Election 2020 - Page 153 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Beren
#15106860
JohnRawls wrote:He reminds me of DR. Strangelove :hmm:

He's like a parody of Kissinger, which Dr. Strangelove also could be.

Image
User avatar
By Julian658
#15106926
quetzalcoatl wrote:It's not really a white-power symbol, see - it's actually just a reference to the circle game. The circle game is a big favorite among Proud Boys and former Trump advisers.

It means I am OK.
Image
There is Reagan after he was shot.

Perhaps it has to do with that old slogan "It is OK to be white". What do you think?
User avatar
By Wulfschilde
#15106927
It's literally a joke started on 4chan and then the MSM et al. were too embarrassed to admit they had been had, so they kept treating it like it was a white supremacist symbol.

It was also standard sign language in situations where you couldn't communicate with words, for example the OK sign was used in scuba diving or other long distance wilderness sports. Recently I went on such an outing and I noticed they had replaced the OK sign with a pat on the head, which makes no sense but doesn't get anyone accused of being an underwater white supremacist.
By Pants-of-dog
#15106931
Racism is boring in this thread.

We all know who will vote for the racist guy.

We all know who will use racism on the campaign trail.

We all know who racists will vote for.
By Doug64
#15106939
Black Consequense wrote:@Doug64 Let's not forget he's not popular with young Blacks such as myself(even though I will be voting for him).

I’m not sure who “he” is, but in either case the candidates are going to be getting supporters that don’t like them personally but either approve of their policies or think the other candidate’s (and/or party’s) policies are worse. I know some like that, that will be voting for Trump this time when they didn’t last time because they focus on what he does while ignoring what he says. I can understand their decision, even if I don’t agree—I think he passes the “bag of hammers” presidential test myself, but can’t accept his character in a president.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15106952
It is important to see Trump in historical context. The country he took over had been through a seesawing quarter-century of trauma.

Those 25 years, while difficult, hardly compare to the social trauma of the 15 years before Hitler and the Reichstag Fire. World War 1, the Hunger Blockade, the 1918-1919 Flu pandemic, the Inflation, the French Invasion of the Ruhr, the first Hitler Putsch in 1923, the worldwide depression 1929-1932 and unemployment rate of 30+ %

And still, in the last three free elections in 1932, Hitler and his party never got more than 38% of the vote--the same as Trump in 2016.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15106956
jimjam wrote:I believe Trump has read the writing on the wall and is expecting to be defeated badly in the election so whatever political restraints he had acquiesced to from his advisors are now out the window.

Trump probably figured the Democrats would kill Stone with coronavirus or something. How long do you think they will let Ghislaine Maxwell live? Do you think she will "commit suicide" by breaking her hyoid bone too?

XogGyux wrote:So with the recent judgment that the president is not immune... shocker!
I cannot but wonder why did he have to open THIS can of worm? Seems like shooting himself in the foot, then putting salt and lemon juice and lava and then shooting the foot again. :lol:
Now the doors are open for indictments, something that until this ruling seemed "off-limits" because of the justice department policy. But with this ruling, this could be fair game now.
The elephant in the room is either self-pardon or resigning and having pence pardon him. The latter seems straightforward, but I do think the self-pardon theory now has even more holes... if the court just ruled that he is not above the law, certainly this means he cannot commit crimes (break the law) and then pardon himself (be above the law). He could have forced himself into a corner of probably having to resign prior to inauguration day should he lose on November. This would also require a good deal of trust on Pence to do so.

What door is open for indictments? On what charges?

Rugoz wrote:We know Trump Jr.'s emails and we know that Jr. and Manafort went to that meeting, among other things.

We also know that Veselnitskaya was denied a visa from the State Department, but was given an immigration parole by the Loretta Lynch's DoJ. We know that Veselnitskaya met with Glenn Simpson of FusionGPS--Hillary Clinton's opposition research arm--both before and after the meeting with Trump. We also know that they solicited the meeting with Trump, not the other way around. We know that Veselnitskaya started lobbying to repeal the Magnitsky Act, and that Trump cut the meeting short. If all this stuff didn't point back to the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration, they might have gotten away with it.

Rugoz wrote:That's not to say there was collusion, but people who say the investigation was a hoax are freaking idiots.

The whole thing was cooked up and paid for by the Clinton campaign, and then put in motion by the Obama administration. The whole thing was a dirty partisan hit job. The Democrats are dirty.

annatar1914 wrote:Example; Trump for a ''Conservative'' is very pro-LGTBQ, something hard to see for some but blindingly obvious for others.

Trump isn't a conservative. He's a nationalist. He thinks Gorsuch's recent rulings are good, while I think they are atrocious. You'll notice that they didn't protest Gorsuch in the Senate, while they trashed Kavanaugh.

annatar1914 wrote:Sure, they'll raise a fuss and protest very loudly and throw up a huge virtue-signalling smokescreen; but at the end of the day it is all an act, like professional wrestling. I noticed that even not so long ago during Trump's State of the Union address last year, with Pelosi's dramatic and childish ripping up of the copy of the speech provided. That was theater.

Pelosi's action was theater, but to suggest that behind the scenes she and Trump are buddies is ludicrous. Just because they are all capitalists doesn't mean they aren't enemies. Competition is at the very heart of capitalism.

jimjam wrote:And still, in the last three free elections in 1932, Hitler and his party never got more than 38% of the vote--the same as Trump in 2016.

He got 46.1% of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 48.2%--unfortunately for Clinton, running up the score in California doesn't do anything about the electoral college or bleeding votes to Jill Stein in key states.
By Doug64
#15106958
jimjam wrote:And still, in the last three free elections in 1932, Hitler and his party never got more than 38% of the vote--the same as Trump in 2016.

Another Godwin comparison? It fails on two points. First, Trump won majorities in thirty out of fifty states, and 304 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227; I call that a solid majority (though unlike other Republican candidates, his electoral margin shrinks instead of rises if you divvy up the college by House district and give the Senate electoral votes to whomever wins the state majority). Second, though it’s really irrelevant, a 2.1% separation between Trump and Clinton is considerably closer than anything Hitler managed, which is why there’s a real possibility that Trump could win an outright majority this time.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15106959
blackjack21 wrote:What door is open for indictments? On what charges?

He is individual one. Remember?
So many scandals and crimes that it is hard to keep track of them right?

:knife:
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15106962
XogGyux wrote:He is individual one. Remember?
So many scandals and crimes that it is hard to keep track of them right?

:knife:

If you can't name the crime, you can't convict. Didn't you already learn that from the failed impeachment?
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15106963
blackjack21 wrote:If you can't name the crime, you can't convict. Didn't you already learn that from the failed impeachment?

ROFL. You are funny sometimes pretending ignorance.
There are others that could claim genuine ignorance.... but not you, you are a clever, wrong headed, stubborn and despicable, but clever. You know.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15106968
New York is going to get him on either Tax Fraud or Bank Fraud. That is pretty much a done deal after the SCOTUS decision.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15106970
Drlee wrote:New York is going to get him on either Tax Fraud or Bank Fraud. That is pretty much a done deal after the SCOTUS decision.

Don't forget campaign financing and lying to the FBI.
And that's only a bit of what we know, I am sure there is plenty more :lol: .
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15106976
XogGyux wrote:You are funny sometimes pretending ignorance.

? What charge do you think you can sustain a conviction on? I mean, if Mueller couldn't get it done, what makes you think a career prosecutor is going to accomplish what the most biased, partisan, hate-filled and vindictive prosecutor with unlimited funding can't get done?

Drlee wrote:New York is going to get him on either Tax Fraud or Bank Fraud. That is pretty much a done deal after the SCOTUS decision.

Why do you think they would get him when the IRS hasn't after ten years of audits? Besides, Trump is just going to now object to the subpoena on ordinary grounds, and it will be 6 months for that to get heard. So it's unlikely you're going to be able to see his illegally leaked tax returns before November.

XogGyux wrote:Don't forget campaign financing and lying to the FBI.
And that's only a bit of what we know, I am sure there is plenty more :lol: .

Obama got fined for campaign finance violations. So what?

Shouldn't you be more concerned with what Durham's up to?
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15106979
@blackjack21 , let's talk about your response to my comments, they're interesting, at least to me, perhaps because of my own idiosyncratic political beliefs but more likely because they provide an opening for seeing the world as it stands on the end of the modern age. It reminds me of things I read in John Lukacs-perhaps you've read him? Here's a short link to some stuff about him;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lukacs



He was a profound historian and thinker, described himself as a ''reactionary'' but rather disliked Fascists, you should read some of his stuff. He wrote a really good book called; ''the Hitler of History'' which concerned the Prosopography of Hitler, but provided some amazing insights on Nationalism and Populism. Here is an excerpt from Wiki;

Lukacs saw populism as the primary threat to modern civilization. By his own description, he considered himself a reactionary.[7] He identified populism as the essence of both National Socialism and Communism, denying the existence of generic fascism and asserted that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were greater than their similarities.[10]

A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[11] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.


Anyway, Lukacs goes on in other writings to describe the main threats to America and Western civilization, its inner rot that actually is linked to it's populism, as Wiki describes;

''In his book Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred (2005), Lukacs writes about the current state of American democracy. He warns that the populism he perceives as ascendant in the United States renders it vulnerable to demagoguery. He claims that a transformation from liberal democracy to populism can be seen in the replacement of knowledge and history with propaganda and infotainment. In the same book, Lukacs criticizes legalized abortion, pornography, cloning and sexual permissiveness as marking what he sees as the increasing decadence, depravity, corruption and amorality of modern American society.''


So with that in mind, I dive into your statements;



Trump isn't a conservative. He's a nationalist. He thinks Gorsuch's recent rulings are good, while I think they are atrocious. You'll notice that they didn't protest Gorsuch in the Senate, while they trashed Kavanaugh.


Exactly. When I made the comment about Trump's Liberalism in the Socio-Cultural sense that by no means voids his Nationalism/Populism. He's not going to ''Conserve'' anything worthwhile, and Conservatives would do well to reflect on that. As much as I completely enjoy seeing Liberals lose their minds over this man, I reflect that over time and once he wins a second term ''Conservatives'' are likely to be losing their minds over him as well.


Pelosi's action was theater, but to suggest that behind the scenes she and Trump are buddies is ludicrous. Just because they are all capitalists doesn't mean they aren't enemies. Competition is at the very heart of capitalism.


Sure. I may have to explain my position a little further about the ''Elites'', in that there are always sub-groups and factions in any Elite over a society. President Trump is supported by some of those Elite people to a certain degree, and I suspect that after he wins in 2020 the rest will come to terms with him as well. They are all going to circle the wagons after he wins.

So to be clear; Trump will win. But then we're going to have to take stock of the direction everything is going after that.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15106982
Why do you think they would get him when the IRS hasn't after ten years of audits?


Because they are looking for different things.
The IRS is looking to determine whether Trump paid his taxes. The state is interested in whether he lied to bankers to obtain loans. The are also interested in whether he violated New York campaign finance laws.

No doubt in my mind that what Trump has told the IRS he earned is something different from what he told banks. This is not just about his personal taxes but also his business taxes.

Besides, Trump is just going to now object to the subpoena on ordinary grounds, and it will be 6 months for that to get heard. So it's unlikely you're going to be able to see his illegally leaked tax returns before November.


I agree. I don't expect to see any of this stuff before November. That is why Biden should make the revealing of his tax returns a condition of debate.
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15106989
blackjack21 wrote:? What charge do you think you can sustain a conviction on? I mean, if Mueller couldn't get it done, what makes you think a career prosecutor is going to accomplish what the most biased, partisan, hate-filled and vindictive prosecutor with unlimited funding can't get done?


BINGO! Mueller didn't even look into this because of the murkiness of the president being investigated/indicted. Since he was under these constraints, he did not even open that can of worm... although he did unscrew the lid.
But the SCOTUS just opened the can of worms. Now it is up to investigators to shake it a little bit.

Do you think it is a coincidence that all of the sudden, right now, William Bar is trying to replace the heads of the justice departments that are investigating some of these cases and could investigate others? Coincidence? I don't think so.

Obama got fined for campaign finance violations. So what?

Obama this, Obama that, Obama blah blah blah. All you guys do is try to drop distractions.. Obama did this, Clinton's emails, Benghazi. Get over with it.

Fact: There are people in jail right now for cases that Trump has been mentioned as a co-conspirator and he escaped the same fate as his co-conspirators because he is the president. Fact... SCOTUS just hinted that this is not really how it should be.

Don't be so sad, unfortunately, since we live in a stupid world, this could still end up working out in his favor. Re-igniting investigations on him could re-ignite/fortify his supporters and help him in November. I know... it is stupid that some people would jump in to defend this criminal and/or vote him into office, but we live in a stupid world where people rather ignore facts, science, common sense, uncommon sense, etc.. :lol:
Anyway, the fact is this is certainly not a win for him. Just the fact that 3 whole "conservative" judges including 2 that he put on the bench basically slapped the fuck out of his arguments is enough to put him in the notice and certainly he is not happy about it.
#15106993
Most people are selfish lying pieces of shit. Republicans and Democrats are people. Therefore, most Republicans and Democrats are pieces of shit.
#15106994
Drlee wrote:New York is going to get him on either Tax Fraud or Bank Fraud. That is pretty much a done deal after the SCOTUS decision.

Yeah I'll believe when I see it. Everyone's been trying to take down the guy for 4 years.
  • 1
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 173

Thank you Crantag for replying. Not in order. As I[…]

Trump digs his political grave

Worse people? Sure. Worse people that are this in[…]

We are getting rid of the name Redskins now anyway[…]

Turnout data also suggests that Trump will win thi[…]