We need to talk about Donald: the cursing & swearing thread

[Forty Two]

If they were women, then they'd be treated REALLY badly. Men in our culture, including Trump, suffer comparatively little ridicule.

[Tero]

Just as fair as those 100 000 black voters in Wisconsin who could not vote "because the electric bill was in the girl friend's name. They were homeless.

[Forty Two]

Just as fair as those 100 000 black voters in Wisconsin who could not vote "because the electric bill was in the girl friend's name. They were homeless.

That's absurd. They don't need an electric bill to vote.

To register in Wisconsin, you just need to be a resident of Wisconsin and have lived there for 28 days before an election. All you need is to provide your State ID number, or driver's license number, or if neither is available, then your social security number. or state ID number.
If neither are available you can provide your Social Security number.
An approved proof of residence, which includes, by way of example, any of the following:

o A current and valid State of Wisconsin Driver License or State ID card - anyone driving a car has to have a license. Anyone not driving cars can get a Wisconsin State ID for free http://elections.wi.gov/node/1917
o Any other official identification card or license issued by a Wisconsin governmental body or unit (localities, like Milwaukee and others, have city and county ID cards that people can get)
o Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo
of the card holder, but not including a business card.
o A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
o A university, college, or technical college identification card (must include photo)
o A gas, electric, or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing no earlier than
90 days before Election Day.
o Bank statement.
o Paycheck or paystub.
o A check or other document issued by a unit of government (so any welfare check, unemployment check, or food stamp card, etc.)
o A letter on public or private social service agency letterhead identifying a homeless voter and
describing the individual’s residence for voting purposes.
o Residential lease that is effective on date of registration.
o An intake document from a residential care facility such as a nursing home or assisted living facility.



Are the requirements really so onerous that black people can't comply? Because, they put their electric bills in their girlfriends' names? Really? So they're sophisticated enough to put their electric bills in their girlfriend's names, but they can't either get a free State ID, or a county/city ID, or some other paper associated with living somewhere, like, a rental agreement, or something?

When white people live with roommates, what do they do? How do they puzzle out how to accomplish this task? And, I wonder, how many white people over the age of 18, but, not owning a home or as the primary renter with a lease, are there that have these same problems and don't register? Has anyone counted? When I was in my late teens and early 20s, I did not have a home, per se, or even a lease. I lived for many years with roommates and no electric bills were in my name, or phone bills, etc. I think it's pretty common, whatever race, especially among the young.

[Animavore]

Yes. This is real.



Any day. Any day now he's going to quit the act and unleash his inner greatness upon the World like a beacon for all mankind.

[Animavore]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed that Teen Vogue has become one of the best sources for articles about what this disgraceful administration is up with regards the rights of women and minorities.



An unlikely champion out of all of this.

[Animavore]

The War on Drugs is bullshit. Punishment doesn't work. You fucking fucksticks.

The Trump administration is readying for a crackdown on marijuana users under Attorney General Jeff Sessions

President Trump’s Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety, led by Sessions, is expected to release a report next week that criminal justice reform advocates fear will link marijuana to violent crime and recommend tougher sentences for those caught growing, selling and smoking the plant.

Sessions sent a memo in April updating the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and Department of Justice Department (DOJ) component heads on the work of the task force, which he said would be accomplished through various subcommittees. In the memo, Sessions said he has asked for initial recommendations no later than July 27.

http://thehill.com/regulation/administr ... -marijuana

Another example of this vicious, cruel, authoritarian government being vicious, cruel, and authoritarian.

[Animavore]

Here's a rather succinct summary on this shitshow by a Facebook fiend.

In case it wasn’t clear, we’ve now finished “Act I” of the Trump saga, and are quickly moving into “Act II.” Which means that if you have any interest in these issues you’re going to want to start paying closer attention, because events and their repercussions are going to really begin speeding up now.

What precipitated this change? As usual, Trump did it to himself.

This latest shitstorm began last week when Trump gave an interview to the NY Times in which, among other things, he speculated that he might consider firing Special Counsel Mueller. Writing for the lawfare blog, Benjamin Wittes referred to the Times piece as “…a chilling interview—chilling because of the portrait it paints of presidential paranoia, chilling for its monomaniacal view of the relationship between the president and law enforcement, and chilling for what it says about Trump’s potential readiness to interfere with the Mueller investigation.”(7)

Then, multiple news organizations reported on Thursday that Trump had “shaken up” his legal team. (Translation: he fired a bunch of lawyers and replaced them.) CNN for example reported that, “Marc Kasowitz, Trump's longtime personal attorney who has been the lead lawyer on the Russia investigation, will see his role recede, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter.” (1) And in case it’s not obvious, “see his role recede” is classic beltway speak for getting sacked.

At the same time word also spread that Mark Corallo, the spokesman and communications strategist for Trump’s legal team, had resigned. Other than stating that “I resigned yesterday,” Mr. Corallo was unwilling to give any additional information on his abrupt departure from Trump’s legal team. But according to the New York Times, “Mr. Corallo was one of several people cautioning against publicly criticizing Mr. Mueller.”

Based on reports from both the New York Times (2) and the Washington Post (3), it seems increasingly clear that Corallo’s caution is about to be aggressively ignored.

According to both the Times and the Post, Trump’s legal team is seriously considering multiple ways in which to undermine Mueller’s ongoing investigations, and some of those plans include disparaging Mueller himself. The Post for example reported that, “Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest…They are actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work.”

As for the Times, they have reported that, “President Trump’s lawyers and aides are scouring the professional and political backgrounds of investigators hired by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, looking for conflicts of interest they could use to discredit the investigation — or even build a case to fire Mr. Mueller or get some members of his team recused, according to three people with knowledge of the research effort.”

And if you’re wondering why so much effort is being expended to find “conflicts of interest,” it’s because this is one of the few legitimate grounds that an Attorney General can use to dismiss (=fire) a special counsel. Donald Trump may be politically incompetent enough not to care, but his attorneys know that he will need some form of credible cover for removing Mueller, and finding real conflicts of interest would give him that.

Of course what Trump and his team consider “credible” is usually not what anyone else considers credible. In fact many congressmen are still not taking the idea of removing Mueller seriously, because it seems so far beyond the pale. Bloomberg for example reported that Republican Senator Bob Corker, when asked about this situation, stated that, “There is no possible way anybody at the White House could be seriously thinking about firing Mueller…I don’t even want to comment on that because that’s so far out of bounds it couldn’t possibly be a serious discussion.” (4)

Unfortunately, while Corker’s statement is obviously true, it mostly indicates the he has not been paying attention to Trump. As the Bloomberg piece states, “Trump’s other precedent-shattering decisions have underscored that he doesn’t feel bound by Washington’s traditions, or a fear of the political ramifications.”

Which is, in my view, letting Trump off too lightly. This is not about mere “Washington traditions.” On the contrary, Trump’s statements and actions have made it clear that he does not understand, respect or even care about the important boundaries intentionally designed into the legal framework of our government. Foundational structures and precedents such as the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and an apolitical and independent law enforcement community - these are all an irrelevance to Trump.

Speaking to this issue, Michael McGough, the senior editorial writer for the LA Times, stated on Thursday (5) that Trump’s insistence that he would not have picked Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General if he knew Sessions was going to recuse himself indicates several disturbing things about the president. First, it indicates that Trump appears to honestly have no idea why Sessions even HAD to recuse himself. Which itself only re-establishes Trump’s complete ignorance of the norms of American governance.

Second, it suggests that Trump actually views the Attorney General as his personal lawyer, rather than the chief law enforcement official and lawyer representing the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

As Dahlia Lithwick pointed out in a piece for Slate several weeks ago (6), Trump “has always treated lawyers as hired help.” Speaking about her own experience as an attorney before becoming a journalist, Ms. Lithwick recounted her dealings with numerous wealthy businessmen. She was shocked to discover that they often “…held a view of lawyers I didn’t remember learning about in law school: They believed attorneys were the help and that laws were problems that—with enough help and enough money to buy even better help—could be made to go away.”

That, as anyone familiar with his history knows, is Trump in a nutshell. Lithwick postulates that Trump most likely sees no difference between the White House Counsel’s office, the attorney general, his divorce attorney, or the FBI director. In Trump’s view they all “work for him,” and therefore should just do whatever he tells them to do. Benjamin Wittes goes even further when he observes that Trump essentially feels “…that the FBI should be his personal force and that all of law enforcement should be about serving him.” (7)

But of course things don’t actually work that way, and if Trump wants to fire Mueller without real cause he will not be able to do it by simple diktat. Instead he will have to decapitate the Justice Department by firing at least three (and probably more) of our nation’s top law enforcement officials. And that in turn will create a constitutional crisis so striking it may even wake slumbering Republicans.

And to be clear, even that would not end the issue, because getting rid of Mueller would not stop the investigations. In order to accomplish that Trump would have to install an Attorney General who was willing to publicly obstruct a major, ongoing Justice Department investigation involving issues of national security.

That is a pretty big ask, even for political sycophants. Washington is full of people seeking power, but it is not full of people who want their reputation publicly shit on for a lost cause. And really, how many people at this point would put their professional and personal future in the hands of Donald Trump, even if he can theoretically pardon them later?

And speaking of pardons, keep in mind that any attempt by Trump to squash the investigations by handing out sweeping preemptive pardons would create tremendous political blowback. Also, there’s a real chance that it wouldn’t actually work that well.

For one thing, the president cannot pardon himself. Let’s dispense with that fiction immediately. Also, the president can only pardon people for federal crimes. The president has no power to pardon people for state crimes. And we already know that New York state AG Schneiderman has been working hard on his own investigations. Other state attorneys general are also rumored to be working on similar cases. Trump cannot pardon his way out of those problems.

Here’s another key point that is not often considered when it comes to the issue of pardons: people who receive pardons don’t retain the “right to remain silent.” That right exists because of constitutional protections against self-incrimination. If someone receives a pardon however, they can no longer be charged with any crimes related to that pardon. Which means that they no longer have any right to remain silent, and can be compelled to give testimony. If they refuse to fully and truthfully give that testimony, they can be jailed until they do.

So anyone Trump pardons will find themselves very quickly sitting in an "interview room." And trust me, Paul Manafort sitting in front of a bunch of FBI agents with notebooks and recording devices is pretty much the opposite of what Trump is looking to accomplish.

Back in the day, many of the men who served under Nixon did terrible things. But they were true believers. Personally, I guessing that Trump doesn't have a lot of those. Can anyone really picture Bannon, Kushner, or Manafort going to jail for Donald Trump? Umm…no. Those assholes will sing so loud the FBI will have to disburse industrial strength ear protection for their agents.

Beginning this week, multiple Senate committees will begin investigating issues surrounding Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, the Trump campaign’s possible collusion in that interference, and other issues related to those events. In the meantime, Special Counsel Mueller has assembled a team of at least 15 top-notch investigators and prosecutors to pursue his investigations. And to be clear, the people Mueller has brought aboard are some of the best in the business.

While it may be impossible to predict exactly how Trump will react to all of this, it’s not that hard to guess: badly. Just how badly he reacts will determine how quickly we go from Act II to Act III of the Trump show. It will also determine just how resilient our system really is.

So this is where we find ourselves: due to what may very well be the greatest electoral mistake in American history, we now have a sitting president who does not understand or care about government. To Trump, and many men like him, the pinnacle of all American efforts is business. This is why Trump so often appears to think that all interactions, both foreign and domestic, are transactional. It is also why he unrelentingly assumes that all government agencies and agency heads simply have to do whatever he tells them to do.

It’s also why he is struggling so hard to make the American government function like his own family business. First, because he begins with the assumption that business is always smarter and better than government. Second, because that is really the only way he knows or cares to function, and he's not going to change for something as unimportant as the United States government. Third, because his family members are just about the only people he trusts with his various “secrets.”

But government is not a business, nor is it intended to be. A point that seems obvious, but remains oddly confusing to many people, is that governments do not exist for the same purpose, hold the equivalent priorities, or function with the same motivations as business.

Trying to force the government to run as a business is like trying to force a hospital to run like a game show; it might be fascinating to watch the attempt, but in the end it will fail in a spectacularly ugly fashion. Also, you really don't want to be a patient during that particular experiment.

"Government" and "Business" are different entities. They perform different functions for society and are kept separate for good reason. And quite frankly men like Trump are a large part of that reason. Even ethical and well-meaning business leaders, of which there are plenty, would have a serious problem trying to run the U.S. government like a business. When you instead begin with a businessman as unethical, self-serving, autocratic and mendacious as Trump, it is nearly impossible to avoid ending up with a form of governance that is both incompetent and dangerous.

In short, it is simply not possible to run the United States government in this manner, and we are now witnessing what happens when you try.

1- http://cnn.it/2ufGvs6
2- http://nyti.ms/2uOQPKN
3- http://wapo.st/2upHMgk
4- https://bloom.bg/2tKVfgs
5- http://lat.ms/2vNNXu1
6- http://slate.me/2sYvqO1
7- http://bit.ly/2uGtbiJ

[Animavore]

Trump-cultist thinking in action.

[Sean Hayden]

I've pretty much stopped reading anything by the left regarding Trump. In my opinion they really have lost their f'n minds.

Maybe there's still a sensible voice out there? -anywhere?

[Tero]

I can summarize all the RIGHT, you don't have to read that either: There was no collusion and it's OK to get dirt on the opposition from Russia.

[Sean Hayden]

Republicans are insane, it's true. It'd be nice if we could avoid the same fate.

:selfrighteousgrin:

[L'Emmerdeur]

"The left" should just shut up and bend over, amiright?

[Sean Hayden]

No, you should continue to convince the less fortunate among us to believe that we're on the verge of becoming Nazi Germany, or worse. Cause gosh darnit, it's just that important.

[JimC]

No, you should continue to convince the less fortunate among us to believe that we're on the verge of becoming Nazi Germany, or worse. Cause gosh darnit, it's just that important.

What you are responding to is that the debate over Trump has become so polarised, and opinions so entrenched, that criticism of Trump can grow without rational bounds, as can irrational defence of him by his supporters...

Having said that, Trump himself is as an eccentric and bizarre politician that western democracies have seen for a long time, so even the hyperbole of his opponents has at least some connection to reality...

[Tero]

What defence, Jim!? There is no defence for a human compost heap!