Donald Trump

Halifax2TheMax · January 2021

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

mrussel1 said:

This is really interesting. If you can't see through the paywall, I can post it. But if it's true that a simply majority could stop him from running and a 2/3 would be needed to overturn it in the future, then I like this plan. I would say impeach, hold the articles from teh senate and pass this bill on Trump, signed by Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/impeachment-wont-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

Paywall. Can you post the article please Matt. Thank you.

Bruce Ackerman is Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale Law School and author of a multivolume series, We the People, dealing with the dynamics of American constitutional development over the past two centuries. Gerard Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen professor at Indiana University’s law school in Indianapolis and the author of a forthcoming article dealing with the amnesty provisions of the 14th Amendment.
House Democrats’ plans to rush through an impeachment of President Trump won’t work, for a simple reason: The Constitution envisions impeachment only as a tool for proceeding against a president while he remains in office. Impeachment is meant to protect the country, not punish the offender. But that needn’t be the end of efforts to prevent Trump from again holding federal office. There is another, little-known constitutional provision that can achieve precisely that without distorting the Constitution’s meaning.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, bars Trump from holding another federal office if he is found to have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution of the United States.

The finding could be accomplished by a simple majority vote of both houses, in contrast to the requirement in impeachment proceedings that the Senate vote to convict by a two-thirds majority. Congress would simply need to declare that Trump engaged in an act of “insurrection or rebellion” by encouraging the attack on the Capitol. Under the 14th Amendment, Trump could run for the White House again only if he were able to persuade a future Congress to, “by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Section 3 was enacted to bar any “civil or military” officer who had served the United States before the Civil War from regaining a position of authority if he betrayed his country by supporting the Confederacy. During the height of Reconstruction, a number of former Confederates were, in fact, barred from holding office. It was only in 1872 that Congress once again allowed these men to serve the United States by passing an Amnesty Act with the requisite two-thirds majorities.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seems to believe that the only way to disqualify Trump from running for a second term is to gain House support for a second impeachment while he is still in office, even though the Senate trial can’t begin until Jan. 20 or 21. Since impeachment is designed to remove officials from office, the constitutionality of such a trial is problematic. But even if it were legitimate, the trial would come with heavy costs to the country and to the incoming Biden administration.

First, the trial could well lead to Trump’s acquittal if most Republican senators decide that a vote to convict would damage their reelection chances by alienating their right-wing base. What message would that send? Second, having the Senate’s time consumed in holding a trial would delay President-elect Joe Biden’s efforts to secure confirmation of his Cabinet and other nominees and divert attention from other initiatives of the new administration. Third, it would further divide the country at precisely the time Biden is seeking to bring America together.
Of course, this being a litigious country, Trump could appeal to the courts to declare that Congress’s determination that he had engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” was not justified by the facts. But this would be risky, since Trump would be required to testify under oath in response to detailed questioning by the government’s lawyers about his precise conduct during the attack.
Moreover, if the judiciary finally upheld the congressional determination, its judgment would undermine claims by the extreme right that Trump is a victim of a partisan vendetta.

Even more fundamentally, the law is the law. Not only is it in the political interest of the protagonists to heed the express instructions of the 14th Amendment; it is even more important to demonstrate to all Americans that their representatives in Washington take the Constitution seriously.
Now is the time to take a step back, call a halt to the House’s rush toward a last-minute impeachment — and deploy the constitutional means to the important end of making sure Trump is out of office for good.

I agree with not impeaching. It seems silly to try that now. 14A seems like the way to go.

i was all for impeaching prior to knowing about 14 sec 3. i agree that's the way to go. but pelosi and schumer would obviously know the options available to them, constitutionally speaking, so is there something else to it?

There may be problems with that law, not sure. I do think impeachment is still warranted, but maybe not the trial itself.

Read HCR post. It explains it pretty well. There needs to be consequences and despite offering the repubs an out, one of their own is going to force repubs to go on record as either being loyal to Tricky Team Trump TREASON Tax Cheat or the Constitution. I say throw the book at that piece of shit and fuck the optics or political ramifications. Be on the right side of history for Christ’s sake.

Gern Blansten · January 2021

Opinion by Hillary Rodham Clinton

Jan. 11, 2021 at 10:32 a.m. EST

Add to list

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a former U.S. senator, secretary of state and Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

Wednesday’s attack on the Capitol was the tragically predictable result of white-supremacist grievances fueled by President Trump. But his departure from office, whether immediately or on Jan. 20, will not solve the deeper problems exposed by this episode. What happened is cause for grief and outrage. It should not be cause for shock. What were too often passed off as the rantings of an unfortunate but temporary figure in public life are, in reality, part of something much bigger. That is the challenge that confronts us all.

Over these last days, I’ve thought about my experiences as a senator from New York on Sept. 11, 2001, and the 9/11 Commission Report that followed. The report’s authors explored the failures that opened the door for a devastating terrorist attack. “The most important failure,” they wrote, “was one of imagination. We do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat.”

Almost 20 years later, we are living through another failure of imagination — the failure to account for the damage that can be done to our nation by a president who incites violence, congressional leaders who fan the flames, and social media platforms that sear conspiracy theories into the minds of Trump’s supporters. Unless we confront the threats we face, we risk ensuring that last week’s events are only a prelude to an even greater tragedy.

Trump ran for president on a vision of America where whiteness is valued at the expense of everything else. In the White House, he gave white supremacists, members of the extreme right and conspiracy theorists their most powerful platforms yet, even claiming that there were “very fine people” among the torch-wielding militia members who converged on Charlottesville in 2017.

By the time he lost in 2020, he had whipped a dangerous element of our country into a frenzy. His supporters began planning their insurrection, making plans to march on the Capitol and “stop the steal.” Members of Congress, including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), encouraged them, in Brooks’s words, to “start taking down names and kicking ass.” Trump left no doubt about his wishes, in the lead-up to Jan. 6 and with his incendiary words before his mob descended.

So how do we move forward as a country? What does it say about us that so many were complicit, while those who sounded the alarm were dismissed as hysterical?

The generous explanation is that it’s hard to comprehend the danger of what seem like ridiculous conspiracy theories until you experienced that danger firsthand. This is a lesson I’ve learned myself. I’ve had my share of unpleasant experiences with people who believed I was evil incarnate — everything from being burned in effigy for fighting for health-care reform, to claiming that I was running a pedophilia ring out of a pizza parlor, to receiving a mail bomb from a rabid Trump cult member.

Fanatical ideas can lead to real, even deadly harm. That’s something the people of Michigan realized last year when armed militia members plotted to kidnap their governor. It’s something Nashvillians saw when a conspiracy theorist blew up an entire city block. Now, it’s something all of America has experienced.

But it is not enough to scrutinize — and prosecute — the domestic terrorists who attacked our Capitol. We all need to do some soul-searching of our own.

In Isabel Wilkerson’s new book “Caste,” she cites a question from historian Taylor Branch: “If people were given the choice between democracy and whiteness, how many would choose whiteness?” Wednesday reminded us of an ugly truth: There are some Americans, more than many want to admit, who would choose whiteness.

It’s sobering that many people were unsurprised by what occurred last week, particularly people of color, for whom a violent mob waving Confederate flags and hanging nooses is a familiar sight in American history. Consider what we saw last June, when Black Lives Matter protesters peacefully demonstrating in Lafayette Square were met with federal officers and tear gas. If the first step toward healing and unity is honesty, that starts with recognizing that this is indeed part of who we are.

Removing Trump from office is essential, and I believe he should be impeached. Members of Congress who joined him in subverting our democracy should resign, and those who conspired with the domestic terrorists should be expelled immediately. But that alone won’t remove white supremacy and extremism from America. There are changes elected leaders should pursue immediately, including advocating new criminal laws at the state and federal levels that hold white supremacists accountable and tracking the activities of extremists such as those who breached the Capitol. Twitter and other companies made the right decision to stop Trump from using their platforms, but they will have to do more to stop the spread of violent speech and conspiracy theories.

The Biden administration will need to address this crisis in all its complexity and breadth, including holding technology platforms accountable, prosecuting all who broke our laws, and making public more intelligence and analysis about domestic terrorism.

Despite the horror of what we saw happen, in the weeks and months ahead the news cycle will move on. We owe it to ourselves not to do the same. We have the strength, the ability and — yes — the imagination to confront what happened and ensure that nothing like it ever happens again. That’s what real patriotism looks like.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

mrussel1 said:

This is really interesting. If you can't see through the paywall, I can post it. But if it's true that a simply majority could stop him from running and a 2/3 would be needed to overturn it in the future, then I like this plan. I would say impeach, hold the articles from teh senate and pass this bill on Trump, signed by Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/impeachment-wont-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

Paywall. Can you post the article please Matt. Thank you.

Bruce Ackerman is Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale Law School and author of a multivolume series, We the People, dealing with the dynamics of American constitutional development over the past two centuries. Gerard Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen professor at Indiana University’s law school in Indianapolis and the author of a forthcoming article dealing with the amnesty provisions of the 14th Amendment.
House Democrats’ plans to rush through an impeachment of President Trump won’t work, for a simple reason: The Constitution envisions impeachment only as a tool for proceeding against a president while he remains in office. Impeachment is meant to protect the country, not punish the offender. But that needn’t be the end of efforts to prevent Trump from again holding federal office. There is another, little-known constitutional provision that can achieve precisely that without distorting the Constitution’s meaning.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, bars Trump from holding another federal office if he is found to have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution of the United States.

The finding could be accomplished by a simple majority vote of both houses, in contrast to the requirement in impeachment proceedings that the Senate vote to convict by a two-thirds majority. Congress would simply need to declare that Trump engaged in an act of “insurrection or rebellion” by encouraging the attack on the Capitol. Under the 14th Amendment, Trump could run for the White House again only if he were able to persuade a future Congress to, “by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Section 3 was enacted to bar any “civil or military” officer who had served the United States before the Civil War from regaining a position of authority if he betrayed his country by supporting the Confederacy. During the height of Reconstruction, a number of former Confederates were, in fact, barred from holding office. It was only in 1872 that Congress once again allowed these men to serve the United States by passing an Amnesty Act with the requisite two-thirds majorities.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seems to believe that the only way to disqualify Trump from running for a second term is to gain House support for a second impeachment while he is still in office, even though the Senate trial can’t begin until Jan. 20 or 21. Since impeachment is designed to remove officials from office, the constitutionality of such a trial is problematic. But even if it were legitimate, the trial would come with heavy costs to the country and to the incoming Biden administration.

First, the trial could well lead to Trump’s acquittal if most Republican senators decide that a vote to convict would damage their reelection chances by alienating their right-wing base. What message would that send? Second, having the Senate’s time consumed in holding a trial would delay President-elect Joe Biden’s efforts to secure confirmation of his Cabinet and other nominees and divert attention from other initiatives of the new administration. Third, it would further divide the country at precisely the time Biden is seeking to bring America together.
Of course, this being a litigious country, Trump could appeal to the courts to declare that Congress’s determination that he had engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” was not justified by the facts. But this would be risky, since Trump would be required to testify under oath in response to detailed questioning by the government’s lawyers about his precise conduct during the attack.
Moreover, if the judiciary finally upheld the congressional determination, its judgment would undermine claims by the extreme right that Trump is a victim of a partisan vendetta.

Even more fundamentally, the law is the law. Not only is it in the political interest of the protagonists to heed the express instructions of the 14th Amendment; it is even more important to demonstrate to all Americans that their representatives in Washington take the Constitution seriously.
Now is the time to take a step back, call a halt to the House’s rush toward a last-minute impeachment — and deploy the constitutional means to the important end of making sure Trump is out of office for good.

I agree with not impeaching. It seems silly to try that now. 14A seems like the way to go.

i was all for impeaching prior to knowing about 14 sec 3. i agree that's the way to go. but pelosi and schumer would obviously know the options available to them, constitutionally speaking, so is there something else to it?

There may be problems with that law, not sure. I do think impeachment is still warranted, but maybe not the trial itself.

I'm beginning to think that Pelosi and Schumer have an absolute hardon for the Donald and not getting him impeached in the first place.

HughFreakingDillon · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

mrussel1 said:

This is really interesting. If you can't see through the paywall, I can post it. But if it's true that a simply majority could stop him from running and a 2/3 would be needed to overturn it in the future, then I like this plan. I would say impeach, hold the articles from teh senate and pass this bill on Trump, signed by Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/impeachment-wont-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

Paywall. Can you post the article please Matt. Thank you.

Bruce Ackerman is Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale Law School and author of a multivolume series, We the People, dealing with the dynamics of American constitutional development over the past two centuries. Gerard Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen professor at Indiana University’s law school in Indianapolis and the author of a forthcoming article dealing with the amnesty provisions of the 14th Amendment.
House Democrats’ plans to rush through an impeachment of President Trump won’t work, for a simple reason: The Constitution envisions impeachment only as a tool for proceeding against a president while he remains in office. Impeachment is meant to protect the country, not punish the offender. But that needn’t be the end of efforts to prevent Trump from again holding federal office. There is another, little-known constitutional provision that can achieve precisely that without distorting the Constitution’s meaning.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, bars Trump from holding another federal office if he is found to have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution of the United States.

The finding could be accomplished by a simple majority vote of both houses, in contrast to the requirement in impeachment proceedings that the Senate vote to convict by a two-thirds majority. Congress would simply need to declare that Trump engaged in an act of “insurrection or rebellion” by encouraging the attack on the Capitol. Under the 14th Amendment, Trump could run for the White House again only if he were able to persuade a future Congress to, “by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Section 3 was enacted to bar any “civil or military” officer who had served the United States before the Civil War from regaining a position of authority if he betrayed his country by supporting the Confederacy. During the height of Reconstruction, a number of former Confederates were, in fact, barred from holding office. It was only in 1872 that Congress once again allowed these men to serve the United States by passing an Amnesty Act with the requisite two-thirds majorities.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seems to believe that the only way to disqualify Trump from running for a second term is to gain House support for a second impeachment while he is still in office, even though the Senate trial can’t begin until Jan. 20 or 21. Since impeachment is designed to remove officials from office, the constitutionality of such a trial is problematic. But even if it were legitimate, the trial would come with heavy costs to the country and to the incoming Biden administration.

First, the trial could well lead to Trump’s acquittal if most Republican senators decide that a vote to convict would damage their reelection chances by alienating their right-wing base. What message would that send? Second, having the Senate’s time consumed in holding a trial would delay President-elect Joe Biden’s efforts to secure confirmation of his Cabinet and other nominees and divert attention from other initiatives of the new administration. Third, it would further divide the country at precisely the time Biden is seeking to bring America together.
Of course, this being a litigious country, Trump could appeal to the courts to declare that Congress’s determination that he had engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” was not justified by the facts. But this would be risky, since Trump would be required to testify under oath in response to detailed questioning by the government’s lawyers about his precise conduct during the attack.
Moreover, if the judiciary finally upheld the congressional determination, its judgment would undermine claims by the extreme right that Trump is a victim of a partisan vendetta.

Even more fundamentally, the law is the law. Not only is it in the political interest of the protagonists to heed the express instructions of the 14th Amendment; it is even more important to demonstrate to all Americans that their representatives in Washington take the Constitution seriously.
Now is the time to take a step back, call a halt to the House’s rush toward a last-minute impeachment — and deploy the constitutional means to the important end of making sure Trump is out of office for good.

I agree with not impeaching. It seems silly to try that now. 14A seems like the way to go.

i was all for impeaching prior to knowing about 14 sec 3. i agree that's the way to go. but pelosi and schumer would obviously know the options available to them, constitutionally speaking, so is there something else to it?

There may be problems with that law, not sure. I do think impeachment is still warranted, but maybe not the trial itself.

I'm beginning to think that Pelosi and Schumer have an absolute hardon for the Donald and not getting him impeached in the first place.

not getting him impeached? you mean not getting him removed?

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

mrussel1 said:

This is really interesting. If you can't see through the paywall, I can post it. But if it's true that a simply majority could stop him from running and a 2/3 would be needed to overturn it in the future, then I like this plan. I would say impeach, hold the articles from teh senate and pass this bill on Trump, signed by Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/impeachment-wont-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

Paywall. Can you post the article please Matt. Thank you.

Bruce Ackerman is Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale Law School and author of a multivolume series, We the People, dealing with the dynamics of American constitutional development over the past two centuries. Gerard Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen professor at Indiana University’s law school in Indianapolis and the author of a forthcoming article dealing with the amnesty provisions of the 14th Amendment.
House Democrats’ plans to rush through an impeachment of President Trump won’t work, for a simple reason: The Constitution envisions impeachment only as a tool for proceeding against a president while he remains in office. Impeachment is meant to protect the country, not punish the offender. But that needn’t be the end of efforts to prevent Trump from again holding federal office. There is another, little-known constitutional provision that can achieve precisely that without distorting the Constitution’s meaning.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, bars Trump from holding another federal office if he is found to have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution of the United States.

The finding could be accomplished by a simple majority vote of both houses, in contrast to the requirement in impeachment proceedings that the Senate vote to convict by a two-thirds majority. Congress would simply need to declare that Trump engaged in an act of “insurrection or rebellion” by encouraging the attack on the Capitol. Under the 14th Amendment, Trump could run for the White House again only if he were able to persuade a future Congress to, “by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Section 3 was enacted to bar any “civil or military” officer who had served the United States before the Civil War from regaining a position of authority if he betrayed his country by supporting the Confederacy. During the height of Reconstruction, a number of former Confederates were, in fact, barred from holding office. It was only in 1872 that Congress once again allowed these men to serve the United States by passing an Amnesty Act with the requisite two-thirds majorities.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seems to believe that the only way to disqualify Trump from running for a second term is to gain House support for a second impeachment while he is still in office, even though the Senate trial can’t begin until Jan. 20 or 21. Since impeachment is designed to remove officials from office, the constitutionality of such a trial is problematic. But even if it were legitimate, the trial would come with heavy costs to the country and to the incoming Biden administration.

First, the trial could well lead to Trump’s acquittal if most Republican senators decide that a vote to convict would damage their reelection chances by alienating their right-wing base. What message would that send? Second, having the Senate’s time consumed in holding a trial would delay President-elect Joe Biden’s efforts to secure confirmation of his Cabinet and other nominees and divert attention from other initiatives of the new administration. Third, it would further divide the country at precisely the time Biden is seeking to bring America together.
Of course, this being a litigious country, Trump could appeal to the courts to declare that Congress’s determination that he had engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” was not justified by the facts. But this would be risky, since Trump would be required to testify under oath in response to detailed questioning by the government’s lawyers about his precise conduct during the attack.
Moreover, if the judiciary finally upheld the congressional determination, its judgment would undermine claims by the extreme right that Trump is a victim of a partisan vendetta.

Even more fundamentally, the law is the law. Not only is it in the political interest of the protagonists to heed the express instructions of the 14th Amendment; it is even more important to demonstrate to all Americans that their representatives in Washington take the Constitution seriously.
Now is the time to take a step back, call a halt to the House’s rush toward a last-minute impeachment — and deploy the constitutional means to the important end of making sure Trump is out of office for good.

I agree with not impeaching. It seems silly to try that now. 14A seems like the way to go.

i was all for impeaching prior to knowing about 14 sec 3. i agree that's the way to go. but pelosi and schumer would obviously know the options available to them, constitutionally speaking, so is there something else to it?

There may be problems with that law, not sure. I do think impeachment is still warranted, but maybe not the trial itself.

I'm beginning to think that Pelosi and Schumer have an absolute hardon for the Donald and not getting him impeached in the first place.

not getting him impeached? you mean not getting him removed?

Congress did but Senate did not so yes, removal then.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

Stop the Steal. I only found out about this recently. Is this what I've been missing on Parler all this time?

HughFreakingDillon · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

Stop the Steal. I only found out about this recently. Is this what I've been missing on Parler all this time?

stop the steal has been something that has been their shouting motto since the election. they chant it at every trump rally and every chance they get.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Stop the Steal. I only found out about this recently. Is this what I've been missing on Parler all this time?

stop the steal has been something that has been their shouting motto since the election. they chant it at every trump rally and every chance they get.

I don't know how I missed it, even on here. Oh well.

Merkin Baller · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

Stop the Steal. I only found out about this recently. Is this what I've been missing on Parler all this time?

They didn't need it for 2016, but they were ready for it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/controversial-pro-trump-group-warns-members-avoid-election/story?id=43372037

Kat · January 2021

Here's the big (and horrible) distraction from the Capitol Insurrection.

https://twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/1349026958596780035

HughFreakingDillon · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Stop the Steal. I only found out about this recently. Is this what I've been missing on Parler all this time?

stop the steal has been something that has been their shouting motto since the election. they chant it at every trump rally and every chance they get.

I don't know how I missed it, even on here. Oh well.

maybe it's more of something I would see on twitter. so if you aren't on there, it's understandable.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Stop the Steal. I only found out about this recently. Is this what I've been missing on Parler all this time?

They didn't need it for 2016, but they were ready for it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/controversial-pro-trump-group-warns-members-avoid-election/story?id=43372037

Since 2016? Yeah, I missed it or never gave it much thought. Thanks for the read.

cincybearcat · January 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

why is the nutjob righty's go-to always pedophilia? is it projection?

Wouldn’t doubt it

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Stop the Steal. I only found out about this recently. Is this what I've been missing on Parler all this time?

stop the steal has been something that has been their shouting motto since the election. they chant it at every trump rally and every chance they get.

I don't know how I missed it, even on here. Oh well.

maybe it's more of something I would see on twitter. so if you aren't on there, it's understandable.

I'm on twitter for Oliver Tree, Matt&Kim and nike releases …

mrussel1 · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Gutted."

Trump is also under pressure, the pressure of impeachment, of course, and the loss of his social media platforms. He is also under financial pressure, as Deutsche Bank, the only bank that would still lend to him, has announced it will no longer do business with him. But, according to Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, what is upsetting him most is that the PGA has pulled its 2022 golf championship from Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club.

That, not the riots, not the deaths, not impeachment, and certainly not the coronavirus--which has now killed more than 375,000 of us—has “gutted” him.

Yep, it's all coming home to roost now. Talk of him starting his own media platform is total fantasy. He doesn't have the capital and now he doesn't have access to capital. Second, the two mobile apps won't host him (apple and google) He won't have access to traditional media to own and operate either for the same reasons and even friendly outfits like Sinclair aren't going to hand over their business to him. They'll give him a show, but that's it. But then you have FCC regulations on decency, overseen by Biden, that will take out the sting.

Last, you can see on Breitbart that people are up in arms because they are moderating and approving comments. That tells me they are taking the web hosting risk very seriously. Profit over principles every time.

Taibbi wrote a piece on profits and principles.

Give it a read.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/we-need-new-media-system-taibbi

I did. Interesting read but nothing revelatory. No one loved the Trump era more than CNN and MSNBC! Same goes with Obama era and Rush. Sad state of things.

Halifax2TheMax · January 2021

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Gutted."

Trump is also under pressure, the pressure of impeachment, of course, and the loss of his social media platforms. He is also under financial pressure, as Deutsche Bank, the only bank that would still lend to him, has announced it will no longer do business with him. But, according to Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, what is upsetting him most is that the PGA has pulled its 2022 golf championship from Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club.

That, not the riots, not the deaths, not impeachment, and certainly not the coronavirus--which has now killed more than 375,000 of us—has “gutted” him.

Yep, it's all coming home to roost now. Talk of him starting his own media platform is total fantasy. He doesn't have the capital and now he doesn't have access to capital. Second, the two mobile apps won't host him (apple and google) He won't have access to traditional media to own and operate either for the same reasons and even friendly outfits like Sinclair aren't going to hand over their business to him. They'll give him a show, but that's it. But then you have FCC regulations on decency, overseen by Biden, that will take out the sting.

Last, you can see on Breitbart that people are up in arms because they are moderating and approving comments. That tells me they are taking the web hosting risk very seriously. Profit over principles every time.

Taibbi wrote a piece on profits and principles.

Give it a read.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/we-need-new-media-system-taibbi

I did. Interesting read but nothing revelatory. No one loved the Trump era more than CNN and MSNBC! Same goes with Obama era and Rush. Sad state of things.

And imagine if CNN and MSNBC didn’t report on Tricky Team Trump TREASON Tax Cheat and that the rest of the lame stream media and fake news didn’t cover him and his ilk? It’s not like they misrepresented his deeds or used alternative facts or no facts in their reporting or just spewed baseless lies.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Gutted."

Trump is also under pressure, the pressure of impeachment, of course, and the loss of his social media platforms. He is also under financial pressure, as Deutsche Bank, the only bank that would still lend to him, has announced it will no longer do business with him. But, according to Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, what is upsetting him most is that the PGA has pulled its 2022 golf championship from Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club.

That, not the riots, not the deaths, not impeachment, and certainly not the coronavirus--which has now killed more than 375,000 of us—has “gutted” him.

Yep, it's all coming home to roost now. Talk of him starting his own media platform is total fantasy. He doesn't have the capital and now he doesn't have access to capital. Second, the two mobile apps won't host him (apple and google) He won't have access to traditional media to own and operate either for the same reasons and even friendly outfits like Sinclair aren't going to hand over their business to him. They'll give him a show, but that's it. But then you have FCC regulations on decency, overseen by Biden, that will take out the sting.

Last, you can see on Breitbart that people are up in arms because they are moderating and approving comments. That tells me they are taking the web hosting risk very seriously. Profit over principles every time.

Taibbi wrote a piece on profits and principles.

Give it a read.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/we-need-new-media-system-taibbi

I did. Interesting read but nothing revelatory. No one loved the Trump era more than CNN and MSNBC! Same goes with Obama era and Rush. Sad state of things.

I happen to enjoy Taibbi's writing but not his politics. But as of late I am seeing quite a few pieces from him that are very well written.

mrussel1 · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Gutted."

Trump is also under pressure, the pressure of impeachment, of course, and the loss of his social media platforms. He is also under financial pressure, as Deutsche Bank, the only bank that would still lend to him, has announced it will no longer do business with him. But, according to Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, what is upsetting him most is that the PGA has pulled its 2022 golf championship from Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club.

That, not the riots, not the deaths, not impeachment, and certainly not the coronavirus--which has now killed more than 375,000 of us—has “gutted” him.

Yep, it's all coming home to roost now. Talk of him starting his own media platform is total fantasy. He doesn't have the capital and now he doesn't have access to capital. Second, the two mobile apps won't host him (apple and google) He won't have access to traditional media to own and operate either for the same reasons and even friendly outfits like Sinclair aren't going to hand over their business to him. They'll give him a show, but that's it. But then you have FCC regulations on decency, overseen by Biden, that will take out the sting.

Last, you can see on Breitbart that people are up in arms because they are moderating and approving comments. That tells me they are taking the web hosting risk very seriously. Profit over principles every time.

Taibbi wrote a piece on profits and principles.

Give it a read.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/we-need-new-media-system-taibbi

I did. Interesting read but nothing revelatory. No one loved the Trump era more than CNN and MSNBC! Same goes with Obama era and Rush. Sad state of things.

I happen to enjoy Taibbi's writing but not his politics. But as of late I am seeing quite a few pieces from him that are very well written.

I tend to think he overexaggerates, fails to see grey, or most importantly he chalks up malfeasance where I would probably point to incompetence. it's my experience that most of the mistakes in business are because of ineptness or lack of attention to detail rather deliberate. That's my worldview and I apply it to politics too. Not every situation, but it tends to be my starting point.

mrussel1 · January 2021

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Gutted."

Trump is also under pressure, the pressure of impeachment, of course, and the loss of his social media platforms. He is also under financial pressure, as Deutsche Bank, the only bank that would still lend to him, has announced it will no longer do business with him. But, according to Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, what is upsetting him most is that the PGA has pulled its 2022 golf championship from Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club.

That, not the riots, not the deaths, not impeachment, and certainly not the coronavirus--which has now killed more than 375,000 of us—has “gutted” him.

Yep, it's all coming home to roost now. Talk of him starting his own media platform is total fantasy. He doesn't have the capital and now he doesn't have access to capital. Second, the two mobile apps won't host him (apple and google) He won't have access to traditional media to own and operate either for the same reasons and even friendly outfits like Sinclair aren't going to hand over their business to him. They'll give him a show, but that's it. But then you have FCC regulations on decency, overseen by Biden, that will take out the sting.

Last, you can see on Breitbart that people are up in arms because they are moderating and approving comments. That tells me they are taking the web hosting risk very seriously. Profit over principles every time.

Taibbi wrote a piece on profits and principles.

Give it a read.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/we-need-new-media-system-taibbi

I did. Interesting read but nothing revelatory. No one loved the Trump era more than CNN and MSNBC! Same goes with Obama era and Rush. Sad state of things.

And imagine if CNN and MSNBC didn’t report on Tricky Team Trump TREASON Tax Cheat and that the rest of the lame stream media and fake news didn’t cover him and his ilk? It’s not like they misrepresented his deeds or used alternative facts or no facts in their reporting or just spewed baseless lies.

Definitely not arguing that, but there's no arguing that it helps ratings too.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Gutted."

Trump is also under pressure, the pressure of impeachment, of course, and the loss of his social media platforms. He is also under financial pressure, as Deutsche Bank, the only bank that would still lend to him, has announced it will no longer do business with him. But, according to Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, what is upsetting him most is that the PGA has pulled its 2022 golf championship from Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club.

That, not the riots, not the deaths, not impeachment, and certainly not the coronavirus--which has now killed more than 375,000 of us—has “gutted” him.

Yep, it's all coming home to roost now. Talk of him starting his own media platform is total fantasy. He doesn't have the capital and now he doesn't have access to capital. Second, the two mobile apps won't host him (apple and google) He won't have access to traditional media to own and operate either for the same reasons and even friendly outfits like Sinclair aren't going to hand over their business to him. They'll give him a show, but that's it. But then you have FCC regulations on decency, overseen by Biden, that will take out the sting.

Last, you can see on Breitbart that people are up in arms because they are moderating and approving comments. That tells me they are taking the web hosting risk very seriously. Profit over principles every time.

Taibbi wrote a piece on profits and principles.

Give it a read.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/we-need-new-media-system-taibbi

I did. Interesting read but nothing revelatory. No one loved the Trump era more than CNN and MSNBC! Same goes with Obama era and Rush. Sad state of things.

I happen to enjoy Taibbi's writing but not his politics. But as of late I am seeing quite a few pieces from him that are very well written.

I tend to think he overexaggerates, fails to see grey, or most importantly he chalks up malfeasance where I would probably point to incompetence. it's my experience that most of the mistakes in business are because of ineptness or lack of attention to detail rather deliberate. That's my worldview and I apply it to politics too. Not every situation, but it tends to be my starting point.

His inability to see gray was why I disliked him and also why I mentioned that a few of his pieces have righted that wrong so it was more thought out and enjoyable to read.

Donald Trump

Comments

Categories