Trump outrage of the day

[bacchi]

Trump would have been the immediate/ direct beneficiary as well as those in his circle. I truly think they were trying to find a way to keep him in his seat.

What happened will certainly benefit some countries and degrade the status of the US across the world but I do not think that was what they were trying to accomplish.

Who will it benefit in the future? Who knows who will find a way to exploit the vulnerabilities that this has exposed.

A lot of the vulnerabilities make Congress useless.

Who needs cabinet confirmations if acting heads can do the same job until they get sued?

Government jobs can be reclassified as a political appointee position, making it easier to fire department leaders when they stray from the message.

Congressionally designated money can be moved around for pet projects. Need to build a border wall? That's the same as military housing!

[FIPurpose]

Trump would have been the immediate/ direct beneficiary as well as those in his circle. I truly think they were trying to find a way to keep him in his seat.

What happened will certainly benefit some countries and degrade the status of the US across the world but I do not think that was what they were trying to accomplish.

Who will it benefit in the future? Who knows who will find a way to exploit the vulnerabilities that this has exposed.

A lot of the vulnerabilities make Congress useless.

Who needs cabinet confirmations if acting heads can do the same job until they get sued?

Government jobs can be reclassified as a political appointee position, making it easier to fire department leaders when they stray from the message.

Congressionally designated money can be moved around for pet projects. Need to build a border wall? That's the same as military housing!

Well there's a limit on the "acting" secretaries, that they must be approved within x days. There are a whole series of lawsuits around administration decisions made by basically "expired" acting secretaries. It slows down what an administration is able to do, what it can accomplish, and the efficacy of that administration's government.

The damage Trump's secretaries were able to do was severely limited by their "acting" statuses and a significant number of their decisions have been undone by the courts.

[bacchi]

Trump would have been the immediate/ direct beneficiary as well as those in his circle. I truly think they were trying to find a way to keep him in his seat.

What happened will certainly benefit some countries and degrade the status of the US across the world but I do not think that was what they were trying to accomplish.

Who will it benefit in the future? Who knows who will find a way to exploit the vulnerabilities that this has exposed.

A lot of the vulnerabilities make Congress useless.

Who needs cabinet confirmations if acting heads can do the same job until they get sued?

Government jobs can be reclassified as a political appointee position, making it easier to fire department leaders when they stray from the message.

Congressionally designated money can be moved around for pet projects. Need to build a border wall? That's the same as military housing!

Well there's a limit on the "acting" secretaries, that they must be approved within x days. There are a whole series of lawsuits around administration decisions made by basically "expired" acting secretaries. It slows down what an administration is able to do, what it can accomplish, and the efficacy of that administration's government.

The damage Trump's secretaries were able to do was severely limited by their "acting" statuses and a significant number of their decisions have been undone by the courts.

Only the post-expiry decisions are under question, right?

Trump mostly figured out how to circumvent the nomination issue: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-acting-secretaries-dhs-fvra-senate-reform.html

But the statute’s generous grace period—210 days—can be extended, perhaps indefinitely, so long as the president nominates someone to hold that office on a permanent basis, even if the Senate never acts on the nomination.
[...]
Of course, as with this week’s DHS contretemps, the president could simply fire the first assistant and all of the other Senate-confirmed officers in an agency in order to create conditions that would allow him to name someone else.

[Travis]

Have you heard the audio of the voicemail he left Tuberville? It's fucking creepy in its single-mindedness and tone. "Just delay it. Just object to every state."

Which leads me to ask - what good does a delay do? Is this just drama for the 24 hr news cycle or is there a judge somewhere trying to make up his mind about whether to favor Trump during all this?

I hope this wrecks a bunch of Republican careers and puts a few at the top into jail. Trump, Guilliani, etc.

The "plan" if you can call it that was to get the elections turned back over to the state legislatures, some of which seemed like they might consider changing the electors. This entire fiasco was the result of these folks having absolutely no idea how our laws actually work.

-Each state has its own election laws and carries them out with almost no influence or involvement from Congress. Some of the lawsuits forgot this and did a poor copy/paste job not understanding the jurisdiction they were in. Many of Trump's lawsuits, especially the ones Guilliani or Powell touched were absolute shit as far as competence goes.
-Out of nearly 60 lawsuits, only one or two even used the word "fraud" because to make such a claim without evidence is against lawyer ethics codes.  Everyone seems to be forgetting that while Trump and Giuliani keep using that word, nobody in a courtroom has.
-Most states do not have laws on the books that would even allow a judge to declare an election void. The lawyers saying "pretty please because Karen swears she saw a thing" is definitely not grounds for such a step. Note that in Bush v Gore, the US Supreme Court simply said "stop recounting." They didn't throw out any votes.
-Trump thought he could stop governors from certifying their elections by willpower alone. Ducey not taking that phone call probably stopped Trump from committing a felony on live television.
-Trump, Giuliani, and their supporters believed that 6 Jan was supposed to be some kind of debate. It's a formality. The Constitution does not grant Congress any powers to reject or change the outcome of states' elections. We don't have an election for President. We have 50. And like I said in #1, Congress doesn't get to interfere. Every election has members of Congress oppose some certifications. It's symbolic. There's no authority to actually do anything about them. They thought that if enough states were debated and members rejected them, then they'd get returned to the state legislatures for some kind of do-over. There's no such thing. There is a clause in the Constitution that puts the vote to Congress if nobody gets enough electoral votes, but that wasn't going to happen here either.
-If somehow any of this came to pass inside Congress, it would immediately go to the Supreme Court and you've have a 9-person collective facepalm. 

*And under none of these hair-brained schemes were they going to get to 270 votes.

[jinga nation]

 Because Trump isn't going silently into the night, and he's still got way too many unilateral powers (EOs, pardons, commander in chief, and the attention that goes with all that), and he's proven over and over that he'll strike out at anyone if he feels snubbed, even if its against the common good or moral decency.

I am  not  concerned about Trump's wrongful exercise of his commander-in-chief power because military leadership is hypercognizant of his unbalance such that they will refuse to execute any order he issues if it has the merest semblance of an unlawful order.


In November 2020, during the dedication of a military museum, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, reaffirmed the military's commitment to the Constitution. 


"We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual."

Who was General  Milley thinking of when he said this?

The answer to my rhetorical question is that he was thinking of President Trump
 
"We are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution. And every soldier that is represented in this museum, every sailor, airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman, each of us will protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price."  General Milley

You have a faith I do not share.  The military, and in particular the brass, are committed to obeying their commanding officer. As long as that is Trump, they will find it difficult not to carry out his orders.  As you said, they take an oath to teh constititon, and that binds them to DJT as their commander in chief.

The uniformed and ex-military in my work area, mostly enlisted, believe the 4-stars, JCOS, etc. are all political appointees and not real soldiers. They ignore the fact the top brass were promoted through the ranks, went to AFA or WP, etc. I heard this today. Their mental gymnastics was mind-boggling world championship level. And they were attributing Bernie's policies to Biden.
I can't even.... so I end up listening to hardcore electronica/house/dubstep to drown it out.
Worked for 3 years under the prospective SecDef. Good man. (I also worked under Mattis when he was in charge of the same command as Austin was later.)

[Travis]

I can't even.... so I end up listening to hardcore electronica/house/dubstep to drown it out.

I usually listen to alternative and Nu Metal, but the room shuts up real quick when I switch to 1930s jazz.

[Travis]

Trump would have been the immediate/ direct beneficiary as well as those in his circle. I truly think they were trying to find a way to keep him in his seat.

What happened will certainly benefit some countries and degrade the status of the US across the world but I do not think that was what they were trying to accomplish.

Who will it benefit in the future? Who knows who will find a way to exploit the vulnerabilities that this has exposed.

A lot of the vulnerabilities make Congress useless.

Who needs cabinet confirmations if acting heads can do the same job until they get sued?

Government jobs can be reclassified as a political appointee position, making it easier to fire department leaders when they stray from the message.

Congressionally designated money can be moved around for pet projects. Need to build a border wall? That's the same as military housing!

Well there's a limit on the "acting" secretaries, that they must be approved within x days. There are a whole series of lawsuits around administration decisions made by basically "expired" acting secretaries. It slows down what an administration is able to do, what it can accomplish, and the efficacy of that administration's government.

The damage Trump's secretaries were able to do was severely limited by their "acting" statuses and a significant number of their decisions have been undone by the courts.

And record turnover. 5 SECDEFs, 4 Chiefs of Staff, 5 National Security Advisors, and 6 Directors of Homeland Security in a single term. And those are just the cabinet positions off the top of my head. State Dept, WH Communications, Energy, Labor, a couple service secretaries, and Immigration amongst others. The SES/career GS employee cadre spent the last four years in absolute chaos and Trump declared that he preferred it this way. He broke the record for cabinet turnover before the summer of 2019.

[talltexan]

The ground does feel like it's shifted somewhat. While I remain hopeful, I also remember how much of a "ground-shifting" moment it felt like we went through as that Ukraine phone call came to light, but only Justin Amash and Mitt Romney were peeled away from the sitting President of their party.

[Travis]

The ground does feel like it's shifted somewhat. While I remain hopeful, I also remember how much of a "ground-shifting" moment it felt like we went through as that Ukraine phone call came to light, but only Justin Amash and Mitt Romney were peeled away from the sitting President of their party.

If they don't feel it'll hurt them in two years, they won't care.  There are already a core group of Republicans trying to shift the narrative back to "we're here to protect you from the socialists" business as usual. 

[Taran Wanderer]

There seems to be a growing sense of republicans jumping ship. Trump continues to be in denial. Liz Cheney (#3 House Republican) is pro-impeachment. McConnell is for the impeachment process, though no statement on how he’ll vote yet. The DOJ had a fantastic press conference today where they laid out their law enforcement process for pursuing Capitol rioters, and sedition charges are on the table. FBI is making visits to people agitating for future action, allowing for First Amendment speech but letting people know they know.

The Forbes statement about Trump’s communications enablers/liars is a major shot. Political funding is being pulled back. Parker was hacked and archived before it was pulled off AWS. The Trump brand is being abandoned. This is surely an interesting time.

[Taran Wanderer]

Trump’s final instructions to Pence on Jan 6. From the NYT:

Mr. Trump was enraged that Mr. Pence was refusing to try to overturn the election. In a series of meetings, the president had pressed relentlessly, alternately cajoling and browbeating him. Finally, just before Mr. Pence headed to the Capitol to oversee the electoral vote count last Wednesday, Mr. Trump called the vice president’s residence to push one last time.

“You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Mr. Trump told him, according to two people briefed on the conversation, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

[OtherJen]

That's got to sting a bit.

Walmart, Disney suspend contributions to U.S. lawmakers who opposed Biden certification

They'd better hope that Sheldon Adelson remembered them in his will.

[Sandi_k]

 Because Trump isn't going silently into the night, and he's still got way too many unilateral powers (EOs, pardons, commander in chief, and the attention that goes with all that), and he's proven over and over that he'll strike out at anyone if he feels snubbed, even if its against the common good or moral decency.

I am  not  concerned about Trump's wrongful exercise of his commander-in-chief power because military leadership is hypercognizant of his unbalance such that they will refuse to execute any order he issues if it has the merest semblance of an unlawful order.


In November 2020, during the dedication of a military museum, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, reaffirmed the military's commitment to the Constitution. 


"We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual."

Who was General  Milley thinking of when he said this?

The answer to my rhetorical question is that he was thinking of President Trump
 
"We are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution. And every soldier that is represented in this museum, every sailor, airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman, each of us will protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price."  General Milley

You have a faith I do not share.  The military, and in particular the brass, are committed to obeying their commanding officer. As long as that is Trump, they will find it difficult not to carry out his orders.  As you said, they take an oath to teh constititon, and that binds them to DJT as their commander in chief.

An interesting read on the rank-and-file in terms of agreement with Trump's worldview...

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/11/military-right-wing-extremism-457861?fbclid=IwAR0bAQ1v5i2XF0csxB9UmBa4Q-FE3UG6a5l-CxocdTT0KCj7Fb00-oCmAVc

[Travis]

 Because Trump isn't going silently into the night, and he's still got way too many unilateral powers (EOs, pardons, commander in chief, and the attention that goes with all that), and he's proven over and over that he'll strike out at anyone if he feels snubbed, even if its against the common good or moral decency.

I am  not  concerned about Trump's wrongful exercise of his commander-in-chief power because military leadership is hypercognizant of his unbalance such that they will refuse to execute any order he issues if it has the merest semblance of an unlawful order.


In November 2020, during the dedication of a military museum, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, reaffirmed the military's commitment to the Constitution. 


"We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual."

Who was General  Milley thinking of when he said this?

The answer to my rhetorical question is that he was thinking of President Trump
 
"We are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or religion. We take an oath to the Constitution. And every soldier that is represented in this museum, every sailor, airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman, each of us will protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price."  General Milley

You have a faith I do not share.  The military, and in particular the brass, are committed to obeying their commanding officer. As long as that is Trump, they will find it difficult not to carry out his orders.  As you said, they take an oath to teh constititon, and that binds them to DJT as their commander in chief.

An interesting read on the rank-and-file in terms of agreement with Trump's worldview...

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/11/military-right-wing-extremism-457861?fbclid=IwAR0bAQ1v5i2XF0csxB9UmBa4Q-FE3UG6a5l-CxocdTT0KCj7Fb00-oCmAVc

If you want to call it a silver lining, the US military on the whole is trending to the left and the "military vote" this election cycle was around 52% for Biden. It's usually a crushing majority for Republicans.

[nereo]

Another ‘outrage’:

According to a WH source, Trump is “bothered” by the impending second impeachment, but  he is completely “gutted” by the loss of hosting the PGA tour in 2022 at the Trump Bedminister course in NJ.  It’s ‘an order of magnitude’ more severe, and he has spent more of his time and focus trying to reverse the PGA decision than with GOP lawmakers who will vote on his impeachment.

To the end he cares more about his business than he does about his Presidency. 

[LennStar]

“You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Mr. Trump told him, according to two people briefed on the conversation, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

I certainly would prefer to be called a useful pet than to be called a military-fanatic shortsighted nut.

[RetiredAt63]

“You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Mr. Trump told him, according to two people briefed on the conversation, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

I certainly would prefer to be called a useful pet than to be called a military-fanatic shortsighted nut.

Actually Trump reverse logiced this.  Biden would be a pussy (has Trump ever met a cat? They are not pushovers) to give in to T**** and a Patriot to do the oath-following activity of doing his job properly.

[GuitarStv]

“You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Mr. Trump told him, according to two people briefed on the conversation, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

I certainly would prefer to be called a useful pet than to be called a military-fanatic shortsighted nut.

Actually Trump reverse logiced this.  Biden would be a pussy (has Trump ever met a cat? They are not pushovers) to give in to T**** and a Patriot to do the oath-following activity of doing his job properly.

You're both wrong.  It clearly means that Trump wants to grab Pence in an effusive show of homoerotic emotion.

[nereo]

You're both wrong.  It clearly means that Trump wants to grab Pence in an effusive show of homoerotic emotion.

let's not bring homosexuality into this thread for the sake of debasing someone we don't like, ok? That's falls into homophobic territory, and has no place here.

[GuitarStv]

You're both wrong.  It clearly means that Trump wants to grab Pence in an effusive show of homoerotic emotion.

let's not bring homosexuality into this thread for the sake of debasing someone we don't like, ok? That's falls into homophobic territory, and has no place here.

Hmmm.  I was just referring to Trump's history of pussy grabbing and applying it to a person of the same gender . . . why do you assume that homosexuality somehow debases a person?  That's not something that I believe, and I'm surprised to hear it from you.

[nereo]

You're both wrong.  It clearly means that Trump wants to grab Pence in an effusive show of homoerotic emotion.

let's not bring homosexuality into this thread for the sake of debasing someone we don't like, ok? That's falls into homophobic territory, and has no place here.

Hmmm.  I was just referring to Trump's history of pussy grabbing and applying it to a person of the same gender . . . why do you assume that homosexuality somehow debases a person?  That's not something that I believe, and I'm surprised to hear it from you.

I'm asking you to please stop it.  It's clear you are using "homoerotic emotion" as an insult to Trump/Pence.  It's a erudite way of saying 'faggot' and meaning it as an insult.

[GuitarStv]

You're both wrong.  It clearly means that Trump wants to grab Pence in an effusive show of homoerotic emotion.

let's not bring homosexuality into this thread for the sake of debasing someone we don't like, ok? That's falls into homophobic territory, and has no place here.

Hmmm.  I was just referring to Trump's history of pussy grabbing and applying it to a person of the same gender . . . why do you assume that homosexuality somehow debases a person?  That's not something that I believe, and I'm surprised to hear it from you.

I'm asking you to please stop it.  It's clear you are using "homoerotic emotion" as an insult to Trump/Pence.  It's a erudite way of saying 'faggot' and meaning it as an insult.

I don't see homosexuality as something insulting, sorry.

[nereo]

You're both wrong.  It clearly means that Trump wants to grab Pence in an effusive show of homoerotic emotion.

let's not bring homosexuality into this thread for the sake of debasing someone we don't like, ok? That's falls into homophobic territory, and has no place here.

Hmmm.  I was just referring to Trump's history of pussy grabbing and applying it to a person of the same gender . . . why do you assume that homosexuality somehow debases a person?  That's not something that I believe, and I'm surprised to hear it from you.

I'm asking you to please stop it.  It's clear you are using "homoerotic emotion" as an insult to Trump/Pence.  It's a erudite way of saying 'faggot' and meaning it as an insult.

I don't see homosexuality as something insulting, sorry.

Then please do not use it as such.  There is no reason to bring 'homoerotic emotion' into this discussion.

[Watchmaker]

Hmmm.  I was just referring to Trump's history of pussy grabbing and applying it to a person of the same gender . . . why do you assume that homosexuality somehow debases a person?

I don't see homosexuality as something insulting, sorry.

That's not what Nereo is saying. And I also found your original comment uncomfortable.

[talltexan]

Indeed I am seeing posts of several elected Republicans shifting their support away from Trump, and I feel hopeful.

I have no idea what's going on in legit conservative areas, such as parler.

Why couldn't conservative media have led a charge back to mass e-mail communication? I cannot start checking yet another site!

[JLee]

Indeed I am seeing posts of several elected Republicans shifting their support away from Trump, and I feel hopeful.

I have no idea what's going on in legit conservative areas, such as parler.

Why couldn't conservative media have led a charge back to mass e-mail communication? I cannot start checking yet another site!

Not much is going on at Parler right now, lol.

https://www.newsweek.com/amazon-web-services-parler-lawsuit-user-threats-1561179

[bacchi]

Indeed I am seeing posts of several elected Republicans shifting their support away from Trump, and I feel hopeful.

I have no idea what's going on in legit conservative areas, such as parler.

Why couldn't conservative media have led a charge back to mass e-mail communication? I cannot start checking yet another site!

Not much is going on at Parler right now, lol.

https://www.newsweek.com/amazon-web-services-parler-lawsuit-user-threats-1561179

Over at thedonald, there's some infighting, some concern (socialism! re-education camps!), some talk about the false flag last week (it was antifa and blm!), and disbelief that anyone could have voted for Romney and Cheney.

[Just Joe]

“You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Mr. Trump told him, according to two people briefed on the conversation, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

I certainly would prefer to be called a useful pet than to be called a military-fanatic shortsighted nut.

Actually Trump reverse logiced this.  Biden would be a pussy (has Trump ever met a cat? They are not pushovers) to give in to T**** and a Patriot to do the oath-following activity of doing his job properly.

If only Pence had shown some back bone. Including hauling off and knocking Trump on his ass. Of course Trump would spin it to his favor but whatever.

[nereo]

Pence is in a horrible position.  After spending much of the last four years being Trump's mostly silent right-hand man (and often being contradicted by POTUS himself when sent out to defend indefensible positions) he's hated by Trump's extreme base (chants of "Hang Mike Pence" during the insurrection), he's intensely disliked by Dems, and he's equally at odds with the NeverTrumpers and GOP moderates for not holding the president accountable.

Pence was plucked out of a losing Indiana race for governor to serve as VP.  I'm not certain where he goes from here if he wants to stay in politics. Unseating Young (R) in 2022 seems a long-shot.

[frugalnacho]

Almost as if a lifetime of terrible decisions has consequences.

[wenchsenior]

Indeed I am seeing posts of several elected Republicans shifting their support away from Trump, and I feel hopeful.

I have no idea what's going on in legit conservative areas, such as parler.

Why couldn't conservative media have led a charge back to mass e-mail communication? I cannot start checking yet another site!

Not much is going on at Parler right now, lol.

https://www.newsweek.com/amazon-web-services-parler-lawsuit-user-threats-1561179

Over at thedonald, there's some infighting, some concern (socialism! re-education camps!), some talk about the false flag last week (it was antifa and blm!), and disbelief that anyone could have voted for Romney and Cheney.

It's the same at RedState.  They are absolutely sure that EVERYONE except a tiny handful of politicians (Ted Cruz, etc.) are working against them and Trump, to actively destroy American and make us a Chinese province. Consequently, they are despairing and frightened.

[GuitarStv]

Hmmm.  I was just referring to Trump's history of pussy grabbing and applying it to a person of the same gender . . . why do you assume that homosexuality somehow debases a person?

I don't see homosexuality as something insulting, sorry.

That's not what Nereo is saying. And I also found your original comment uncomfortable.

No, that is exactly what he's talking about.  He was very explicit.

Nereo first said that it is debasing to say that a person may act upon homosexual feelings.  Then he argued that even implying a person could be gay is an insult to that person.  Frankly, neither sit well with me.
 There's nothing wrong with being gay or acting in a gay manner - it's perfectly normal.  So where is the insult / debasement?

I've been thinking a lot about this.  Either being gay is something bad/wrong as Nereo argues (which would make my initial comment an insult) or it's perfectly OK to be gay and nothing I said was wrong.  You can't really have it both ways.  If we were discussing Michelle Pence, and Trump wanting to grab her in heterosexual fervor . . . then there would be no problem.  Why?  Because heterosexuality is not dirty/insulting/debasing.  But neither is homosexuality!

Really, the uncomfortable part should be the lack of consent bit - something that Trump has always been happy to brag about.

Am I out to lunch on this (I often am)?  Does treating homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality make me a homophobe as Nereo argued?

[nereo]

Hmmm.  I was just referring to Trump's history of pussy grabbing and applying it to a person of the same gender . . . why do you assume that homosexuality somehow debases a person?

I don't see homosexuality as something insulting, sorry.

That's not what Nereo is saying. And I also found your original comment uncomfortable.

No, that is exactly what he's talking about.  He was very explicit.

Nereo first said that it is debasing to say that a person may act upon homosexual feelings.  Then he argued that even implying a person could be gay is an insult to that person.  Frankly, neither sit well with me.
 There's nothing wrong with being gay or acting in a gay manner - it's perfectly normal.  So where is the insult / debasement?

I've been thinking a lot about this.  Either being gay is something bad/wrong as Nereo argues (which would make my initial comment an insult) or it's perfectly OK to be gay and nothing I said was wrong.  You can't really have it both ways.  If we were discussing Michelle Pence, and Trump wanting to grab her in heterosexual fervor . . . then there would be no problem.  Why?  Because heterosexuality is not dirty/insulting/debasing.  But neither is homosexuality!

Really, the uncomfortable part should be the lack of consent bit - something that Trump has always been happy to brag about.

Am I out to lunch on this (I often am)?  Does treating homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality make me a homophobe as Nereo argued?

If you would like to continue this conversation, feel free to PM me. I don't want to derail this too much longer.
But No, that is not at all what I was saying.

This is a thread discussing Trump's latest outrage (inherently negative things). There is absolutely no indication of homoerotic actions occuring between Mike Pence and Donald Trump, so to combine the two (criticisms of Trump) with suggestions of homoerotic behavior comes off as gay slander.

Let's put it this way: saying "Brokeback Mountain is a story which involves the homoerotic emotion" is both true and fine.  Suggesting two leaders you don't like must be engaging in homoerotic emotion is not, because it ties an inherent dislike of two people with being gay.  It links homosexuality with a negative connotation. Does that make sense?

[GuitarStv]

Hmmm.  I was just referring to Trump's history of pussy grabbing and applying it to a person of the same gender . . . why do you assume that homosexuality somehow debases a person?

I don't see homosexuality as something insulting, sorry.

That's not what Nereo is saying. And I also found your original comment uncomfortable.

No, that is exactly what he's talking about.  He was very explicit.

Nereo first said that it is debasing to say that a person may act upon homosexual feelings.  Then he argued that even implying a person could be gay is an insult to that person.  Frankly, neither sit well with me.
 There's nothing wrong with being gay or acting in a gay manner - it's perfectly normal.  So where is the insult / debasement?

I've been thinking a lot about this.  Either being gay is something bad/wrong as Nereo argues (which would make my initial comment an insult) or it's perfectly OK to be gay and nothing I said was wrong.  You can't really have it both ways.  If we were discussing Michelle Pence, and Trump wanting to grab her in heterosexual fervor . . . then there would be no problem.  Why?  Because heterosexuality is not dirty/insulting/debasing.  But neither is homosexuality!

Really, the uncomfortable part should be the lack of consent bit - something that Trump has always been happy to brag about.

Am I out to lunch on this (I often am)?  Does treating homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality make me a homophobe as Nereo argued?

If you would like to continue this conversation, feel free to PM me. I don't want to derail this too much longer.
But No, that is not at all what I was saying.

This is a thread discussing Trump's latest outrage (inherently negative things). There is absolutely no indication of homoerotic actions occuring between Mike Pence and Donald Trump, so to combine the two (criticisms of Trump) with suggestions of homoerotic behavior comes off as gay slander.

Let's put it this way: saying "Brokeback Mountain is a story which involves the homoerotic emotion" is both true and fine.  Suggesting two leaders you don't like must be engaging in homoerotic emotion is not, because it ties an inherent dislike of two people with being gay.  It links homosexuality with a negative connotation. Does that make sense?

So the issue is not that implying someone is homosexual debases or insults the person . . . it's that Trump and Pence are so terrible that they debase and insult homosexual people when you link them?  I think I can get on board with that reasoning.

[MudPuppy]

Take the L, man. It wasn’t a good comment. Have some grace.

[GuitarStv]

Take the L, man. It wasn’t a good comment. Have some grace.

I'm fine with the 'L' for a stupid comment.  That ship appears to have sailed.  :P

I'm not OK with the assumption that being gay is bad/dirty/wrong/insulting/debasing and therefore we can't discuss and treat homosexuality in the same way we would heterosexuality in casual conversation.

[MudPuppy]

No one is calling gay bad. That’s something your defensiveness (which we all have! It’s normal!) has latched onto.

[GuitarStv]

No one is calling gay bad. That’s something your defensiveness (which we all have! It’s normal!) has latched onto.

Nereo said that implying someone might be gay debased them and that mentioning 'homoerotic emotion' in relation to someone was insulting.

Can you explain where the insult/debasement comes from if being gay is not bad?

[MudPuppy]

It’s what your post implies. You made a joke. The punchline was homoerotic behavior. Again, take the L.

[GuitarStv]

It’s what your post implies. You made a joke. The punchline was homoerotic behavior. Again, take the L.

Right.

So the thought of gay behaviour is something to be ashamed of / take offense at?  Why?

[MudPuppy]

Look dude, you’re the one who made the punchline. NO ONE has said anything negative about homosexual behavior. If you didn’t intend homosexual behavior as the punchline, please explain your joke.

[charis]

It’s what your post implies. You made a joke. The punchline was homoerotic behavior. Again, take the L.

Right.

So the thought of gay behaviour is something to be ashamed of / take offense at?  Why?

That's everyone interpreted YOUR post to suggest. You disagree. Just stop beating this poor horse.

[powersuitrecall]

I'm no expert, but it seems as though a certain level of coordination was going on: 
https://mobile.twitter.com/ReesusP/status/1349255972829630465

[ixtap]

It’s what your post implies. You made a joke. The punchline was homoerotic behavior. Again, take the L.

Right.

So the thought of gay behaviour is something to be ashamed of / take offense at?  Why?

That's everyone interpreted YOUR post to suggest. You disagree. Just stop beating this poor horse.

Evidently it is hard to understand that if you invoke this while degrading someone, it is read as degrading...

[Kris]

It’s what your post implies. You made a joke. The punchline was homoerotic behavior. Again, take the L.

Right.

So the thought of gay behaviour is something to be ashamed of / take offense at?  Why?

That's everyone interpreted YOUR post to suggest. You disagree. Just stop beating this poor horse.

Evidently it is hard to understand that if you invoke this while degrading someone, it is read as degrading...

Yep. This. If you say of someone, "He's an asshole and also gay," people are not going to assume the second remark is neutral or positive.

Sorry, Stv. Gotta go with the majority on this one.

[turketron]

I'm no expert, but it seems as though a certain level of coordination was going on: 
https://mobile.twitter.com/ReesusP/status/1349255972829630465

Yeah, there's more evidence that some amount of coordination was happening, potentially from sources inside the Capitol.

The FBI also stated that some of the coordinators were sharing maps of the tunnels under the Capitol ahead of the riot:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-fbi-intelligence/2021/01/12/30d12748-546b-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

Capitol Staffer Says Office Panic Buttons Were 'Torn Out' Before Riot
https://www.newsweek.com/capitol-hill-riots-panic-buttons-torn-out-staffer-1561191

Lawmakers gave groups ‘reconnaissance’ tours of the Capitol one day before riots, Democratic congresswoman says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/13/mikie-sherrill-reconnaissance-capitol-attack/
(admittedly this one doesn't have much evidence to back up the claim, at least not yet)

[katsiki]

Another ‘outrage’:

According to a WH source, Trump is “bothered” by the impending second impeachment, but  he is completely “gutted” by the loss of hosting the PGA tour in 2022 at the Trump Bedminister course in NJ.  It’s ‘an order of magnitude’ more severe, and he has spent more of his time and focus trying to reverse the PGA decision than with GOP lawmakers who will vote on his impeachment.

To the end he cares more about his business than he does about his Presidency.

Interesting but this should not surprise anyone.

[talltexan]

For normal Presidents, their time after the Presidency was a time to cash in.

For a President who only ever saw his position as a way to enlarge his own business interests, it may be impossible for him to do the same once it's over.

[Alfred J Quack]

“You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Mr. Trump told him, according to two people briefed on the conversation, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

I certainly would prefer to be called a useful pet than to be called a military-fanatic shortsighted nut.

Actually Trump reverse logiced this.  Biden would be a pussy (has Trump ever met a cat? They are not pushovers) to give in to T**** and a Patriot to do the oath-following activity of doing his job properly.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pusillanimous

Pussy as in pusillanimous, not cat ;)

[GuitarStv]

I'm pretty pro prisoner rights . . . but this seems a bit odd to me:
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/viking-guy-granted-all-organic-diet-in-custody-after-judge-learns-hes-not-eating/ar-BB1cH70p?ocid=st

Like, if he hunger striked for long enough would they give him lobster and caviar?