36
   

The "When will Donald Trump leave office in disgrace?" Pool

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:52 am
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:
"The way the Trump presidency is beginning it is safe to say it will end in calamity. It is almost a certainty. Even Republicans know this!"

~John Dean, former Nixon White House Council

Like I said, it's inevitable. This presidency is going to be a disaster.

Too bad the whole world has to suffer while that baboon's ass is running it. (into the ground)

Good to see you back. But I dissent from your assessment.

I predict that Trump is the beginning of 20 straight years of Republican control over the White House. And even after the Democrats regain power after 20 years, they will only do so by nominating a candidate that is "Trump-lite" (sort of like how Bill Clinton won by being "Reagan-lite").

Trump and the new Republicans who will follow in his image are going to lead the nation into the 21st century.

But anyway, good to see you back.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:57 am
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:
The true Trump spirit on full display here. Classy.

The thing with Hillary is she was a grave threat to the existence of the nation as a free republic. If she'd been elected, the government would have come and seized everyone's guns.

Trump on the other hand will protect our freedom and liberty.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 01:11 am
There may be a lot of mysterious deaths of investigative reporters in DC over the next few years, sure, but aint nobody gunna get the goods on Trump.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 07:33 am
@kickycan,
/Hat tip

If you followed the campaign, Trump said he was going to do all of the things that he is doing.

I think people thought that once he was elected he would do like every other President and renege on his campaign promises. But, so far, he is doing exactly what he dais he was going to do and that is one of the reasons so many voted for him.
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:04 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Offensive language. Misogynistic creep.






But true none the less
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:06 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

On days like yesterday, I wonder if I should have picked a day sooner for the successful end to his impeachment trial; March 1, 2018 seems too easy.

The players are assembling. Looks like McCain and Graham are positioning themselves as leaders from inside the party against Trump. Other voices are speaking out. The General activist fury is emboldening the loyal opposition.

Somewhere, I think a team of lawyers is already frenetically poring over the Constitution and Trump's holdings and actions, laying the groundwork for his impeachment.


Well lash, you took the bet so I'll be sorry to see you go...
NSFW (view)
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:13 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

/Hat tip

If you followed the campaign, Trump said he was going to do all of the things that he is doing.

I think people thought that once he was elected he would do like every other President and renege on his campaign promises. But, so far, he is doing exactly what he dais he was going to do and that is one of the reasons so many voted for him.


I think it's also the reason that many of his voters are pissed (it's not just Clinton people protesting you must know).

I think even you'll agree that he received a lot of votes not for what he was saying he'd do, but for simply not being Clinton.

A lot of his voters were likely hoping he'd in fact renege on his promises. That was the point of the whole "can't take Trump literally" line we kept on hearing from people, right?
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:21 am
@maporsche,
More than hqlf the country DID NOT VOTE, of those that did, more than half voted AGAINST Trump.
Hes got a tenuous hold on the presidency unless he does something rash.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  3  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:22 am
@giujohn,
Dude. I wish I'd picked a sooner date. It is this Guijohn moniker that will be retired.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:39 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
A lot of his voters were likely hoping he'd in fact renege on his promises. That was the point of the whole "can't take Trump literally" line we kept on hearing from people, right?


That's something else Trump has in common with Hitler. People said the same about his electioneering. Politicians do make crazy pledges, Lloyd George's promise to hang the Kaiser being a case in point. Pledges have to be tempered with realpolitik, if you want to effect real progress.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:04 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
If she'd been elected, the government would have come and seized everyone's guns.

One of the stupidest predictions I've ever heard. Just how would she have put that plan into practice? It's fine to use rightwing talking points but at least have the sense to edit out the alarmist ignorance shown in your statement. This really childish statement demonstrates a tenuous grip on the facts and indicates a deep sense of paranoia — there may be things we should fear but "the gummint is gonna take our little toys" isn't one of them.

Maybe, just maybe, an HRC administration might have tried to close the gun show loophole, limit magazine size, or expand background checks. But I never heard her, Obama, or any other proponent of gun control threat to confiscate "everyone's guns". The resulting political **** storm wouldn't be worth it.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:25 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

But I never heard her, Obama, or any other proponent of gun control threat to confiscate "everyone's guns". The resulting political **** storm wouldn't be worth it.

It wouldn't just be a "political" problem. It would be every armed citizen against the feds in a full-blown war. Lotta bloodshed--feds lyin dead everywhere ya look.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  6  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:58 pm
@kickycan,
Only at this moment did I realize how much I've missed you all.

Anyone heard from Sozobe?

I think I entered a bet in this one, June or July of 2017. Hope it will be sooner.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 04:05 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If she'd been elected, the government would have come and seized everyone's guns.

One of the stupidest predictions I've ever heard.

I realize that facts are anathema to the Left since those facts are always contradicting Leftist delusions. But no, posting facts that liberals find inconvenient does not count as stupidity.


hightor wrote:
Just how would she have put that plan into practice?

She would have continued and expanded Mr. Obama's executive orders that placed larger and larger groups of law-abiding Americans on the list of people who are prohibited from having guns.

At the same time she would have packed the courts full of judges who would maliciously refuse to enforce the Second Amendment.


hightor wrote:
It's fine to use rightwing talking points but at least have the sense to edit out the alarmist ignorance shown in your statement.

It is a credit to the Right that you characterize "facts and reality" as Rightwing talking points.

But similar to my above statement, just because facts and reality are highly inconvenient to the Left, that doesn't make facts and reality ignorant.


hightor wrote:
This really childish statement

And again. Just because the Left has a very strong dislike for facts and reality, that doesn't mean facts and reality are childish.


hightor wrote:
demonstrates a tenuous grip on the facts

Well let's see if you can manage to point out a single factual claim that I am wrong about then.

I won't hold my breath waiting though. I'm pretty used to liberals saying all my facts are wrong but then running away when challenged to list a single fact that I am wrong about.


hightor wrote:
and indicates a deep sense of paranoia

Hardly paranoia to take a candidate and party that means to take everyone's guns and is on the verge of doing it, and treat them as the threat to freedom that they actually are.


hightor wrote:
there may be things we should fear but "the gummint is gonna take our little toys" isn't one of them.

On the contrary, given Hillary and the Democrats' plans to do just that, that is exactly what everyone needed to fear.


hightor wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, an HRC administration might have tried to close the gun show loophole, limit magazine size, or expand background checks.

"Expanding background checks" is of course a euphemism for "taking law-abiding people who have every right to have guns and putting them on the list of people who are prohibited from having guns".

Mr. Trump will actually protect the rights of law-abiding Americans.


hightor wrote:
But I never heard her, Obama, or any other proponent of gun control threat to confiscate "everyone's guns".

As the Democrats added more and more groups of law-abiding people to the list of people who are not allowed to have guns, they would have gotten closer and closer to "everyone".

Probably the next category of people to be prohibited from having guns was "people who wear glasses". It would have been a touching tribute to Pol Pot (a foreign political figure that the Left holds in very high esteem).


hightor wrote:
The resulting political **** storm wouldn't be worth it.

On the contrary, the Left lives for the joy that they get from violating people's civil rights.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 05:39 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I realize that facts are anathema to the Left since those facts are always contradicting Leftist delusions.

No doubt you're right but one fact is that there are so many more guns and gun owners than agents to track them down — let alone confiscate their weapons — plus the fact that there's no federal registry of gun owners, well any sane person would see that the effort would be a logistical and tactical nightmare. Not worth it.
Quote:
At the same time she would have packed the courts full of judges who would maliciously refuse to enforce the Second Amendment.

Well, you might have a point there, but no more maliciously than the activist justices who overturned precedent in the Heller decision. That's politics, buddy; you ought to know that by now.
Quote:
"Expanding background checks" is of course a euphemism for "taking law-abiding people who have every right to have guns and putting them on the list of people who are prohibited from having guns".

That's a pretty profound insight. But I'll tell you something. That ******* Dylann Roof shouldn't have had a gun. Street thugs shouldn't have guns. People who go nuts if they forget to take their medicine shouldn't have guns. By the way, if those "law-abiding people" are not legally entitled to own a gun because of state or local statutes then there should be a list of those names on a legal document and those people should be prohibited from having a gun. But your guns — and mine — are safe for a little while longer.
nimh
 
  4  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 07:03 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
If you followed the campaign, Trump said he was going to do all of the things that he is doing.

I think people thought that once he was elected he would do like every other President and renege on his campaign promises. But, so far, he is doing exactly what he dais he was going to do


I think the fact that influential Trump backers kept telling us to "take him seriously, not literally" whenever he promised something outrageous again might have something to do with how taken aback some people are.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 07:16 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
there are so many more guns and gun owners than agents to track them down — let alone confiscate their weapons — plus the fact that there's no federal registry of gun owners, well any sane person would see that the effort would be a logistical and tactical nightmare. Not worth it.

While it is true that the government wouldn't be able to track down all the guns, meaning that after a total gun ban people would still be able to arm themselves illegally, it is still wildly unacceptable for the government to make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to have guns.

People have the right to have guns legally and openly.


hightor wrote:
no more maliciously than the activist justices who overturned precedent in the Heller decision. That's politics, buddy; you ought to know that by now.

A ruling that adheres to the Constitution (or at least adheres to it more than it was being adhered to before) is the exact opposite of judicial activism. It is also hard to see how a ruling that upholds the Constitution could be malicious.

The precedent that was overturned was contrary to the Constitution. Overturning it was good judicial practice. Courts should always strive to adhere to the Constitution as much as possible.


hightor wrote:
But I'll tell you something. That ******* Dylann Roof shouldn't have had a gun.

I believe he had committed a drug felony before, so indeed should have been blocked according to the law.

But on the other hand, I believe it was a minor drug crime, and many people believe that such acts should not be illegal.

If his drug possession had actually been legal, there would probably not have been any basis for depriving him of guns before his murder spree.


hightor wrote:
Street thugs shouldn't have guns.

"Street thugs" has a pretty loose definition. If this refers to violent criminals, sure.

If it refers to a member of an ethnic minority, who listens to rap music and dresses accordingly, but who is neither violent nor criminal, such a person does not lose his or her right to have guns.


hightor wrote:
People who go nuts if they forget to take their medicine shouldn't have guns.

I don't believe this is currently the law. I might be open to such a law, but I would also want enhanced legal protections for such people. People in such a circumstance are often vulnerable to predation and therefore have a higher than normal need to defend themselves. If we are going to take someone with enhanced vulnerability and deprive them of self defense, we need to take steps to ensure that they are protected from those who would prey on them.


hightor wrote:
By the way, if those "law-abiding people" are not legally entitled to own a gun because of state or local statutes then there should be a list of those names on a legal document and those people should be prohibited from having a gun.

People who have violated a state or local statute would not usually be counted as law abiding. Obama and Hillary were targeting broad swaths of people who have never violated any law of any sort.

However if a state or local statute is unconstitutional then it should be struck down. People should not be penalized for violating it.


hightor wrote:
But your guns — and mine — are safe for a little while longer.

They are safe now. If Hillary had been elected, we'd both have been added to the list of people who are prohibited from owning guns (along with most other Americans).
0 Replies
 
NSFW (view)
kickycan
 
  4  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2017 09:14 pm
@BorisKitten,
BorisKitten wrote:

Only at this moment did I realize how much I've missed you all.

Anyone heard from Sozobe?

I think I entered a bet in this one, June or July of 2017. Hope it will be sooner.


Sozobe is missing?! What about Gus!? He still around? I'm only here for a visit. I think. We'll see. Anyway. Good to "see" you.

And the rest of you that I used to chat with too, although I may not respond to everyone's post, just know that I see you and acknowledge you, and that if I could, I would make love to you all!
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 11:12:32