Trump MAGAthread VII

[Greater Cesnica]

Keystone XL might not get built anyway

This is not Trump's week, jeez.

Trump uses Keystone XL to describe his dick.

[AiliailiA]

Donald Trump or the Republicans in congress can still find ways to starve the ACA of funding and perhaps send it into a death spiral where premiums keep rising in a positive feedback loop because the expected subsidies never materialize for private insurers. So long as I'm unemployed, the ACA doesn't effect me. I haven't given a single cent to it to date, and intend to completely ignore the fines it supposedly has. Obamacare as written, has perverse incentives where it allows enough room for people like me to go against the spirit of the law. It is economically unsound.

If you're unemployed, you're covered by Medicaid. And you were covered before there was Obamacare: you'd be covered still, if there had been no Obamacare.

You're stuck in a welfare trap. "Perverse incentives" as you say: getting a job would put more money in your pocket BUT you'd lose benefits in kind like Medicaid and food stamps, so perhaps you'd even be worse off for working. Now, Obamacare does include a Medicaid expansion, which may not apply to you if your state didn't take it up. That extends eligibility for Medicaid to incomes ABOVE the poverty level, and actually opens the poverty trap a bit. Because so many other benefits cut out right on the poverty line, having a Medicaid expansion is one less reason for you to "perversely" keep earned income below the line. But states WITHOUT the expansion, the Obamacare mandate cutting in where Medicaid (and many other things) cut out, earned income going over poverty level, makes the welfare trap harder to get out of.

The sheer complication of so many different welfare programs (administered by different governments even) is part of the trap. Nobody here can tell you exactly what you're entitled to, without knowing the state (and even the city/county) you live in, and quite a lot about your personal situation.

All of the paragraphs above are to the best of my understanding. Someone like Galloism or Soldati may be able to explain it better. The essential point is that a welfare trap existed before Obamacare (the welfare trap you are in)... and Obamacare WITH the Medicaid expansion weakens the welfare trap, but Obamacare WITHOUT Medicaid expansion makes it stronger.

Btw, you should get a job. It's not just money, a job brings new people and new habits into your life, who knows you might even get a girlfriend. Unless you have some really serious hobbies (like I do), unemployment is soul-crushingly boring, with or without serious hobbies it's a social impediment

---

That happened several times in 2016 I think. I know a few electors from my state refused to vote Clinton under any circumstances.

I think Bernie got a couple too, no?

No, he got ONE, an elector in Hawaii. Two others (one in Maine and one in Minnesota) tried to vote Sanders instead of Clinton, but were disallowed by state law.

Those four in WA, mentioned by WRA, didn't just vote against Clinton they voted against the party: 3 to Colin Power and 1 to Faith Spotted Eagle (a native american leader).

Final tally of Presidential faithless elector votes permitted: 3 to Powell, and 1 each to Sanders, Kasich, Ron Paul and Spotted Eagle.

---

One thing worth noting there though, is Iceland is small. They have less than half a million people. It's a lot easier for them to take care of their people with minimal bureaucracy, and even then, I think they'd be okay if Papa Gov't wasn't there to do everything for them.

The USA has literally 100x more people than Iceland. You get one government meddling in the affairs of 325 million people, and it's gonna be chaos. So to me, what this suggests is that governing should be the responsibility of the lowest level of government that can handle it. So when it gets to the federal government, they're only handling things that state and local government cannot, such as national defense.

And also, taxation is theft. Had to be said

The lower the level of government, the easier it is to fall prey to corruption. A state legislator is cheaper to buy than a federal one, and a local elected official is even cheaper than that. My hometown is small and rural. Local government is amateur hour. No one knows what the hell they're doing. Political decisions are based on whether a family member can profit off of it. For years our town supervisor was a tenth grade dropout. They've built buildings backwards. The local newspaper is a partisan rag which runs full-page attack ads on private citizens, refuses to print letters to the editor that disagree with the editor, and only ever gets one side of every story. Their biggest failure was falling for a con artist real estate developer who doesn't have any money of his own and wants to use taxpayer dollars to build second homes.

I have absolutely no faith in local government.

That is my experience of local governments also. Not just one: I've lived under half a dozen different local governments and most have been blatantly corrupt in that nepotist way. That and the incompetence seem to scale with size, as the only local government I remember having some competent elected members and officials was a city government administrating about a quarter million citizens. Even that was pretty corrupt, more in a "million dollar kickbacks for building approval" way than "the mayors son Wayne who can't get any other job, handles the IT at the county office" way, but the people getting rich from it still tended to be related to the officials.

My current local government, their behaviour is so bizarre I can't even tell you without giving away where I live. Local government should be entrusted to sweep up trash from the gutters and pick up dogshit in the park, nothing more.

---

79...
Ugh, who else even is there?

Warren? Warren would do almost as well as Bernie, according to polls.

Maybe Gabbard, since she was part of the Bernie bandwagon... but her progressive credentials are murkier than Warren's.

I'm really concerned Democrats will go into 2020 determined to pick a female candidate. Problem with that, being that there aren't many to choose from. Even among Democrats, women are about a quarter of the field. Restricting choices that way would mean the candidate we come up with only has a one in four chance of being the best candidate we have

The problem is perfectly demonstrated by what you just did: "well, there's Gabbard, we don't know much about her politics and her political experience is House member in one of the smallest states, but maybe ...". Gabbard might be a great candidate some day, after being governor of Hawaii or Senator, in like 2028 or 2032, but the fact we're even considering her now, ahead of a dozen better known and better qualified Democrats, shows that we're prepared to scrape the barrel just to find a woman to run, and that would be a terrible mistake.

The 2020 nominee might be a woman, I'm not saying let's pick a man deliberately. I'm saying pick the best, most principled, most experienced and most likely to win (some combination of those, obviously; no candidate is the best in every way), and accept that just by the numbers, it probably won't be a woman.

---

Thankfully none of what you said is true. Keep projecting though, it's really amusing

See, more proof of denial^

Washington Resistance Army isn't the sort of antigravity libertarian who deserves that kind of harassment. You're just being a pest.

Actual Trump supporters being thin on the ground just now, gotta argue with someone ... is that it?

---

Priebus is no longer chief of staff. A guy named John F Kelly a retired General is getting his job. Trump announced it on twitter.

Priebus was a dead man walking. When Scaramucci (accidentally?) claimed he himself would get Priebus fired, he gave away how certain he was it would happen. Trump had already made that decision, a week ago.

And Trump picks a General. Lots of them already in Trump's administration, beyond the obvious military-related roles. Trump trusts military and ex-military (more than he should, eg Flynn) because they have the air of authority. Trump wants Hard, and Determined, and ex-military can do that easily.

It will be interesting to see if leaks from the Administration diminish now. They were coming from pretty high up, and Priebus was legitimately a suspect.

---

Yesterday the mooch viciously attacks Priebus, today he is fired, hmm...

And Priebus was technically his superior. Come on, it's not hard to figure out. Scaramucci already knew Priebus would be fired.

---

If America had been founded in 1830 instead of 1776 there would be no 2nd amendment. <.< >.>

Off-topic, get out.

---

Trump just swept another establishment Republican out of the White House.

Perhaps because he (shockingly) doesn't have the authority to fire McCain, so Priebus was as close as he could get?

Interesting, somewhat plausible. Even if (my theory) Trump had already decided to sack Priebus before McCain killed the skinny repeal, McCain had spoken out against Trump many times before (though sometimes supporting) and Trump probably did hate him like that.

---

Trump will soon run out of peope who will work for him.

Not really.
He can just start hiring lawyers.

That works to an extent, but unlike Press Secretaries, lawyers quit when what they're asked to defend turns out to be indefensible.

---

Why would Trump be impeached for firing someone except for Sessions or Muller?

Him resigning is far more likely than impeachment, at the moment.

Yeah, and not just at the moment. If shit gets as bad as Watergate (impeachment AND conviction looming) Trump will resign, making his removal by impeachment ever, very unlikely.

His resignation this year is highly unlikely, I just plain don't believe you when you said you'd put $100 on it. The most likely time is 18 months from now, IF Republicans lose the House.

Since we're talking about quite unlikely events anyway, two others need to be mentioned: Trump might die, or be struck with a debilitating event like stroke. And Trump might be removed from office by Pence and a majority of Cabinet ... though the 25th only allows for temporary removal (suspension), made permanent only by 2/3 vote of Congress, it would be an opportunity for Trump to leave the office permanently without resigning.

---

I don't think Trump would, or possibly even could survive firing Mattis. Well he'd probably survive, but you're talking long term credibility hits among his own base.

I'm just wondering how Trump plans to implement his transgender ban because his back is up against the wall. He can acquiesce, which would be a very publicized strike against the decisive persona he's tried to create for himself, or he can start an even more publicized war against the military in an attempt to force them to comply with his ban, which would alienate his pro-military base and make him look petty fighting over such an unpopular position. He could also say nothing from now on, which he's very good at doing in the past when he's proposed idiotic policies, but that would make him look equally as terrible. He'd look like a President who shoots before he thinks, which he already is anyway.

Trump can literally order the military not to enlist anyone who comes up likely transgender in a psych evaluation. That's well short of giving medical dismissals to any trans people already in the military ... which would be disastrous ... and also has a delayed effect, which allows the military to quietly not apply the policy at all.

I think that's what Trump will do, because the only way he can back down completely is to admit he didn't consult with any military before announcing his decision (insulting the military), or to name individual military who gave him the "bad" advice, who he will then have to sack if they're in his cabinet. It's just fucking awful for him either way, and I think he has to do something against transgenders now that he's riled up the social conservative base.

---

I'm just wondering how Trump plans to implement his transgender ban because his back is up against the wall. He can acquiesce, which would be a very publicized strike against the decisive persona he's tried to create for himself, or he can start an even more publicized war against the military in an attempt to force them to comply with his ban, which would alienate his pro-military base and make him look petty fighting over such an unpopular position. He could also say nothing from now on, which he's very good at doing in the past when he's proposed idiotic policies, but that would make him look equally as terrible. He'd look like a President who shoots before he thinks, which he already is anyway.

I mean I suspect it's already been in the plans. Mattis is a very logistical-minded guy, not a huge supporter of the LGBT wave. Various studies look up at five digit sums for the surgery, tons of counselling, psychological issues, and other things that could impact combat readiness that would have to be carried by the same institution that is to be as nimble and weightless in design and function. We know Mattis was in his first month of a study to detail exactly the impact and cost, and by the sixth month he'd have figures he'd want to put to the argument, but Trump jumped the gun likely because of the whole Trumpcare debacle in order to throw a smokescreen he is likely to win, even with it's implementation. Though Mattis has pretty good oversight of the military as well as respect, if he cracks the whip, they will jump.

Interesting. Do you have a source for Mattis studying the impact and cost of transgenders in the military? And, you're aware the Pentagon did a study already, it was last year when Obama gave them warning he was considering to allow transgenders openly in the military?

Last year's study took six months also, is it possible that's the study you think Mattis is doing now ..?

---

But this is the same administration that wanted to increase defense spending by 10% anyway.

And wants to heavily invest in the new Gerald R Ford class Aircraft Carriers, which are a type of ship that will probably become obsolete too soon to make construction worthwhile.

What, you mean aircraft carriers in the age of missiles are like battleships in the age of aircraft carriers?

Shhhhh. The boys like their toys.

---

Keystone XL might not get built anyway

This is not Trump's week, jeez.

Probably the worst week so far.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

This is not Trump's week, jeez.

Trump uses Keystone XL to describe his dick.

So not long enough and doesn't even work?

[Greater Cesnica]

Trump uses Keystone XL to describe his dick.

So not long enough and doesn't even work?

Exactly.

[Greater Cesnica]

Donald Trump or the Republicans in congress can still find ways to starve the ACA of funding and perhaps send it into a death spiral where premiums keep rising in a positive feedback loop because the expected subsidies never materialize for private insurers. So long as I'm unemployed, the ACA doesn't effect me. I haven't given a single cent to it to date, and intend to completely ignore the fines it supposedly has. Obamacare as written, has perverse incentives where it allows enough room for people like me to go against the spirit of the law. It is economically unsound.

If you're unemployed, you're covered by Medicaid. And you were covered before there was Obamacare: you'd be covered still, if there had been no Obamacare.

You're stuck in a welfare trap. "Perverse incentives" as you say: getting a job would put more money in your pocket BUT you'd lose benefits in kind like Medicaid and food stamps, so perhaps you'd even be worse off for working. Now, Obamacare does include a Medicaid expansion, which may not apply to you if your state didn't take it up. That extends eligibility for Medicaid to incomes ABOVE the poverty level, and actually opens the poverty trap a bit. Because so many other benefits cut out right on the poverty line, having a Medicaid expansion is one less reason for you to "perversely" keep earned income below the line. But states WITHOUT the expansion, the Obamacare mandate cutting in where Medicaid (and many other things) cut out, earned income going over poverty level, makes the welfare trap harder to get out of.

The sheer complication of so many different welfare programs (administered by different governments even) is part of the trap. Nobody here can tell you exactly what you're entitled to, without knowing the state (and even the city/county) you live in, and quite a lot about your personal situation.

All of the paragraphs above are to the best of my understanding. Someone like Galloism or Soldati may be able to explain it better. The essential point is that a welfare trap existed before Obamacare (the welfare trap you are in)... and Obamacare WITH the Medicaid expansion weakens the welfare trap, but Obamacare WITHOUT Medicaid expansion makes it stronger.

Btw, you should get a job. It's not just money, a job brings new people and new habits into your life, who knows you might even get a girlfriend. Unless you have some really serious hobbies (like I do), unemployment is soul-crushingly boring, with or without serious hobbies it's a social impediment

---

I think Bernie got a couple too, no?

No, he got ONE, an elector in Hawaii. Two others (one in Maine and one in Minnesota) tried to vote Sanders instead of Clinton, but were disallowed by state law.

Those four in WA, mentioned by WRA, didn't just vote against Clinton they voted against the party: 3 to Colin Power and 1 to Faith Spotted Eagle (a native american leader).

Final tally of Presidential faithless elector votes permitted: 3 to Powell, and 1 each to Sanders, Kasich, Ron Paul and Spotted Eagle.

---

The lower the level of government, the easier it is to fall prey to corruption. A state legislator is cheaper to buy than a federal one, and a local elected official is even cheaper than that. My hometown is small and rural. Local government is amateur hour. No one knows what the hell they're doing. Political decisions are based on whether a family member can profit off of it. For years our town supervisor was a tenth grade dropout. They've built buildings backwards. The local newspaper is a partisan rag which runs full-page attack ads on private citizens, refuses to print letters to the editor that disagree with the editor, and only ever gets one side of every story. Their biggest failure was falling for a con artist real estate developer who doesn't have any money of his own and wants to use taxpayer dollars to build second homes.

I have absolutely no faith in local government.

That is my experience of local governments also. Not just one: I've lived under half a dozen different local governments and most have been blatantly corrupt in that nepotist way. That and the incompetence seem to scale with size, as the only local government I remember having some competent elected members and officials was a city government administrating about a quarter million citizens. Even that was pretty corrupt, more in a "million dollar kickbacks for building approval" way than "the mayors son Wayne who can't get any other job, handles the IT at the county office" way, but the people getting rich from it still tended to be related to the officials.

My current local government, their behaviour is so bizarre I can't even tell you without giving away where I live. Local government should be entrusted to sweep up trash from the gutters and pick up dogshit in the park, nothing more.

---

Warren? Warren would do almost as well as Bernie, according to polls.

Maybe Gabbard, since she was part of the Bernie bandwagon... but her progressive credentials are murkier than Warren's.

I'm really concerned Democrats will go into 2020 determined to pick a female candidate. Problem with that, being that there aren't many to choose from. Even among Democrats, women are about a quarter of the field. Restricting choices that way would mean the candidate we come up with only has a one in four chance of being the best candidate we have

The problem is perfectly demonstrated by what you just did: "well, there's Gabbard, we don't know much about her politics and her political experience is House member in one of the smallest states, but maybe ...". Gabbard might be a great candidate some day, after being governor of Hawaii or Senator, in like 2028 or 2032, but the fact we're even considering her now, ahead of a dozen better known and better qualified Democrats, shows that we're prepared to scrape the barrel just to find a woman to run, and that would be a terrible mistake.

The 2020 nominee might be a woman, I'm not saying let's pick a man deliberately. I'm saying pick the best, most principled, most experienced and most likely to win (some combination of those, obviously; no candidate is the best in every way), and accept that just by the numbers, it probably won't be a woman.

---

See, more proof of denial^

Washington Resistance Army isn't the sort of antigravity libertarian who deserves that kind of harassment. You're just being a pest.

Actual Trump supporters being thin on the ground just now, gotta argue with someone ... is that it?

---

Priebus is no longer chief of staff. A guy named John F Kelly a retired General is getting his job. Trump announced it on twitter.

Priebus was a dead man walking. When Scaramucci (accidentally?) claimed he himself would get Priebus fired, he gave away how certain he was it would happen. Trump had already made that decision, a week ago.

And Trump picks a General. Lots of them already in Trump's administration, beyond the obvious military-related roles. Trump trusts military and ex-military (more than he should, eg Flynn) because they have the air of authority. Trump wants Hard, and Determined, and ex-military can do that easily.

It will be interesting to see if leaks from the Administration diminish now. They were coming from pretty high up, and Priebus was legitimately a suspect.

---

Yesterday the mooch viciously attacks Priebus, today he is fired, hmm...

And Priebus was technically his superior. Come on, it's not hard to figure out. Scaramucci already knew Priebus would be fired.

---

If America had been founded in 1830 instead of 1776 there would be no 2nd amendment. <.< >.>

Off-topic, get out.

---

Perhaps because he (shockingly) doesn't have the authority to fire McCain, so Priebus was as close as he could get?

Interesting, somewhat plausible. Even if (my theory) Trump had already decided to sack Priebus before McCain killed the skinny repeal, McCain had spoken out against Trump many times before (though sometimes supporting) and Trump probably did hate him like that.

---

Not really.
He can just start hiring lawyers.

That works to an extent, but unlike Press Secretaries, lawyers quit when what they're asked to defend turns out to be indefensible.

---

Him resigning is far more likely than impeachment, at the moment.

Yeah, and not just at the moment. If shit gets as bad as Watergate (impeachment AND conviction looming) Trump will resign, making his removal by impeachment ever, very unlikely.

His resignation this year is highly unlikely, I just plain don't believe you when you said you'd put $100 on it. The most likely time is 18 months from now, IF Republicans lose the House.

Since we're talking about quite unlikely events anyway, two others need to be mentioned: Trump might die, or be struck with a debilitating event like stroke. And Trump might be removed from office by Pence and a majority of Cabinet ... though the 25th only allows for temporary removal (suspension), made permanent only by 2/3 vote of Congress, it would be an opportunity for Trump to leave the office permanently without resigning.

---

I'm just wondering how Trump plans to implement his transgender ban because his back is up against the wall. He can acquiesce, which would be a very publicized strike against the decisive persona he's tried to create for himself, or he can start an even more publicized war against the military in an attempt to force them to comply with his ban, which would alienate his pro-military base and make him look petty fighting over such an unpopular position. He could also say nothing from now on, which he's very good at doing in the past when he's proposed idiotic policies, but that would make him look equally as terrible. He'd look like a President who shoots before he thinks, which he already is anyway.

Trump can literally order the military not to enlist anyone who comes up likely transgender in a psych evaluation. That's well short of giving medical dismissals to any trans people already in the military ... which would be disastrous ... and also has a delayed effect, which allows the military to quietly not apply the policy at all.

I think that's what Trump will do, because the only way he can back down completely is to admit he didn't consult with any military before announcing his decision (insulting the military), or to name individual military who gave him the "bad" advice, who he will then have to sack if they're in his cabinet. It's just fucking awful for him either way, and I think he has to do something against transgenders now that he's riled up the social conservative base.

---

I mean I suspect it's already been in the plans. Mattis is a very logistical-minded guy, not a huge supporter of the LGBT wave. Various studies look up at five digit sums for the surgery, tons of counselling, psychological issues, and other things that could impact combat readiness that would have to be carried by the same institution that is to be as nimble and weightless in design and function. We know Mattis was in his first month of a study to detail exactly the impact and cost, and by the sixth month he'd have figures he'd want to put to the argument, but Trump jumped the gun likely because of the whole Trumpcare debacle in order to throw a smokescreen he is likely to win, even with it's implementation. Though Mattis has pretty good oversight of the military as well as respect, if he cracks the whip, they will jump.

Interesting. Do you have a source for Mattis studying the impact and cost of transgenders in the military? And, you're aware the Pentagon did a study already, it was last year when Obama gave them warning he was considering to allow transgenders openly in the military?

Last year's study took six months also, is it possible that's the study you think Mattis is doing now ..?

---

And wants to heavily invest in the new Gerald R Ford class Aircraft Carriers, which are a type of ship that will probably become obsolete too soon to make construction worthwhile.

What, you mean aircraft carriers in the age of missiles are like battleships in the age of aircraft carriers?

Shhhhh. The boys like their toys.

---

This is not Trump's week, jeez.

Probably the worst week so far.

I am impressed by this giant chain of thought.

[Steffan]

I can never see Trump resigning, unless something came up thats AT LEAST Watergate level bad. I mean like a video tape of him in Putin's office chatting about campaign strategies and dirt on Clinton or something. Until then, it'll be everyone's fault save for his own, he's doing great, fake news, blah, blah, etc. Resigning would imply some weakness on his part, which Trump tries (and miserably fails) to hide.

[Corrian]

I suggest not quoting giant posts in one go. It is annoying.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I suggest not quoting giant posts in one go. It is annoying.

Or just spoilering instead.

[Greater Cesnica]

I can never see Trump resigning, unless something came up thats AT LEAST Watergate level bad. I mean like a video tape of him in Putin's office chatting about campaign strategies and dirt on Clinton or something. Until then, it'll be everyone's fault save for his own, he's doing great, fake news, blah, blah, etc. Resigning would imply some weakness on his part, which Trump tries (and miserably fails) to hide.

Trump pretends to be the big dick-swinger in the house, like LBJ and Nixon (But LBJ actually was a big dick-swinger).

[Greater Cesnica]

I suggest not quoting giant posts in one go. It is annoying.

Sorry

[AiliailiA]

...

Trump's demeaning of Priebus came through in other ways, too. At one point, during a meeting in the Oval Office, a fly began buzzing overhead, distracting the president. As the fly continued to circle, Trump summoned his chief of staff and tasked him with killing the insect, according to someone familiar with the incident.

Priebus really is a dull fellow. He lacks panache. What would YOU do if the President authorized you to use all necessary lethal force, to neutralize a threat in the Oval Office? There wouldn't be a dry pair of pants in the room.

[Galloism]

Priebus really is a dull fellow. He lacks panache. What would YOU do if the President authorized you to use all necessary lethal force, to neutralize a threat in the Oval Office? There wouldn't be a dry pair of pants in the room.

Ah, the sad part is I only have 2 index fingers and 2 thumbs in that scenario.

[Greater Cesnica]

Priebus really is a dull fellow. He lacks panache. What would YOU do if the President authorized you to use all necessary lethal force, to neutralize a threat in the Oval Office? There wouldn't be a dry pair of pants in the room.

Ah, the sad part is I only have 2 index fingers and 2 thumbs in that scenario.

What happened to the fifth finger?

[AiliailiA]

I suggest not quoting giant posts in one go. It is annoying.

Or just spoilering instead.

Yeah, that's probably best.

[Greater Cesnica]

Or just spoilering instead.

Yeah, that's probably best.

Understood.

[Galloism]

Ah, the sad part is I only have 2 index fingers and 2 thumbs in that scenario.

What happened to the fifth finger?

Do you have 3 index fingers?

Must look weird.

[Steffan]

I can never see Trump resigning, unless something came up thats AT LEAST Watergate level bad. I mean like a video tape of him in Putin's office chatting about campaign strategies and dirt on Clinton or something. Until then, it'll be everyone's fault save for his own, he's doing great, fake news, blah, blah, etc. Resigning would imply some weakness on his part, which Trump tries (and miserably fails) to hide.

Trump pretends to be the big dick-swinger in the house, like LBJ and Nixon (But LBJ actually was a big dick-swinger).

But we all know the truth. What with those little hands...
I see it more likely that - instead of impeachment, resignation, or the merciful intervention of God - Trump will likely just be relegated to the sidelines. Congress is already moving to strip him of his power to remove sanctions on Russia, which is certain to take effect. If more occurrences like this happen, Trump will probably become an ineffectual, do-nothing president.

[Greater Cesnica]

Trump pretends to be the big dick-swinger in the house, like LBJ and Nixon (But LBJ actually was a big dick-swinger).

But we all know the truth. What with those little hands...
I see it more likely that - instead of impeachment, resignation, or the merciful intervention of God - Trump will likely just be relegated to the sidelines. Congress is already moving to strip him of his power to remove sanctions on Russia, which is certain to take effect. If more occurrences like this happen, Trump will probably become an ineffectual, do-nothing president.

Wasn't that Bush? Oh wait...

[Zanera]

Priebus really is a dull fellow. He lacks panache. What would YOU do if the President authorized you to use all necessary lethal force, to neutralize a threat in the Oval Office? There wouldn't be a dry pair of pants in the room.

It must be like that story about a king picking up a famed artist's paintbrush for them.

[Greater Cesnica]

Priebus really is a dull fellow. He lacks panache. What would YOU do if the President authorized you to use all necessary lethal force, to neutralize a threat in the Oval Office? There wouldn't be a dry pair of pants in the room.

It must be like that story about a king picking up a famed artist's paintbrush for them.

In other words, he's just special.

[Steffan]

But we all know the truth. What with those little hands...
I see it more likely that - instead of impeachment, resignation, or the merciful intervention of God - Trump will likely just be relegated to the sidelines. Congress is already moving to strip him of his power to remove sanctions on Russia, which is certain to take effect. If more occurrences like this happen, Trump will probably become an ineffectual, do-nothing president.

Wasn't that Bush? Oh wait...

But really, Trump is acting so idiotic and being so ineffectual, even those who believe in a strong president will eventually be more than happy to give Trump a coloring book and stick him in his room while real adult run the country.

[Greater Cesnica]

Wasn't that Bush? Oh wait...

But really, Trump is acting so idiotic and being so ineffectual, even those who believe in a strong president will eventually be more than happy to give Trump a coloring book and stick him in his room while real adult run the country.

OH SHIT. SOMEONE KNOWS!

[Greater Cesnica]

That moment when fucking Google Adsense is viewing the Trump MAGAthread...

[Greater Cesnica]

I think the MAGAthread just died.

[Steffan]

I think the MAGAthread just died.

We ain't dead yet. We still have at least another year of this crap to go