Trump's Card

[ursus arctos]

Which is why Fox has been full on "Soviet born Ukrainian speaker with dual loyalties" with respect to a Jewish lieutenant colonel who came here as a child and was wounded and decorated in Iraq.

[Satchmo Distel]

Sean Duffy on CNN did the same.

[Incandenza]

Yes this is an actual tweet

[URL]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189601417469841409[/URL]

[WOM]

Repawblican.

[Sporting]

Grand Old Pooch.

[ursus arctos]

[URL="https://twitter.com/w7voa/status/1189610528517300224?s=21"]https://twitter.com/w7voa/status/1189610528517300224[/URL]

[Sits]

It’s a Belgian Shepherd anyway.

[Nocturnal Submission]

It’s a Belgian Shepherd anyway.

No, you're wrong. You can tell by the hair and the colouring.

It's Donald Trump

[San Bernardhinault]

That is some pretty poor photoshop work. You'd have been a bit embarrassed by that in the early 2000s. Do they have nobody left on staff with basic image manipulation skills? Did Jared have to do it?

[ursus arctos]

Traditionally, they have just stolen memes from the likes of Reddit and the chans.

Having someone on staff with actual subject matter expertise would be very off brand.

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1189906458797903875

[San Bernardhinault]

He's using the Boris Johnson Model Bus gambit. I wonder if they have the same advisers.

[Ginger Yellow]

It was in part to clean up his Google search results, ensuring that the word “fraud” and his own name would be paired in a positive light

I would have thought that not being paired at all would be best.

[anton pulisov]

Giuliani could have retired at 65 and been remembered as the mayor who bravely walked the streets of New York on 9/11.

Instead he will be remembered as a clown.

[elguapo4]

It's probably because of 9/11 that he decided to stay on and got jobs like this, otherwise he'd be another anonymous ex Mayor of NYC.

[Lang Spoon]

That Guy who dressed in drag on SNL.

[Nocturnal Submission]

That is quite shocking but personal experience has taught me that many, many bright young people can be hugely ignorant about current affairs.

[anton pulisov]

Why were Clinton and Biden leaders of the progressive wing in American politics?

Because corporations are people too.

[Incandenza]

Here's a fun quote from David Brooks's column today:

Prof. Paul Sracic of Youngstown State University in Ohio told Ken Stern from Vanity Fair that when he asked his class of 80 students if they’d heard any conversation about impeachment, only two said they had. When he asked if impeachment interested them, all 80 said it did not.

Did he mean literal conversation? I haven't heard many people talking about it in conversation. College students have a whole lot of other things on their mind than to be talking about this. If they were meaning to answer that they literally had no idea that it was something that was happening, then that is surprising, but again, many of them are probably spending time on class work and probably have a job that they need to have in order to try to make whatever little bit of money that they can. That's also just one class from one professor (who knows David Brooks?) at one university.

[San Bernardhinault]

. I’m not convinced Warren isn’t somewhat of a fake, too, though she seems miles better than Clinton or Biden. But trust her capitalist bona fides at your peril and all.

Do you mean "capitalist" here? Or do you mean "anti-capitalist"? I genuinely don't understand the point you're making - are you arguing that she's actually way more progressive than she is perceived? If so, I think you're off base. If you're arguing the opposite, I'd probably agree.

Impeaching Trump is not a counter-measure, it’s a too-little-too-late protest vote, after the damage is done, just in time for primary season which will undercut the progressive message. It will not make anything better and it increasingly looks like it will increase Trump’s chances of reelection...

I break from you here. Your argument views impeachment in purely electoral terms. I don't think that's fair. If the Democrats had not impeached for this - clearly literal bribery, one of the two explicit impeachable offenses; and potentially treason, the other one, given that Trump actively undermined what Congress believes is US National Security interests for personal benefit - then there is literally nothing they could ever impeach for. It will probably fail; it might weaken the Democrats electorally. But it had to be done.

And I don't think it could have been done earlier while bringing the public along. The Mueller report was damning in terms of obstruction of justice, but that's not a compelling narrative in the modern world.

It may be too little, too late. But they couldn't have done more (during the Trump presidency - obviously they could have done loads more in the preceding half century), and they couldn't have done it earlier.

[Guy Profumo]

Yes this is an actual tweet

[URL]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189601417469841409[/URL]

He's talking about himself in the third person again?

[ursus arctos]

What is needed is a victory

[San Bernardhinault]

... to which should be added the macro offense of being intellectually and characterologically unfit to serve as a chief executive, let alone of the world's most powerful country. The ethical response to his basic unfitness was to invoke the 25th Amendment, not for managerial incompetence but for its root cause of mental health.

While this is apparent to both of us, it was also apparent before his election and he won. I think it would be ridiculously dangerous precedent setting, and undemocratic to try and remove him just because we always knew that he's an idiot.

Also, of course, the 25th amendment was never available: it either required Trump himself, or Pence plus half the Cabinet, to tell us he was unfit.

[San Bernardhinault]

Of course. One question, if Warren becomes the nominee, is to what extent her appeals to the center will turn off her base, and whether it could be enough to cost her the election. Warren wouldn't be the worst choice at any rate, but I have no faith in the voting public anymore.

I think this reads like Talking Points Columnist Nonsense.

It would be true for any nominee, but in reality it's not a big deal. Almost nobody who voted in a primary, who's an actual part of the base, is going to see a Warren candidacy (or a Klobuchar or Buttigieg candidacy) and decide that they'd rather have Trump be President because someone's not left wing enough (or centrist enough, for that matter).

[San Bernardhinault]

But the same is true of literally anyone who runs as a Democrat.