gets away with it.

[Dill]

(05-04-2020, 01:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If Trump wins re-election, absolutely. 4 more years will take a huge toll on our institutions. 

If Biden wins, whoever succeeds him in 2024 will probably still some stuff to clean up from Trump, but I don't know if it'll that bad. 

I don't think Trump wins re-election.

That would require a "perfect storm" of circumstances--Biden has a stroke, Trump wins a land war in Asia (NK? Iran?), COV-19 doesn't return in October, and election interference from abroad works again.  

But if he does win, then I want to go on the record now saying that Trump will not finish his second term: he will be impeached again, and this time it will stick; or he will resign under pressure, disgrace, and "health concerns." He won't stop breaking the rules, and as he continues, successive fractions of his support will peel away, recognizing that breaking the rules is breaking the government, breaking the county--and that explodes everyone's head, not just liberals. Trump supporters won't vote for a Democrat (because of Benghazi and the "Russian Hoax"), but they won't vote for him.

[hollodero]

(05-06-2020, 03:37 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Trump wins re-election.

That would require a "perfect storm" of circumstances--Biden has a stroke, Trump wins a land war in Asia (NK? Iran?), COV-19 doesn't return in October, and election interference from abroad works again.  

But if he does win, then I want to go on the record now saying that Trump will not finish his second term: he will be impeached again, and this time it will stick; or he will resign under pressure, disgrace, and "health concerns."

What do you base this assumption on?

Imho the only factor is if the senate stays red. If it does, I see nothing of that sort happen.

[BmorePat87]

(05-06-2020, 03:37 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Trump wins re-election.

That would require a "perfect storm" of circumstances--Biden has a stroke, Trump wins a land war in Asia (NK? Iran?), COV-19 doesn't return in October, and election interference from abroad works again.  

But if he does win, then I want to go on the record now saying that Trump will not finish his second term: he will be impeached again, and this time it will stick; or he will resign under pressure, disgrace, and "health concerns." He won't stop breaking the rules, and as he continues, successive fractions of his support will peel away, recognizing that breaking the rules is breaking the government, breaking the county--and that explodes everyone's head, not just liberals. Trump supporters won't vote for a Democrat (because of Benghazi and the "Russian Hoax"), but they won't vote for him.

(05-06-2020, 01:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: What do you base this assumption on?

Imho the only factor is if the senate stays red. If it does, I see nothing of that sort happen.

He definitely does more impeachable things if he wins reelection. With regards to Hollodero's question, some Senators walked a thin line and suggested the upcoming election would serve as a more appropriate means of deciding if the President should stay in office.

With no election, do some of those Senators put up with blatant corruption? It's a tall order, and I don't see 15 of them doing the right thing unless it's really bad, but who knows. 

[Dill]

(05-06-2020, 01:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: What do you base this assumption on?

Imho the only factor is if the senate stays red. If it does, I see nothing of that sort happen.

Well, you cut out part of my explanation.

Senators are only indirectly dependent upon Trump, via his control of the "base."

One senator broke away during the last impeachment and three were on the edge. As that base erodes, I think more would the next time around, as more support peels away, especially in purple states.

I know you already know this, but I still love reminding you that in a month or two we will be dealing with an entirely new set of scandals even as the old ones linger, stuff completely unsuspected at the moment and unrelated to Stormy or Russia or Iran or Syria or the Ukraine or the Coronavirus or YET ANOTHER rape accusation. The surprises will continue if Trump wins re-election, perhaps with greater intensity as all the checks fall off. (I am thinking the next scandal may come from the DOJ's efforts to block investigation into Trump's finances while pursuing whistle blowers; or maybe from efforts to steer contracts for pandemic protection supplies to cronies.)

If I have read your past posts correctly, you conclude that since Trump continually manages to escape checks on his power, there is just no touching him. (I think Bels looks at it that way too.) This conclusion has some validity, as a succession of previously unthinkable breeches of decency have in fact become a "new normal," lacking the shock they'd have had four or five years ago.
 
But I don't see it that way. Each scandalous violation of law and ethics is one more bale of straw on the camel's back. Sure they keep piling up to no apparent effect, but critical mass will eventually be reached--if not before then coming election then afterwards, if he wins.  

[hollodero]

(05-06-2020, 08:40 PM)Dill Wrote: If I have read your past posts correctly, you conclude that since Trump continually manages to escape checks on his power, there is just no touching him. (I think Bels looks at it that way too.) This conclusion has some validity, as a succession of previously unthinkable breeches of decency have in fact become a "new normal," lacking the shock they'd have had four or five years ago.

Lacking the shock, yeah that's one way to put it. If it were just decency though.

I actually don't think Trump will end your democracy. I think a guy a bit smarter will. The recipe is exposed. Be a demagogue, use the media, etc., do like Trump - just not in such an erratic baby elephant walking style matter and not behaving quite that moronic and clueless. And you can become a near dictator.

Your constitution does not quite work. It does not help to argue what a founder might have had in mind way over 200 years ago. But that's what you do in dire times. Now what might be a high crime? A misdemeanor? In their view? Kinda hard to say, let's just vote. We can invite some law professors and totally distort and disregard what they say first. That's the constitutional input. The rest is voting along party lines. "Interpretation". The Nixon case had enough principled people, that's what rescued the system. Now you don't have those and the flaws are exposed.

It's pretty hard to imagine that a leader of my country would let the courts know that he cannot be prosecuted for anything while in office. Or have someone explain how everything is fair game in an reelection bid for that can be defined as national interest. It's bizarre, and it's bizarre how 53 senators did not go say what now? Is this Turkmenistan? Hell no that's not what the constitution is supposed to say! --- But nah, they ate all of it up, and in the end I only wished that Trump ordered them to strip naked and do the chicken dance.

Not to mention how this DOJ works. Hey some guy wrote an opinion on that several years ago, so let's never indict a sitting president based on that nameless guy's ideas and plan out investigations accordingly. Sure, that makes sense. As does handing the presidential appointee in the DOJ all oversight powers and the results of the investigation. What the hell.

A president can now ignore laws. Handing out tax returns, nope don't wanna, so Trump simply does not accept that law and simply just can. He can block Congress from oversight now too. I get it's in the courts now, this shiny independent third branch full of political appointees... they didn't effectively help much, did they. They delay things. And might very well in the end say, that's all just up to the two other branches, leave us alone. Or worse.

So who's stopping Trump if he shot someone? As of now, you'd have to talk and argue and be in court over this for a long time. You obviously have no idea, possibly no one. Sure it might be a bit early to unload murder on the public, so impeachment might work. But there are so many actual things, large and small, in talk and deed, that are already unloaded and alarming. A bunch too big to even start to list them. While the masses cheer. And vote him into office a second tiime (if he wins), which would make things dire.

But even if Trump wins, the people will not stand for... this... and that...! I hear you say. Ah, they sure will though. Half of republicans would be all for postponing the 2020 election because of voter fraud. So - for a lie. Could be any lie. This is not a notion driven by love of democracy, but by hating the MSM/liberal/elite/babymurderers/snowflakes/whatever. So I have no hope on things coming out, as you do. It doesn't really matter. Most on team Trump will say fake news to anything "anti-Trump", the others will sure find something in a post from Dino or something according to distract them, and there will be no landslide if there isn't one this election. What are the more moderate conservatives gonna do, finally vote democrat? After already going with Trump twice? 

But the party, the delegates, the senators will at some point... now there's one more guy unhappy! Cracks! Cracks! ...yeah, that was true too often. These guys just walk away. Corker, Flake, Amash, those rebels, they all walked away and soon are forgotten. Mr. Demagogue has the votes in tow. Have to be on his good side. Or leave town. All with principles please proceed to option two.

...sure, Trump could lose, in which case critical mass was not reached - yet. I think he will lose. If he wins though, what republican politician would abandon him then? They'd all bow to him.