Shit Trump Says đŸ’©

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 112K
  • Politics 


Frankly I was taken a bit aback by him saying something about 'those who engage in war, Jesus doesn't hear their prayers' or something. There's something called the 'just war' doctrine.'
 
nycfan said:


Frankly I was taken a bit aback by him saying something about 'those who engage in war, Jesus doesn't hear their prayers' or something. There's something called the 'just war' doctrine.'
Click to expand...

This Just War Doctrine talking point is so freaking stupid. To the extent one gives credit to that “doctrine,” it does not say God EVER supports war. And it also almost always forbids offensive wars such as the one we’re engaged in right now.
 
heelinhell said:
IF (big if ) we can take back the House and the Senate, I think we can survive until the end of his term.
Click to expand...
He does what he wants without Congress’ approval. He doesn’t even need senate confirmation because he does an end run around that. What limits do you think a hostile Congress would put on him? It’s not like there would be a veto proof majority in both houses.
 
If Trump keeps deteriorating at this pace, there might be enough Dem Senators plus scared Republicans to convict him in the Senate. By August he will be drooling.
 
nycfan said:


Frankly I was taken a bit aback by him saying something about 'those who engage in war, Jesus doesn't hear their prayers' or something. There's something called the 'just war' doctrine.'
Click to expand...

I'm somewhat amazed that these GQPers want to continue to attack the Pope after all of the blow black from the Catholic community... and note I said somewhat amazed;)
 
Calheel said:
He does what he wants without Congress’ approval. He doesn’t even need senate confirmation because he does an end run around that. What limits do you think a hostile Congress would put on him? It’s not like there would be a veto proof majority in both houses.
Click to expand...
I would hope the Senate majority would block all judge nominations and confirmations including SCOTUS nominations. Are you suggesting that he could do an end around on that ?

I would hope the House speaker would not allow bullshit crazy harmful bills from even coming to the floor for a vote. Are you suggesting Trump could do an end around that ?
 
heelinhell said:
I would hope the Senate majority would block all judge nominations and confirmations including SCOTUS nominations. Are you suggesting that he could do an end around on that ?

I would hope the House speaker would not allow bullshit crazy harmful bills from even coming to the floor for a vote. Are you suggesting Trump could do an end around that ?
Click to expand...
On point 1, if the Democrats somehow get 51 senators, then that could spell an end to most Trump judges, especially Sup Ct justices, but not sure how that makes 2.75 years of Trump go by any faster. Trump does Trump stuff regardless of the courts, and he will have a safe majority on the Supreme Court for the remainder of his term (absent some kind of assassination plot). This is more of an issue for after Trump leaves and his lasting legacy. Doesn't really impact what Trump does for next 2.75 years.

On point 2, bills are largely all messaging bills at this point. Nothing gets through Congress other than CRs to keep the government funded for a few months. That is unlikely to change even with Democratic control of the senate due to filibuster (and Democrats will keep the filibuster until they also have control of the Whitehouse).
 
Calheel said:
On point 1, if the Democrats somehow get 51 senators, then that could spell an end to most Trump judges, especially Sup Ct justices, but not sure how that makes 2.75 years of Trump go by any faster. Trump does Trump stuff regardless of the courts, and he will have a safe majority on the Supreme Court for the remainder of his term (absent some kind of assassination plot). This is more of an issue for after Trump leaves and his lasting legacy. Doesn't really impact what Trump does for next 2.75 years.

On point 2, bills are largely all messaging bills at this point. Nothing gets through Congress other than CRs to keep the government funded for a few months. That is unlikely to change even with Democratic control of the senate due to filibuster (and Democrats will keep the filibuster until they also have control of the Whitehouse).
Click to expand...
Please note I said survive the rest of Trump's term. Ending another two years of Trump's incompetent judicial nominees and preventing Trump from replacing Alito and Thomas with 40yos who would be at least as horrible would be a good thing, no ?

On point 2 again noting I said survive the rest of Trump's term, I would not expect the Senate or the House to do more than be a bulwark to protect the country from further damage and hope in 2028 we will once again elect a Dem president who will clean up a GQPer president's mess like Obama and Biden did.
 
heelinhell said:
Please note I said survive the rest of Trump's term. Ending another two years of Trump's incompetent judicial nominees and preventing Trump from replacing Alito and Thomas with 40yos who would be at least as horrible would be a good thing, no ?

On point 2 again noting I said survive the rest of Trump's term, I would not expect the Senate or the House to do more than be a bulwark to protect the country from further damage and hope in 2028 we will once again elect a Dem president who will clean up a GQPer president's mess like Obama and Biden did.
Click to expand...
If Alito and Thomas retire this year, democratic control in January 2027 won’t help.

And on point 2, I’m trying to make clear that Congress isn’t a bulwark. Under Trump, Congress is basically irrelevant. It doesn’t stop him in any meaningful way.
 
Calheel said:
If Alito and Thomas retire this year, democratic control in January 2027 won’t help.

And on point 2, I’m trying to make clear that Congress isn’t a bulwark. Under Trump, Congress is basically irrelevant. It doesn’t stop him in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...
1. I have my doubts that both Alito and Thomas will retire this year. I think it is likely one does.
2. Under Trump, the GOP Congress is basically irrelevant. With a majority the Dems could exert control like defunding all his shit. Granted it would not rein him in completely or even mostly, but it remains to be seen whether the Dem Congress will be irrelevant.
 
superrific said:
1. I have my doubts that both Alito and Thomas will retire this year. I think it is likely one does.
2. Under Trump, the GOP Congress is basically irrelevant. With a majority the Dems could exert control like defunding all his shit. Granted it would not rein him in completely or even mostly, but it remains to be seen whether the Dem Congress will be irrelevant.
Click to expand...
1. I think it is more likely that both Alito and Thomas retire than Dems gain 4 seats. That would mean we flipped Ohio, Alaska, Maine and NC. That’s possible but so is both of those guys retiring.

2. Dems aren’t going to be able to defund because Rs won’t vote for that in the senate. We will just have a bunch of shutdowns and CRs and Trump will steal money and spend it on what he wants anyway - just like he always does.
 
Calheel said:
If Alito and Thomas retire this year, democratic control in January 2027 won’t help.

And on point 2, I’m trying to make clear that Congress isn’t a bulwark. Under Trump, Congress is basically irrelevant. It doesn’t stop him in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...
Ok you are making clear that it is your opinion that the House and the Senate would not serve as a bulwark over the next 2 years. I respectfully disagree. My opinion is it will matter. Otherwise, what is the point in voters turning out to vote in order to change Congress in the midterms ?

With regard to Thomas and Alito retiring this year, the clock is ticking. Let's say they retire before the November election. Would the GQPer Senate want to vote on new replacements given the mood of the country going into November ? Maybe or maybe not . Would the GQPers in the Senate be enthusiastic in pushing through confirmations in the last 60 days of their majority ? Maybe or maybe not.

At any rate I like that we can exchange differences of opinion on this board :)
 
Calheel said:
1. I think it is more likely that both Alito and Thomas retire than Dems gain 4 seats. That would mean we flipped Ohio, Alaska, Maine and NC. That’s possible but so is both of those guys retiring.

2. Dems aren’t going to be able to defund because Rs won’t vote for that in the senate. We will just have a bunch of shutdowns and CRs and Trump will steal money and spend it on what he wants anyway - just like he always does.
Click to expand...
I don't think two Supreme Court justices have ever retired at the same time. Plus if they both retire then the court will be down to 7 members for a while. That would imperil their ironclad 6-3 majority. Now they'd be an ACB or Roberts flip away from losing a case.

I think you were the one pointing out that the Dems are currently betting favorites (slightly) to win the Senate this year. NC is already won, basically. Maine maybe not quite yet but there's a reason it flipped to Lean Dem. The challenge is to find two others, but there are candidates: Ohio, Texas, Iowa, Alaska.

You know well the effect of correlations and national environment. It's only going to get worse from here for the GOP.
 
heelinhell said:
Ok you are making clear that it is your opinion that the House and the Senate would not serve as a bulwark over the next 2 years. I respectfully disagree. My opinion is it will matter. Otherwise, what is the point in voters turning out to vote in order to change Congress in the midterms ?

With regard to Thomas and Alito retiring this year, the clock is ticking. Let's say they retire before the November election. Would the GQPer Senate want to vote on new replacements given the mood of the country going into November ? Maybe or maybe not . Would the GQPers in the Senate be enthusiastic in pushing through confirmations in the last 60 days of their majority ? Maybe or maybe not.

At any rate I like that we can exchange differences of opinion on this board :)
Click to expand...
On the point of voting this November, there isn’t much point - at least if the goal is to make Trump less bothersome over his last 2.75 years. I’m still rooting for a blue wave. Among other things, incumbency is usually an advantage in reelection, which helps in 28, and senators are six year terms, so these elections will outlast Trump. And it will help blunt Trump from doing anything that requires legislation to reverse. But at the end of the day, Trump has decided he doesn’t need Congress and the Supreme Court has largely let him get away with it.

On retirements, those vacancies will be filled by October at the latest.
 
superrific said:
I don't think two Supreme Court justices have ever retired at the same time. Plus if they both retire then the court will be down to 7 members for a while. That would imperil their ironclad 6-3 majority. Now they'd be an ACB or Roberts flip away from losing a case.

I think you were the one pointing out that the Dems are currently betting favorites (slightly) to win the Senate this year. NC is already won, basically. Maine maybe not quite yet but there's a reason it flipped to Lean Dem. The challenge is to find two others, but there are candidates: Ohio, Texas, Iowa, Alaska.

You know well the effect of correlations and national environment. It's only going to get worse from here for the GOP.
Click to expand...
The positions would be filled before next term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top