Trump's Rump

[innonimatu]

If Trump's approval ratings dipped, he would have certainly been impeached.

Congress got a taste of the rioting that affected the rest of the country, and now they have to go through metal detectors like the rest of us.

They are super pissed, but couldn't muster up the guts to go against their voters.

If the senate can gather up 60 votes, they might be able to censure Trump and ban him from holding federal office I think?
Not sure.

No they can't. Because as you've noticed Trump remains too popular for them to do that abuse to. It would be abuse, in fact it would probably be unlawful. But then again this second impeachment charade was again built on a lie.

Pull down politics to this level of persecuting and trying to disenfranchise your opponents, don't complain later when they hit back the same way. Just saying. Americans already did it to people in jail, etc. But now they're doing it right on the top of politics, and in a very publicized way. It failed but the precedent was set. That was a terrible mistake. I'll probably have opportunity to say "told you so" in a couple of years...

 

[Sommerswerd]

LMAO one of the most memorably ridiculous moments was when one the Republicans threatened to impeach Hillary in retaliation.

Threats of "what goes around comes around", "slippery slope" and similar are all just pointless and completely ineffective.

We're way beyond the point of it being about anything but power and votes. Lindsey Graham's flip-flop on Judicial nominees in an election year ...after so adamantly and passionately swearing he wouldn't... perfectly illustrates why its pointless to worry about "told you so's". The Republicans in power will do whatever they have the power to do and vice- versa. They see no point in holding back.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No they can't. Because as you've noticed Trump remains too popular for them to do that abuse to. It would be abuse, in fact it would probably be unlawful. But then again this second impeachment charade was again built on a lie.

Pull down politics to this level of persecuting and trying to disenfranchise your opponents, don't complain later when they hit back the same way. Just saying. Americans already did it to people in jail, etc. But now they're doing it right on the top of politics, and in a very publicized way. It failed but the precedent was set. That was a terrible mistake. I'll probably have opportunity to say "told you so" in a couple of years...

Trump spent four years abusing people, politics, democracy and his presidential powers. He did so in ways not ever seen before in US presidents. I chalk your post up to ignorance of the US and its political history.

 

[onejayhawk]

I strongly doubt Trump will run for office again. He was good at running an administration, but not at running PR. He can and he will be a voice of commentary. He will have rallies and he will probably campaign for Republican candidates.

LMAO one of the most memorably ridiculous moments was when one the Republicans threatened to impeach Hillary in retaliation.

Threats of "what goes around comes around", "slippery slope" and similar are all just pointless and completely ineffective.

We're way beyond the point of it being about anything but power and votes. Lindsey Graham's flip-flop on Judicial nominees in an election year ...after so adamantly and passionately swearing he wouldn't... perfectly illustrates why its pointless to worry about "told you so's". The Republicans in power will do whatever they have the power to do and vice- versa. They see no point in holding back.

Hillary deserved to be impeached over Benghazi and again over mishandling secure information. It would have had just as much chance of success. That said, it must have been nice to contemplate never having to see her again.

 

[Lexicus]

No they can't. Because as you've noticed Trump remains too popular for them to do that abuse to. It would be abuse, in fact it would probably be unlawful. But then again this second impeachment charade was again built on a lie.

Pull down politics to this level of persecuting and trying to disenfranchise your opponents, don't complain later when they hit back the same way. Just saying. Americans already did it to people in jail, etc. But now they're doing it right on the top of politics, and in a very publicized way. It failed but the precedent was set. That was a terrible mistake. I'll probably have opportunity to say "told you so" in a couple of years...

It is hilarious to watch you defend a corrupt billionaire who would literally murder you for ten cents if he could get away with it

 

[innonimatu]

LMAO one of the most memorably ridiculous moments was when one the Republicans threatened to impeach Hillary in retaliation.

Threats of "what goes around comes around", "slippery slope" and similar are all just pointless and completely ineffective.

We're way beyond the point of it being about anything but power and votes. Lindsey Graham's flip-flop on Judicial nominees in an election year ...after so adamantly and passionately swearing he wouldn't... perfectly illustrates why its pointless to worry about "told you so's". The Republicans in power will do whatever they have the power to do and vice- versa. They see no point in holding back.

Who was it that started impeaching presidents on false grounds? Ukrainian corruption, really, accusing Trump of Ukrainian corruption when Biden's hands were all over there?
And now Inciting a coup, was it? Not only did the impeachment fail, as was foreseeable, the republicans even extended the trap of inviting anyone to put up a judicial accusation against Trump based on that. Because would get thrown out.

Looking just at the current century, might makes right has been led by whom? Who changed those filibuster rues and they cried around when a SC judge got passed that way also? Creating such precedents usually comes back to bite the creators.

So now the justification is might makes right? Have fun destroying your own country...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Who was it that started impeaching presidents on false grounds? Ukrainian corruption, really, accusing Trump of Ukrainian corruption when Biden's hands were all over there?
And now Inciting a coup, was it? Not only did the impeachment fail, as was foreseeable, the republicans even extended the trap of inviting anyone to put up a judicial accusation against Trump based on that. Because would get thrown out.

So now the justification is might makes right? Have fun destroying your own country...

There are no false grounds for impeachment. Presidents and others can be impeached for whatever the House deems as inappropriate behavior. Successful removal though depends on the politics in the Senate. Apparently enough House members felt that Trump's attempt to overthrow the election was an effort to destroy the country worthy of impeachment. And yes the process worked out as expected with politics being the major decider. Impeachment is a political process and not a legal one. Leaders like Trump and his enablers are the ones trying to destroy the US. This impeachment was a check on that process.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/

 

[Lexicus]

Who was it that started impeaching presidents on false grounds? Ukrainian corruption, really, accusing Trump of Ukrainian corruption when Biden's hands were all over there?
And now Inciting a coup, was it? Not only did the impeachment fail, as was foreseeable, the republicans even extended the trap of inviting anyone to put up a judicial accusation against Trump based on that. Because would get thrown out.

Looking just at the current century, might makes right has been led by whom? Who changed those filibuster rues and they cried around when a SC judge got passed that way also? Creating such precedents usually comes back to bite the creators.

So now the justification is might makes right? Have fun destroying your own country...

Utter gaslighting nonsense reflecting not just ignorance of the US Constitution but also ignorance of plain reality today. Hint: the people trying to take legislative action to deal with actual problems are not the ones "destroying the country," the ones cynically exploiting minority veto points to prevent government action on anything are the ones destroying the country.

 

[Ajidica]

He was good at running an administration

Remember Infrastructure Week?

 

[innonimatu]

There are no false grounds for impeachment. Presidents and others can be impeached for whatever the House deems as inappropriate behavior. Successful removal though depends on the politics in the Senate. Apparently enough House members felt that Trump's attempt to overthrow the election was an effort to destroy the country worthy of impeachment. And yes the process worked out as expected with politics being the major decider. Impeachment is a political process and not a legal one. Leaders like Trump and his enablers are the ones trying to destroy the US. This impeachment was a check on that process.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/

The grounds are false in the sense that the facts claimed to not match reality. You'll disagree of course, but many will disagree with you. And this sould give people pause, because...

Utter gaslighting nonsense reflecting not just ignorance of the US Constitution but also ignorance of plain reality today. Hint: the people trying to take legislative action to deal with actual problems are not the ones "destroying the country," the ones cynically exploiting minority veto points to prevent government action on anything are the ones destroying the country.

... the country is getting so much into power politics without rules other than might makes right that democracy itself can indeed collapse. I'm not putting my bets on might being with the democrats. The corporate democrats perhaps figure it'll be theirs, but might in confrontational times comes down to violence, not to propaganda and top-down orders.

And that for what? Getting some closure on the Trump Derangement Syndrome? What did this second impeachment farce aid in resolving the country's problems? What "legislative action" was this? Did it convince anyone but the converted already? Did it increase the odds of winning the 2022 elections? Was it in any way a useful use of the legislator's time?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I strongly doubt Trump will run for office again. He was good at running an administration, but not at running PR. He can and he will be a voice of commentary. He will have rallies and he will probably campaign for Republican candidates.

I agree he is not likely to run. He ran a crappy administration. He had a corrupt cabinet of brown nosers. He put inexperienced and ignorant people in important places where they had no knowledge of what they were in charge of. He ignored the pandemic. He had all three branches of government for two years and only passed a tax cut that mostly benefited the rich. He was not honest in his communications with the public.

 

[Lexicus]

And that for what? Getting some closure on the Trump Derangement Syndrome? What did this second impeachment farce aid in resolving the country's problems? What "legislative action" was this? Did it convince anyone but the converted already? Did it increase the odds of winning the 2022 elections? Was it in any way a useful use of the legislator's time?

I think it was worth attempting to divide the Republicans. The central task facing us now is splitting the Trump core faithful off from some of the establishment types; it's the only way we might avoid a full-scale civil war at this point.

 

[Angst]

... the country is getting so much into power politics without rules other than might makes right that democracy itself can indeed collapse.

so uh how many times do people need to clarify that impeachment is a function of power without necessity of legal procedure and written into the constitution with this exact intention

the country "getting into" this infers very clearly that this is supposedly a new thing and unique to the matter at hand, which is just not the case

like, it's not untrue that power politics are a problem, but the inferring that this impeachment is somehow unintended at a structural level is just wrong

not that you're saying that, but this being pretty damn fundamental to us democracy is not a new shiny thing

 

[Birdjaguar]

The grounds are false in the sense that the facts claimed to not match reality. You'll disagree of course, but many will disagree with you....

Disagreement happens, but "facts" not matching reality was a hallmark of Trump's time as president. We had 4 years of Trump facts not having any connection to reality at all. It started with his crowd size declarations on his first day and ended with "I won the election" on his last day. What we do know is that had Trump not spoken to the crowd on Jan 6, there would not have been an attack on the capitol.

 

[Ironsided]

I think the argument is there is too much focus on party posturing and signalling and too little on policy and action. Being not-Trump will only take you so far. At some point you must also provide something positive.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think the argument is there is too much focus on party posturing and signalling and too little on policy and action. Being not-Trump will only take you so far. At some point you must also provide something positive.

And in the same way being Pro Trump will only get you...I'm not sure where, but you have to add value in some other way to improve life for all Americans.

 

[IglooDame]

I strongly doubt Trump will run for office again. He was good at running an administration, but not at running PR. He can and he will be a voice of commentary. He will have rallies and he will probably campaign for Republican candidates.

I really can't imagine how you can justify the part I highlighted in red, it's so completely wrong that it's funny. Just one of the most recent and egregious examples is that his Treasury Secretary participated in the Covid relief bill for two months, and then as it was finally being passed Trump decided that $600/person was not enough and he was going to veto it if it didn't get adjusted to $2000/person. Given that Democrats wanted $2K as well, he could easily have gotten that through had he communicated normally with his own cabinet.

I will grant that he was good at, and clearly enjoyed, being a head of state. The parades, some of the pomp and circumstance, the rallies, the meetings with other heads of state, sure. But he didn't like the job of chief executive, feeling (incorrectly) that he knew better than anyone else about everything, apparently not liking to delegate, and never concerning himself with the nuts and bolts of White House operations all just set him up for failure.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Parler Resurfaces Online After Monthlong Service Disruption
Social-media platform restores some functions after tech giants moved against app following riot at U.S. Capitol

Parler, the social network popular with conservatives, has come back online after going dark when some tech companies withdrew their services in the wake of the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 0.48% removed Parler from its cloud-computing service a little over a month ago, effectively knocking the network offline. Apple Inc. AAPL 0.18% and Alphabet Inc.’s GOOG 0.39% Google removed it from their respective app stores. The tech companies said Parler had violated terms-of-service agreements, citing some of the content posted on the app.

On Monday, Parler said it was relaunching its service, which it said had grown to over 20 million users. “We’re thrilled to welcome everyone back,” Mark Meckler, Parler’s interim chief executive, said in a statement. “Parler is being run by an experienced team and is here to stay,” he said.

The social-media company said its new platform was “built on robust, sustainable, independent technology.” It said it was focused on restoring service to existing users during the first week and that new sign-ups would come after. Parler’s Internet servers are now hosted by SkySilk Inc., which operates out of a Los Angeles-area data center, according to Doug Madory, director of Internet analysis with the network-monitoring firm Kentik Inc.

When reached via text message Monday afternoon, SkySilk’s chief executive, Kevin Matossian, declined to comment, but said the company would issue a statement imminently.

The resumption of Parler service wasn’t seamless. After re-establishing service on Monday morning, the platform appeared to again be inaccessible to at least some users in the afternoon. Parler didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the service disruption.

Parler previously had used Russian service provider DDoS-Guard to speed up delivery of its internet traffic. As of Monday, however, Parler wasn’t using DDos-Guard or a similar service—something that could lead to sluggish performance for the social-media network, Mr. Madory said. “This isn’t going to support a lot of traffic, so maybe there are plans that we don’t know about,” he said.

New community guidelines posted on Parler’s website said the platform was “viewpoint neutral” and the company wouldn’t knowingly allow it to be used as a tool for crime or unlawful acts.

John Matze, Parler’s CEO at the time the service went dark, said then that the service could be offline for weeks with efforts under way to restore the app. Parler fired Mr. Matze late last month as the platform was working to restore service. According to Mr. Matze and statements by Parler executives, internal debate over how to respond to the blockade by major technology platforms may have contributed to his ouster. Mr. Matze told The Wall Street Journal after his termination that he had been looking for a way to convince Apple and Google to restore Parler to their app stores. To address the tech giants’ moderation concerns, he said, he was amenable to some form of algorithmic content moderation in addition to the platform’s system of deputizing users as community jurors.

While Parler’s owners haven’t spoken directly about the substance of their disagreement with Mr. Matze, Parler investor Dan Bongino said that the platform wouldn’t cave in to the tech companies’ commands.

Parler, launched in 2018 and based in Henderson, Nev., said it was searching for a permanent CEO. The company said it had hired Mr. Meckler, who is affiliated with groups such as the Tea Party Patriots, to help guide Parler through its relaunch. Social-media companies, like others, generally rely on a network of tech suppliers to deliver their online services. Those services range from data storage to more basic functions, such as connecting to the internet or registering domain names.

Parler on Monday remained suspended from the Apple and Google app stores. The company has sued Amazon over the move to stop providing cloud services, alleging anticompetitive motives and political animus, claims that the tech giant called meritless. Parler last month failed to convince a judge to force Amazon to again provide cloud services.

 

[Samson]

Parler Resurfaces Online After Monthlong Service Disruption
Social-media platform restores some functions after tech giants moved against app following riot at U.S. Capitol

The question about this is does their contract with their service provider match what they are promising their users (like last time it did not)?

 

[FriendlyFire]

No they can't. Because as you've noticed Trump remains too popular for them to do that abuse to. It would be abuse, in fact it would probably be unlawful. But then again this second impeachment charade was again built on a lie.

The Republican impeached a president over an extra marital affair
Its just weird to see after all this time and years of evidence that people would still champion Trump and accuse the dems of lying.