All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[L'Emmerdeur]

39E63C33-52A4-4F36-9B27-2D84D1C1B1B9.png
It's hard to tell. Every week is a Trump shitstorm. This week maybe a 6 or 7.

You've just bought into the 'orange man bad' delusion. It's all because the enemies of the people are feeding you a steady diet of lies.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Should I have said that on Dissenter?

[Tero]

There was some new bad shit.

[Tero]

CCDFDD40-3F59-4D25-A189-DBFFE4ECE8B7.jpeg (79.18 KiB) Viewed 1998 times

[Brian Peacock]

[Brian Peacock]

This Ilhan Omar business seems to be ramping up. Is Trump really going to run his 2020 campaign on a ticket of pitting his base against brown people, Muslims, and women in office? Is he really going to attempt the 'full Mexican hatchet job' that played out well for him last time on American citizens?

Some might argue that political rhetoric is rather abstract, that it serves a particular purpos and therefore doesn't actually mean whatever it appears to say, but I don't think it's outrageous or hyperbole to say that Trump's, the White House's, the NY TImes, and the conveyor-belt of Republican apologists on FOX NEWS derogatory outpourings against Omar carry the potent stench of racism deployed as a political weapon.

EDIT: I was going to post some links to some of the many NY Times articles and opinion piece on Omar that have been published in the last week, but the website just tried to lay over 700 cookies on me!

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's been a not so subtle subtext to his entire presidency, why would he change a winning tactic?

[Brian Peacock]

It's been a not so subtle subtext to his entire presidency, why would he change a winning tactic?

I guess the subtext is well and truly out of the bag now. He can't go on repeating his old material from his first album forever can he? I guess the TV showman in him knows he has to up the jeopardy and the conflict just to keep his spot in the ratings. No doubt we'll be treated to complaints about voter fraud in short order. He'll have to go further than claiming the dead are voting for the nation's enemies this time - perhaps the undead, or unpatriotic pre-natal Democrats?

[Cunt]

No-one is putting subtext in, they are just writing some things.

[Brian Peacock]

I agree. They've given up the sub - it's all in plain text now.

[Seabass]

It's been a not so subtle subtext to his entire presidency, why would he change a winning tactic?

I guess the subtext is well and truly out of the bag now. He can't go on repeating his old material from his first album forever can he? I guess the TV showman in him knows he has to up the jeopardy and the conflict just to keep his spot in the ratings. No doubt we'll be treated to complaints about voter fraud in short order. He'll have to go further than claiming the dead are voting for the nation's enemies this time - perhaps the undead, or unpatriotic pre-natal Democrats?

Was it ever in the bag? He came down the escalator and immediately shat all ever mexicans and muslims.

[L'Emmerdeur]

No doubt we'll be treated to complaints about voter fraud in short order. He'll have to go further than claiming the dead are voting for the nation's enemies this time - perhaps the undead, or unpatriotic pre-natal Democrats?

He never stopped pushing the 'voter fraud by Democrats' lie, though, and has been laying the groundwork to jump on it if he loses in 2020. The question is, will Republicans in Congress support him, should he refuse to concede?

[Forty Two]

Trump told CBP head he'd pardon him if he were sent to jail for violating immigration law
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/politics ... index.html

He's just a guy who pardons some people.

Ah, yes, it's CNN and their paraphrasing of "senior administration officials." How senior? LOL. He supposedly made the statement when visiting Calexico - a place usually rife with "senior" administration officials, lol.

And, the article provides a quote in quotation marks, and says "...as one of the senior officials PARAPHRASED." They quoted an unnamed senior official's paraphrase.

Trump should offer pardons to illegal aliens. The "law and order" Democrats would be outraged at the scofflaw....

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, you don't trust the source, but how are you with the principle of a president making it clear to an official that they'll get a pardon if prosecuted for carrying out an illegal policy?

[Forty Two]

Yeah, you don't trust the source, but how are you with the principle of a president making it clear to an official that they'll get a pardon if prosecuted for carrying out an illegal policy?

If it happened, I don't like it. But, the President does have unlimited Pardon authority for federal crimes.

It's not that I don't trust the source, as much as the article itself presents no credible case that the President actually said that. It's a very badly written article, and cites "senior administration officials.' How many senior administration officials were there at Calexico with the President and could have heard it? Answer - zero.

Then they paraphrase one of these senior administration officials and insert in in the article as quote - and then they say "it wasn't clear if the president was joking..." rather pregnant fact, that.

So, somebody who doesn't speak for the administration, and isn't really "senior" says they heard the president say something that might have been a joke. Nobody confirms it. Sarah Sanders and the President both deny it.

I do find it ironic that people get all "law and order" about this, but have no problem disregarding immigration laws as applied to people crossing the US border illegally.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, you don't trust the source, but how are you with the principle of a president making it clear to an official that they'll get a pardon if prosecuted for carrying out an illegal policy?

If it happened, I don't like it. But, the President does have unlimited Pardon authority for federal crimes.

It's not that I don't trust the source, as much as the article itself presents no credible case that the President actually said that. It's a very badly written article, and cites "senior administration officials.' How many senior administration officials were there at Calexico with the President and could have heard it? Answer - zero.

Then they paraphrase one of these senior administration officials and insert in in the article as quote - and then they say "it wasn't clear if the president was joking..." rather pregnant fact, that.

So, somebody who doesn't speak for the administration, and isn't really "senior" says they heard the president say something that might have been a joke. Nobody confirms it. Sarah Sanders and the President both deny it.

I do find it ironic that people get all "law and order" about this, but have no problem disregarding immigration laws as applied to people crossing the US border illegally.

You see, I asked you that question because IF a president acted in such a way it would be something worthy of condemnation, perhaps even a little OUTRAGE!?!! Seabass clearly seems a little OUTRAGED!?!! by the thought of it, while you seem a little OUTRAGED!?!! by the thought that anyone might be OUTRAGED!?!! by the thought of it. To be honest, it doesn't sound out of character for Mr Trump does it - or without precident even?