MAGAThread XX: A Journal of the Plague Year

[Tarsonis]

After pondering it a bit.. Trump has not lost. At all. He and his family have profited immensely from his time as president and it probably saved the Trump empire from going bankrupt.

He played and won. Sure, he could have won more - but calling someone a loser because they only won the jackpot/lottery once is silly.

I'm going to call him a loser because it makes me happy.

I'll allow it on the condition that you do it in the manner of Jim Carey

[The Alma Mater]

I'm going to call him a loser because it makes me happy.

I'll allow it on the condition that you do it in the manner of Jim Carey

"You can criticise me all the way to the bank
My single's number one and shabba don't rank"
-- Jim Carey, "Imposter"
?

[Albrenia]

Counts more than outright refusal. I think the complaint was more 'the Russians helped Trump win' than 'Trump didn't win', though.

If you're making the case that its not an apt comparison that's even better.

Complaining (and even investigating) about the tactics used to get elected is one thing. Denying that they were ever elected in the first place is entirely another.

Trump can have his investigation into 'voter fraud' without denying the process like a tantruming baby while the investigation goes ahead.

[Kowani]

Depends on if he actually loses. Despite media shilling it's not over yet.

Though to be honest I never agreed with his losers comments. While there is something to be said for the tragedy of the plight of our armed forces, the way in which he expressed it was... Not kosher.

After pondering it a bit.. Trump has not lost. At all. He and his family have profited immensely from his time as president and it probably saved the Trump empire from going bankrupt.

He played and won. Sure, he could have won more - but calling someone a loser because they only won the jackpot/lottery once is silly.

Until he goes to prison, anyway...

[The Alma Mater]

After pondering it a bit.. Trump has not lost. At all. He and his family have profited immensely from his time as president and it probably saved the Trump empire from going bankrupt.

He played and won. Sure, he could have won more - but calling someone a loser because they only won the jackpot/lottery once is silly.

Until he goes to prison, anyway...

I honestly doubt he will.

[Kowani]

Until he goes to prison, anyway...

I honestly doubt he will.

not really much he can do on the level of state crimes and personal lawsuits.
They're already undergoing, and now that he's about to lose executive privilege and government lawyers, they'll go much faster.

[Albrenia]

I honestly doubt he will.

not really much he can do on the level of state crimes and personal lawsuits.
They're already undergoing, and now that he's about to lose executive privilege and government lawyers, they'll go much faster.

I hope they let the banks have at him first. Take away all his fancy lawyer teams and money, let him taste the justice system like one of us mortals.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

After not being a very good president, Dubya is turning out to be a really rather good ex-president.

[Albrenia]

After not being a very good president, Dubya is turning out to be a really rather good ex-president.

Maybe not being around Cheney is working out for him.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

After not being a very good president, Dubya is turning out to be a really rather good ex-president.

Maybe not being around Cheney is working out for him.

That probably is a large part of it.

[Eahland]

After not being a very good president, Dubya is turning out to be a really rather good ex-president.

I think Carter's still got the best ex-Presidenting:Presidenting ratio.

[The Archregimancy]

Truly, the Trump presidency was unique:

So he'll always have that; he'll always be the only one-term impeached president who achieved office via the Electoral College after losing the popular vote.

[Cisairse]

Truly, the Trump presidency was unique:

(Image)

So he'll always have that; he'll always be the only one-term impeached president who achieved office via the Electoral College after losing the popular vote.

Always? You're much more optimistic than I

[The Archregimancy]

After not being a very good president, Dubya is turning out to be a really rather good ex-president.

Too many people - of all political stripes - say that Bush Jr is a fundamentally decent man for it not to be true.

I've often had cause to ponder whether a comparison between Bush and Nicholas II might not be apt. In both cases, all of their immediate acquaintances - and often their political opponents - describe[d] how the man himself was a good man; kind, courteous, decent and devoted to his family. In both cases they were also poor leaders of their respective countries, attempting to project toughness when they simply weren't, and leading their countries into avoidable wars in part because they were afraid to seem weak.

Bush obviously didn't bear partial responsibility for a conflict on the scale of WWI, nor was he deposed in a revolution that led to even more deadly conflict and the rise of a regime dedicated to the violent transformation of his society, so Nicholas easily wins any battle to decide who had the worst impact as his country's leader; but some superficial similarities nonetheless remain.

[The Archregimancy]

Truly, the Trump presidency was unique:

(Image)

So he'll always have that; he'll always be the only one-term impeached president who achieved office via the Electoral College after losing the popular vote.

Always? You're much more optimistic than I

Well, up to this point; and likely in his lifetime.

It is a tricky combination, after all.

[Baltenstein]

After not being a very good president, Dubya is turning out to be a really rather good ex-president.

Too many people - of all political stripes - say that Bush Jr is fundamentally decent man for it not to be true.

I've often had cause to ponder whether a comparison between Bush and Nicholas II might not be apt. In both cases, all of their immediate acquaintances - and often their political opponents - describe[d] how the man himself was a good man; kind, courteous, decent and devoted to his family. In both cases they were also poor leaders of their respective countries, attempting to project toughness when they simply weren't, and leading their countries into avoidable wars in part because they were afraid to seem weak.

Bush obviously didn't bear partial responsibility for a conflict on the scale of WWI, nor was he deposed in a revolution that led to even more deadly conflict and the rise of a regime dedicated to the violent transformation of his society, so Nicholas easily wins any battle to decide who had the worst impact as his country's leader; but some superficial similarities nonetheless remain.

Also, when it comes to their respective "creepy mo-fo pulling the strings from behind the curtain", Rasputin definitely had more class than Dick Cheney.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

After not being a very good president, Dubya is turning out to be a really rather good ex-president.

Too many people - of all political stripes - say that Bush Jr is fundamentally decent man for it not to be true.

I've often had cause to ponder whether a comparison between Bush and Nicholas II might not be apt. In both cases, all of their immediate acquaintances - and often their political opponents - describe[d] how the man himself was a good man; kind, courteous, decent and devoted to his family. In both cases they were also poor leaders of their respective countries, attempting to project toughness when they simply weren't, and leading their countries into avoidable wars in part because they were afraid to seem weak.

Bush obviously didn't bear partial responsibility for a conflict on the scale of WWI, nor was he deposed in a revolution that led to even more deadly conflict and the rise of a regime dedicated to the violent transformation of his society, so Nicholas easily wins any battle to decide who had the worst impact as his country's leader; but some superficial similarities nonetheless remain.

I'm probably guilty of basing too much on his short public statements of the last few years, but they do seem very well considered.

[Albrenia]

Bush was pretty good at dodging shoes, too. Not sure how Nicholas II was comparatively in footwear-avoidance skills.

[Gravlen]

Crosspost from the 2020 thread but it's arguably more relevant here:

538's Clare Malone writes on the hollow, vapid, and contrarian nature of Trump's politics - and what that means for the future of American government.

A quote to summarize the gist of the article:

But Trump’s great insight was understanding and accepting that the GOP’s base didn’t care all that much about the party elite’s core ideology: taxes, small government, free trade. Rather, they connected with the cultural signifiers the party had so cleverly carved out: guns, political incorrectness, anti-abortion sentiment, etc. Trump won the GOP primaries by giving the people what they wanted. He blamed Mexicans for woes that were better attributed to the changing nature of the world economy, which left some places in America far behind, the result of complex decisions and electoral choices over decades. The GOP under Trump embraced the conspiracy theory as campaign rhetoric, reversed platform positions and generally abandoned its ideological core.

What was left was that contrarianism. The Democrats had Obamacare; the Republicans had “repeal and replace.” The mainstream press had facts; the GOP had a retort of “fake news.” And scientists had proof of climate change, while the GOP called efforts to reverse it “extremism” without offering an alternative solution.

I mean it's quite telling that the GOP didn't even bother with a platform and not a single Republican voter gave a single fuck.

Interesting article, I think it hits bullseye.

[Aclion]

Depends on if he actually loses. Despite media shilling it's not over yet.

Though to be honest I never agreed with his losers comments. While there is something to be said for the tragedy of the plight of our armed forces, the way in which he expressed it was... Not kosher.

After pondering it a bit.. Trump has not lost. At all. He and his family have profited immensely from his time as president and it probably saved the Trump empire from going bankrupt.

He played and won. Sure, he could have won more - but calling someone a loser because they only won the jackpot/lottery once is silly.

Trump hemmoriged money during his presidency, something which is highly unusual for any high political office.

However, I agree that Trump won. He permanently transformed the political meta and established himself as a cultural icon.

[Nakena]

Crosspost from the 2020 thread but it's arguably more relevant here:

538's Clare Malone writes on the hollow, vapid, and contrarian nature of Trump's politics - and what that means for the future of American government.

A quote to summarize the gist of the article:

But Trump’s great insight was understanding and accepting that the GOP’s base didn’t care all that much about the party elite’s core ideology: taxes, small government, free trade. Rather, they connected with the cultural signifiers the party had so cleverly carved out: guns, political incorrectness, anti-abortion sentiment, etc. Trump won the GOP primaries by giving the people what they wanted. He blamed Mexicans for woes that were better attributed to the changing nature of the world economy, which left some places in America far behind, the result of complex decisions and electoral choices over decades. The GOP under Trump embraced the conspiracy theory as campaign rhetoric, reversed platform positions and generally abandoned its ideological core.

What was left was that contrarianism. The Democrats had Obamacare; the Republicans had “repeal and replace.” The mainstream press had facts; the GOP had a retort of “fake news.” And scientists had proof of climate change, while the GOP called efforts to reverse it “extremism” without offering an alternative solution.

I mean it's quite telling that the GOP didn't even bother with a platform and not a single Republican voter gave a single fuck.

Thats what I have been saying all the time and you kept referencing me to Wendy's.

However, I agree that Trump won. He permanently transformed the political meta and established himself as a cultural icon.

In that way, mission accomplished.

Good work Mr President!

[Valrifell]

Crosspost from the 2020 thread but it's arguably more relevant here:

538's Clare Malone writes on the hollow, vapid, and contrarian nature of Trump's politics - and what that means for the future of American government.

A quote to summarize the gist of the article:



I mean it's quite telling that the GOP didn't even bother with a platform and not a single Republican voter gave a single fuck.

Thats what I have been saying all the time and you kept referencing me to Wendy's.

I have a vague memory of the post you're referencing, but none of the context.

[Ranoria]

the fact is you know Trump isn't a racist but you will pretend he is because that is the only way you can justify your hatred of him and his supporter while you go on to support a literal segregationist who sponseredthe bill that destroyed Black families and praised the leader of a Klan chapter as a guide, mentor and friend.

So what was the motivation behind Trump's support of Birtherism? What was the motivation behind Trump's calls for the execution of the Central Park Five even after their acquittal? What was the cause of Trump's multiple lawsuits for racial discrimination in the housing projects he owned? What was the motivation for his lies about Arab-Americans cheering on 9/11?

But no, he made a few milquetoast condemnations of white supremacy because someone told him it would stop the backlash so he must be the most anti-racist guy who ever lived.

I've addressed the 9/11 thing. If I had to guess, he saw on television Muslims celebrating around the world, which was shown, and mistook them for being in New York. There's obviously a lot of emotion there, that can cloud memories. Another example of this is Biden 'lying' about the way his family died, but in reality, he can't look at that situation objectively.

How the hell is him not believing Obama was born in the US racist? Stupid, sure, but not racist. Again, equating foreign country to racism. That's just an obnoxious narrative. Stop it.

However, while I was looking into that (I didn't actually know what birtherism was), I found this gem.

It means a great deal to me to have the endorsement of Mr. Trump.”

-Mitt Romney in 2012, I think. This is hilarious, considering Romney hates Trump now.

Trump was never asked to admit any guilt in those lawsuits. Say what you will, but the court of law ultimately didn't find him guilty of jack. Have you read the actual court documents? I have, not that hard to find. They make it pretty clear that "officers" within individual buildings and such could have been responsible, incidentally or purposefully, and that Trump Management has thousands of hotels around the world.


As for the central park five, racism again doesn't have to be the go to here. And Matias Reyes, who also confessed, was black as well(so I think race is out of the picture at this point). The kids confessed to a number of crimes, assaults, etc in the area. We now have evidence that they did not commit the attack in question, but at the time? In the 1980s? Correct me if I'm wrong, we couldn't fact check everything with a touch of our fingers. They had their confessions. He makes his stance on it pretty clear, with a lot of people involved in the case thinking it never should have gotten settled. Now, is he wrong? Probably. I tend to favor the court, because they know more than we do.

But again, I don't think information was as readily available back then as it is now.

EDIT- was there anything else you wanted me to look at?

Edit again - this was meant to go in the general election thread. Mods must've moved it. leaves cookies for the folks who have no context to this conversation

[San Lumen]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/09/politics ... index.html

Trump has fired Secretary of Defense Esper. He was already preparing to resign.

[Vassenor]

So what was the motivation behind Trump's support of Birtherism? What was the motivation behind Trump's calls for the execution of the Central Park Five even after their acquittal? What was the cause of Trump's multiple lawsuits for racial discrimination in the housing projects he owned? What was the motivation for his lies about Arab-Americans cheering on 9/11?

But no, he made a few milquetoast condemnations of white supremacy because someone told him it would stop the backlash so he must be the most anti-racist guy who ever lived.

I've addressed the 9/11 thing. If I had to guess, he saw on television Muslims celebrating around the world, which was shown, and mistook them for being in New York. There's obviously a lot of emotion there, that can cloud memories. Another example of this is Biden 'lying' about the way his family died, but in reality, he can't look at that situation objectively.

How the hell is him not believing Obama was born in the US racist? Stupid, sure, but not racist. Again, equating foreign country to racism. That's just an obnoxious narrative. Stop it.

However, while I was looking into that (I didn't actually know what birtherism was), I found this gem.

It means a great deal to me to have the endorsement of Mr. Trump.”

-Mitt Romney in 2012, I think. This is hilarious, considering Romney hates Trump now.

Trump was never asked to admit any guilt in those lawsuits. Say what you will, but the court of law ultimately didn't find him guilty of jack. Have you read the actual court documents? I have, not that hard to find. They make it pretty clear that "officers" within individual buildings and such could have been responsible, incidentally or purposefully, and that Trump Management has thousands of hotels around the world.


As for the central park five, racism again doesn't have to be the go to here. And Matias Reyes, who also confessed, was black as well(so I think race is out of the picture at this point). The kids confessed to a number of crimes, assaults, etc in the area. We now have evidence that they did not commit the attack in question, but at the time? In the 1980s? Correct me if I'm wrong, we couldn't fact check everything with a touch of our fingers. They had their confessions. He makes his stance on it pretty clear, with a lot of people involved in the case thinking it never should have gotten settled. Now, is he wrong? Probably. I tend to favor the court, because they know more than we do.

But again, I don't think information was as readily available back then as it is now.

EDIT- was there anything else you wanted me to look at?

Edit again - this was meant to go in the general election thread. Mods must've moved it. leaves cookies for the folks who have no context to this conversation

So what was the motivation for Birtherism then if not race? Why the automatic assumption that Obama must have been born abroad and thus be ineligible?