or:
The juxtaposition in this thread is, well, odd. 
3 Likes
If at no other time (obviously, there have been other times), the last few years have produced all manner of ‘things to do’ lists and political takeaways for what I hope to be an all-Democratic WH and Congress. In spite of Joe, it must be the job of the Dem party, the legitimate press, and the public to remind him — and with maximum fucking pressure — of exactly why he (gods and demi-gods willing) got into the WH. Having a great Cabinet would be a start.
They should rework that in mind of Trump. Call it “Deride”.
4 Likes
6 Likes
Per some, a way to oust Trump’s judicial appointees is to review remarks they’ve made under oath; any lies, they can be booted out based on that.
4 Likes
Sounds like a Wolfenstein game, though in truth, the last game I remember playing was Return
Disclaimer for all that follows: I’m perfectly happy to have these people doing this stuff. It can only help.
But.
This video, and most of the last dozen or so, are not aimed at getting in Trump’s head. They’re aimed at getting in the heads of voters and/or potential contributors. And that’s fine (inasmuch as politics in this era is ever fine).
The “Mourning in America” ad, which they actually ran on teevee in DC, and which Trump saw and got baited by, was trying to get in his head, so that he could legitimize them by calling attention to it. Mission accomplished! But most everything since has been web-exclusive, meant to virally propagate. And Trump does not go on the unguarded web, nor does he see anything on Twitter that doesn’t come from sycophants. (He barely follows anyone. And notice how he’s never EVER baited into responding in his replies? Given his psychology, that can only be because he doesn’t know they exist.) Nobody, repeat, nobody around Trump will show him this ad or any of the others.
If this ad is trying to get in anyone’s head, it’s potential donors. They’ll rake in more contributions to make more ads if you think they’re evil psyop geniuses working for good—and hey, maybe they are. But that’s the extent of the psychological tricksiness here.
3 Likes
Sure. Remember when the Bush Administration was held accountable for its numerous crimes? Can you imagine how much worse we’d haven been had Obama not prosecuted their acts of venality, graft, and war crimes? Ye gods, we could have someone like John Bolton walking free and writing a book or something.
5 Likes
Ads like this may serve to sow some distrust among comrades. The best function of Antifa is to infiltrate and doxx the crazies. I go to their message boards and tell the Trumptards that I am a white guy who looks ugly in camo clothing. I will offer mild encouragement and take pictures to memorialize the event just before turning those pictures over to Antifa for publication.
Of course I do no such thing except for trolling message boards but anything to get these raging assholes to turn on each other is a good thing.
Gaslighting the gaslighter…perfect!
9 Likes
I’m hoping the Secret Service simply escorts him out of the White House at 12:01 am on January 20, 2021…and locks the door so he can’t get back in.
Hey, it’s a fun thought.
6 Likes
I got a sensible chuckle out of this ad. Hopefully they’ll get it in front of Trump multiple times.
1 Like
Let’s not pretend the two situations are in any way similar.
First, Bush was never an unindicted coconspirator in a federal crime for which someone else was convicted and serving time. If Trump were a private citizen and not the president, there’s every reason to think he’d be in the cell next to Cohen’s.
Second, at least some of Trump’s crimes predate his presidential aspirations and can’t be ascribed to policy differences.
Third, unlike Bush, Trump has politicized the Justice Department in a way that many career prosecutors in that department rightly find deeply offensive and dangerous. I’m not sure how prosecution decisions work, but I suspect that a pissed off US Attorney with the Cohen indictment and the Times story in hand could try to get a federal grand jury to indict Trump for campaign finance violations and tax fraud.
9 Likes
To your first point, the reason Bush and Cheney didn’t serve time for establishing and prosecuting a torture regime on multiple continents is down to the Obama administration’s choice not to pursue charges, not from any question of guilt.
To your third, just because you don’t remember the mass firings of U.S. attorneys on political grounds under Alberto Gonzales doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
There is no argument that Trump’s transgressions are far beyond the line established in the Bush administration. What you seem to be arguing, though, is that line he established was well within acceptable boundaries. I disagree.
9 Likes
Biden is very conservative.
I’m voting for him, because the alternative is bunker boi.
But things will not improve under Biden regardless of whether or not Lincoln Project personnel work under him.
2 Likes
People on here reminiscing about the good old days of the fucking BUSH administration ffs what happened someone throw you through the Overton Window like it’s the Second Goddam Defenestration of Prague JESUS CHRIST
7 Likes
I’ve been hoping the Secret Service would go,
(Is that a man with a rifle?)
“Coffee break time, guys!”
3 Likes
Except that’s not actually true. 18 USC 2340A prohibits “commit[ting] or attempt[ing] to commit torture.” 18 USC 2340 defines torture as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.”
And “mental pain or suffering” means "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality."
There are gaps in that law big enough to drive a truck through, and the Bush administration used every one of them. Is punishment of an enemy combatant during wartime, subject not to U.S. law but to international law, “incidental to lawful sanctions”? Is a detainee “threat[ened] [with] imminent death” when the “threat” is subjective (as in waterboarding), instead of objective? What constitutes “prolonged” mental harm?
The “guilt” of administration officials–which, for Bush administration officials as for everyone else, would have needed to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of twelve of those officials’ peers–is far from certain. In short, your certainty that these officials were guilty of crimes is not worth all that much.
And yet Alberto Gonzales, for all his many faults, didn’t try to act as the president’s personal lawyer. Nor did the Justice Department function as a laundry for the sins of the president’s friends and political allies. And, of course, Gonzales was forced to resign (or face impeachment) because he fired nine out of 93 US attorneys.
And you’re completely ignoring the second point, which is a key one: what you consider Bush’s “crimes” are largely policy decision, and as such they’re actions that courts often consider the result of political questions–that is, questions that are within the sole province of the politically elected branches of government–and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
Whether this is the right way to run the railroad is an open question, but it’s the system we’ve got for the time being, at least.
2 Likes
First, welcome to the BBS!
Second, there are two options here. One of them is a vile racist who will continue to implement invidious racist policies and name nothing but retrograde assholes to important positions of power.
The other is a reasonable Democrat who might nominate some people you don’t like to certain positions. Despite his numerous faults–dude’s a human, after all–he cares about other people, has experienced losses that have shaped his views, and is generally viewed as kind. He is also shaped by decades of negotiating for and achieving results in a sometimes fractious legislative body.
If your view is that option number two isn’t making things better than they are now, I humbly suggest you ought to revise your thinking.
5 Likes
