Dumbfuck in charge

[jfish26]

(Not to mention that a material factor in inflation has been…price gouging (profiteering). Tax cuts that benefit only the very top of the food chain are substantially similar in effect, in that increasing the wealth gap has a dilutive (inflationary, really) effect on those who don’t get the benefit…and then it’s sort of a Sophie’s Choice, because you either need to impose additional (necessarily regressive) taxes on the non-wealthy (to make up the revenue gap), or to cut services (which cause people to have to pay out of pocket, if they can, for things that arguably a sane government of a wealthy nation should provide.)

Again, one of the most mystifying (from a logical standpoint) aspects of Trump’s rise is that the non-moneyed MAGA base, which is absolutely essential to his hopes, clearly does NOT stand to benefit, objectively, from his policies.

So the Ds’ job is not to criticize (judge) people for making a seemingly-illogical choice, but to understand better where that choice is coming from (and use those lessons to craft messaging and policy). And I think the Biden administration has done a very good job of simply doing the job and making things better, rather than (until quite recently, as we approach 2024 and as Trump has removed all doubt as to his authoritarian plans) running the administration as a campaign for itself.

[jfish26]

Alexa, define normalization.

Report: Trump businesses received $7.8 million in foreign payments during presidency

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... residency/

During Donald Trump’s presidency, his businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from the foreign governments and officials of 20 countries, including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, according to a report released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.

The report argues that the payments violated the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, a provision that bars federal officials, including the president, from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments without permission from Congress. That clause was central to a protracted legal debate when Democrats controlled the House and sought access to Trump’s financial records. The issue eventually landed at the Supreme Court, but there was no definitive ruling on whether Trump illegally profited from his presidency. Instead, the justices in 2021 said the cases were moot because Trump no longer held office.

[...]

According to information available to committee investigators, China made the largest total payments — $5.5 million — to Trump’s private businesses. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), one of China’s biggest state-owned banks, was among Trump Tower’s largest office tenants during the Trump presidency. The report notes that during Trump’s first year in the White House, several Chinese banks — including ICBC — came under scrutiny for financial ties to North Korea, causing the administration to weigh sanctions against them.

Despite calls from members of his own party to implement maximum pressure against these banks to halt the North Korean nuclear program, “then-President Trump and his Administration did not take any formal action against Trump Tower tenant ICBC,” the report concludes.

[...]

Saudi Arabia made the second-largest sum of payments to Trump businesses while he was in office, with investigators identifying at least $615,422 spent at two Trump properties. Qatar spent $465,744 at a Trump property, and Kuwait spent $303,372, according to the report.

[zsn]

In the best Eddie Murphy voice……can we say Money Laundering, boys and girls?!??

[jfish26]

In the best Eddie Murphy voice……can we say Money Laundering, boys and girls?!??

You can't look at these things in a vacuum (by, say, starting from a place that assumes Trump's businesses were legitimate and legitimately-successful in the first place).

[Cassandra]

It is an interesting predicament the democrats have gotten themselves into. They are stuck with Biden, and there is no one else who is highly appealing because everyone one of them is part of the status quo. There is no Obama this time, aka, someone to be excited about. At the same time, they know they cannot win with Biden. The other major elephant in the room is that Biden is barely conscious and may not live another years. So what will they do? Gavin Newsom isn't the answer, because California and especially the Bay Area has gone to hell. No one wants him.

I think their plan is, rather than find a better candidate, they will just try to cheat and prevent Trump from being on the ballet. But this won't work. Anyone with any sort of understanding of the law knows that Trump has not been charged with anything that is related to an insurrection. But the irony is, the party that hates being called cheaters, is in fact, resorting to that as a desperate last attempt. November 2024 is going to be very entertaining.

[jfish26]

It is an interesting predicament the democrats have gotten themselves into. They are stuck with Biden, and there is no one else who is highly appealing because everyone one of them is part of the status quo. There is no Obama this time, aka, someone to be excited about. At the same time, they know they cannot win with Biden. The other major elephant in the room is that Biden is barely conscious and may not live another years. So what will they do? Gavin Newsom isn't the answer, because California and especially the Bay Area has gone to hell. No one wants him.

I think their plan is, rather than find a better candidate, they will just try to cheat and prevent Trump from being on the ballet. But this won't work. Anyone with any sort of understanding of the law knows that Trump has not been charged with anything that is related to an insurrection. But the irony is, the party that hates being called cheaters, is in fact, resorting to that as a desperate last attempt. November 2024 is going to be very entertaining.

Giggle to, well, all of this. But at least you got started quickly, with "cannot win with Biden." What happened, you know, in the most recent election? You know, the one Biden won going away?

[Overlander]

The only person capable of keeping Trump off of a ballot is.......





.......Trump.

[twocoach]

It is an interesting predicament the democrats have gotten themselves into. They are stuck with Biden, and there is no one else who is highly appealing because everyone one of them is part of the status quo. There is no Obama this time, aka, someone to be excited about. At the same time, they know they cannot win with Biden. The other major elephant in the room is that Biden is barely conscious and may not live another years. So what will they do? Gavin Newsom isn't the answer, because California and especially the Bay Area has gone to hell. No one wants him.

I think their plan is, rather than find a better candidate, they will just try to cheat and prevent Trump from being on the ballet. But this won't work. Anyone with any sort of understanding of the law knows that Trump has not been charged with anything that is related to an insurrection. But the irony is, the party that hates being called cheaters, is in fact, resorting to that as a desperate last attempt. November 2024 is going to be very entertaining.

It's so dumb to act like you have to go outside of the "status quo" to get anything done. Republicans have gone to Trumpism as a platform, put an outsider into the White House as well as several members of Congress and Congress has ground to a screeching halt.

And anyone who has actually read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution knows that there is ZERO mention of a requirement of any sort of legal charge. For people who require such a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution, you'd think you would be perfectly fine that it is being interpreted as written.

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It doesn't say "shall have been found guilty of the crime of "insurrection". It says "shall have engaged in". And even if you want to argue that Trump did not engage in insurrection, he most certainly did "give aid" to those who did.

[jfish26]

It is an interesting predicament the democrats have gotten themselves into. They are stuck with Biden, and there is no one else who is highly appealing because everyone one of them is part of the status quo. There is no Obama this time, aka, someone to be excited about. At the same time, they know they cannot win with Biden. The other major elephant in the room is that Biden is barely conscious and may not live another years. So what will they do? Gavin Newsom isn't the answer, because California and especially the Bay Area has gone to hell. No one wants him.

I think their plan is, rather than find a better candidate, they will just try to cheat and prevent Trump from being on the ballet. But this won't work. Anyone with any sort of understanding of the law knows that Trump has not been charged with anything that is related to an insurrection. But the irony is, the party that hates being called cheaters, is in fact, resorting to that as a desperate last attempt. November 2024 is going to be very entertaining.

It's so dumb to act like you have to go outside of the "status quo" to get anything done. Republicans have gone to Trumpism as a platform, put an outsider into the White House as well as several members of Congress and Congress has ground to a screeching halt.

And anyone who has actually read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution knows that there is ZERO mention of a requirement of any sort of legal charge. For people who require such a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution, you'd think you would be perfectly fine that it is being interpreted as written.

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It doesn't say "shall have been found guilty of the crime of "insurrection". It says "shall have engaged in". And even if you want to argue that Trump did not engage in insurrection, he most certainly did "give aid" to those who did.

You could build a Christopher Nolan script out of righties trying to square what they are sure 14A-3 does NOT do, with what they are sure 2A does.

[zsn]

……….because California and especially the Bay Area has gone to hell.

Really? News to at least 30 million people. I look outside and it’s a bright sunny day, flowers are still in bloom, hills are green and the orange trees are full of juicy fruit. Of course, the traffic is horrendous, but that’s because everyone is on their way to a well-paying job. Some hell we live in!

[KUTradition]

i thought lobs was moving to florida to lick ronny d’s boots, no?

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

……….because California and especially the Bay Area has gone to hell.

Really? News to at least 30 million people. I look outside and it’s a bright sunny day, flowers are still in bloom, hills are green and the orange trees are full of juicy fruit. Of course, the traffic is horrendous, but that’s because everyone is on their way to a well-paying job. Some hell we live in!

Yeah, Cassy wants to believe California ("and especially the Bay Area") is all gloom and doom these days - so it is - in his/her mind.

[Overlander]

……….because California and especially the Bay Area has gone to hell.

Really? News to at least 30 million people. I look outside and it’s a bright sunny day, flowers are still in bloom, hills are green and the orange trees are full of juicy fruit. Of course, the traffic is horrendous, but that’s because everyone is on their way to a well-paying job. Some hell we live in!

Yeah, Cassy wants to believe California ("and especially the Bay Area") is all gloom and doom these days - so it is - in his/her mind.

California isn't expensive because it sucks.....

[jhawks99]

Cassy doesn't like anywhere with too many brown people

[Cassandra]

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It doesn't say "shall have been found guilty of the crime of "insurrection". It says "shall have engaged in". And even if you want to argue that Trump did not engage in insurrection, he most certainly did "give aid" to those who did.

The problem with your premise is that he even hasn't been charged with it. But thank you for at least quoting the actual law. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't support your undemocratic desire for Trump to be forced off the ballet.

[MICHHAWK]

by any means possible. they can/should use all the tools in the toolbox to keep both dt and uncle off the ballot.

save us from this lunacy.

[jfish26]

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It doesn't say "shall have been found guilty of the crime of "insurrection". It says "shall have engaged in". And even if you want to argue that Trump did not engage in insurrection, he most certainly did "give aid" to those who did.

The problem with your premise is that he even hasn't been charged with it. But thank you for at least quoting the actual law. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't support your undemocratic desire for Trump to be forced off the ballet.

The problem with your premise is that there is no Constitutional requirement of Trump having been charged with anything.

[DCHawk1]

……….because California and especially the Bay Area has gone to hell.

Really? News to at least 30 million people. I look outside and it’s a bright sunny day, flowers are still in bloom, hills are green and the orange trees are full of juicy fruit. Of course, the traffic is horrendous, but that’s because everyone is on their way to a well-paying job. Some hell we live in!

lol

[DCHawk1]

Magnets

[Cassandra]

The problem with your premise is that there is no Constitutional requirement of Trump having been charged with anything.

Well, in that case, I'll refer you to your own gems of wisdom.

This sort of flailing response indicates strongly-held, wide-ranging deep dissatisfaction and angst. I have no reason to doubt it is genuinely held.