***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[aepps20]

If Drew wins, every black grandmother gonna hang a picture of him and his wife in their house. Right next to the Michelle and Barry joint.

Not my grandmother. Nothing goes next to the picture of Ronald and Da Don.

 

[wavycrocket]

If Drew wins, every black grandmother gonna hang a picture of him and his wife in their house. Right next to the Michelle and Barry joint.

Right next to this too.

Drew wins, he getting the fresh Beijing for the photo shoot . Line going look brazy

 

[dwalk31]

Why would Trump call those two people "thief" and "uneducated" then?

I'd imagine the common denominator is that they are Democrats and he is supporting their Republican opponent. If he made those statements because they are black, that is clearly awful and unacceptable.

 

[aepps20]

I'd imagine the common denominator is that they are Democrats and he is supporting their Republican opponent. If he made those statements because they are black, that is clearly awful and unacceptable.

Allegedly famb.

 

[blastercombo]

This dude dwalk making ya all look silly, buying into his passive agressiveness....lmao


STOP FALLING FOR IT.

Lol yup. Hit the ignore

 

[Belgium]

Excerpt:
The Justice Department previously told the judge that the discovery process “necessarily would be a distraction to the President’s performance of his constitutional duties.”
Messitte rejected that argument in Friday’s ruling, saying it was undercut by Trump’s own threats to sue his former adviser Steve Bannon as well as the publisher of a book, “Fire and Fury,” that was highly critical of his first year in office.
“It bears noting that the President himself appears to have had little reluctance to pursue personal litigation despite the supposed distractions it imposes upon his office,” Messitte said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nst-trump-over-foreign-payments-idUSKCN1N72CK
U.S. judge refuses to delay suit against Trump over foreign payments
A federal judge on Friday rejected a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to delay a lawsuit alleging that his business dealings have violated a constitutional anti-corruption provision, moving the case toward the crucial evidence-gathering process.

U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Maryland ruled against the administration’s request to bring an expedited appeal of previous rulings that allowed the case to proceed and its bid to halt the lawsuit’s discovery process, evidence-gathering that could force disclosure of Trump’s financial records.

The lawsuit, filed by the Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleges that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” provisions designed to prevent corruption and foreign influence.

Messitte in March narrowed the lawsuit to focus on profits stemming from Trump’s ownership, through the Trump Organization, of the Trump International Hotel, a popular spot for foreign officials near the White House, and not his businesses outside the U.S. capital.

“Our next step is to proceed with discovery,” Karl Racine, the District of Columbia’s attorney general, said in a statement. “We will soon provide the court a new schedule to begin the process of getting information about how President Trump is profiting from the presidency.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco expressed disappointment in the ruling.


“This case, which should have been dismissed, presents important questions that warrant immediate appellate review,” Laco said in a statement.

Messitte ruled in March that the plaintiffs had legal standing to pursue the case and in July rejected what he called Trump’s “cramped” view that emoluments were limited essentially to outright bribes.

The Justice Department previously told the judge that the discovery process “necessarily would be a distraction to the President’s performance of his constitutional duties.”

Messitte rejected that argument in Friday’s ruling, saying it was undercut by Trump’s own threats to sue his former adviser Steve Bannon as well as the publisher of a book, “Fire and Fury,” that was highly critical of his first year in office.

“It bears noting that the President himself appears to have had little reluctance to pursue personal litigation despite the supposed distractions it imposes upon his office,” Messitte said.

A federal judge in Washington in September refused to dismiss another emoluments lawsuit making similar claims against Trump filed by a group of Democratic U.S. lawmakers.

But a Manhattan federal judge last year dismissed an emoluments lawsuit against Trump filed by plaintiffs including the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, saying they lacked legal standing to sue.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Random:

Bill Nelson looks like old cream cheese.


That is all.

 

[IATT]

 

[frink85]

The best deals

 

[getback]

Republicans

 

[tay1]

 

[boris]

This dude dwalk making ya all look silly, buying into his passive agressiveness....lmao


STOP FALLING FOR IT.

This poor soul dwalk just wants some sweet tax breaks without having a group of soy boys reminding him that he supports a bunch of deplorables.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[whywesteppin]

One thing to keep in mind about the immigration/birthright discussions: don't for one second believe it's about the "legality" of it. I've seen that word used repeatedly across different platforms by these "innocent moderates" who are really Trump mouthpieces in sheep's clothing.

This is only about xenophobia and white nationalism. It has nothing to do with legality. **** them and **** that talk. Don't be naive.

And, if they haven't come after you yet, they will eventually.

 

[130122]

One thing to keep in mind about the immigration/birthright discussions: don't for one second believe it's about the legality of it. I've seen that word used repeatedly across different platforms by these "innocent moderates" who are really Trump mouthpieces in sheep's clothing.

This is only about xenophobia and white nationalism. It has nothing to do with legality. **** them and **** that talk. Don't be naive.

And if they haven't come after you yet, they will eventually.

i had to break down to class mate illegal immigrants have to pay taxes but cant reap the benefits of fafsa, welfare, or things of that nature. son wasnt for it and thought he repeal was ok smh

 

[gry60]

I'd imagine the common denominator is that they are Democrats and he is supporting their Republican opponent. If he made those statements because they are black, that is clearly awful and unacceptable.

If they were called thief and uneducated just because they were Democrats, why not call Pelosi the same? How about Warren? How about Schumer? How about Maxine...

Wait. He did call Maxine Waters ignorant...

 

[whywesteppin]

If they were called thief and uneducated just because they were Democrats, why not call Pelosi the same? How about Warren? How about Schumer? How about Maxine...

Wait. He did call Maxine Waters ignorant...

Don't worry. I'm sure the guy who took out a full page ad calling for 5 boys of color to be executed for a crime they didn't commit would never say anything racist.

I'm sure the guy who spent years trying to discredit the first black president of this country on some racist conspiracy theory ******** would never say anything racist.

Let's not be ridiculous...

 

[aepps20]

If they were called thief and uneducated just because they were Democrats, why not call Pelosi the same? How about Warren? How about Schumer? How about Maxine...

Wait. He did call Maxine Waters ignorant...

Don just takes things way too far. Calling a Gubernatorial Candidate a thief is not only incorrect but shows how shook a person is. There is only one Thief and deplorable that stole elections by lying his way to the top and that is none other than Andrew Demese Gillum.

 

[deleted]

Obama was in rare form earlier

I miss having a rational adult as president

 

[wr]

She look like she need 5 dollars...

Ole "kaboom cartoon face" lookin ahh

"Lemme freak dis black real fast"

 

[aepps20]

Rusty's Bae looking Handsome.

 

[Belgium]

Good read on the next in line behind Rosenstein to oversee the Mueller probe, and a little bit about the one behind Solicitor General Francisco.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/02/mueller-probe-noel-francisco-ethics-waiver-959425 (lengthy article)
Next-in-line Mueller supervisor got White House ethics waiver in April
Solicitor General Noel Francisco has been dogged by conflict of interest concerns related his potential role overseeing the the Mueller probe.

A senior Trump administration official in line to become special counsel Robert Mueller’s new supervisor if there’s a Justice Department shakeup secured White House approval earlier this year on what critics say is a potential ethics hurdle that could have kept him from assuming the high-profile role.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco has long been considered a likely candidate to oversee Mueller’s Russia probe if Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is fired or quits. But the 49-year-old conservative lawyer has also been dogged by conflict of interest concerns because he previously worked as a partner at Jones Day, the same law firm that represents Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in the Russia probe.

Officials at the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have been arguing for months that to oversee the Mueller probe, Francisco would require a White House waiver to circumvent a Trump executive order that decreed employees must recuse themselves from work on any matters involving previous employers going back two years.

Turns out, Francisco actually got a White House waiverof that type in April. It’s not clear what triggered the waiver or if it had anything to do with Mueller’s investigation, but a senior Justice official on Friday downplayed its significance and insisted the department isn’t aware of any impediments to Francisco taking over responsibility for managing the Mueller probe if Rosenstein left his position.

The DOJ official also pointed out the department has its own ethics rules that include prohibitions both equal to, and stronger than, the White House that could prohibit Francisco from working on matters related to Jones Day clients.

A CREW official said the group just learned about the waiver on Friday after the Justice Department responded to its request for the document. In a blog post, CREW called the waiver “troubling” because it isn’t posted on an Office of Government Ethics website that lists 28 other Trump administration officials who have so far received waivers to work on matters related to their previous employers.

The group also took issue with the waiver appearing to be signed by then-White House counsel Don McGahn, who also worked with Francisco at Jones Day before joining the Trump administration. McGahn had similarly pledged not to participate in matters involving his former law firm.

“By authorizing Mr. Francisco to participate in the investigation, Mr. McGahn himself participated in the investigation,” CREW wrote.

Even with the White House waiver, CREW said Francisco still has other conflicts that should prevent him from taking on the Mueller oversight job, which involves signing off on the special counsel’s budget and decisions on subpoenas, indictments and the public disclosure of a final report.

The group noted that Jones Day still owes Francisco about $500,000 as part of its separation agreement when he left at the start of the Trump administration in January 2017. It also questioned his role as a lawyer on Trump’s transition team, which also has been pulled into the Mueller investigation.

A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment about Francisco’s April waiver.

Rosenstein’s status in the Trump administration has been in limbo for months, prompting DOJ to dust off its succession plans at each whiff of a shakeup. Most recently, the deputy attorney general’s job appeared to be in jeopardy after a New York Times story published in September described Rosenstein’s proposal to wear a wire to record the president.

People close to Rosenstein have said some of the pressure around his job has abated, at least for now. The deputy attorney general flew with Trump on Air Force One in early October, and the president later that day said he had no plans to fire the No. 2 Justice official.

Still, it remains unclear if Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions will remain in their jobs much beyond Tuesday’s midterm election. Sessions has drawn repeated rebukes from Trump because he recused himself from overseeing the department’s probe into Kremlin meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Beyond Francisco, several other DOJ officials in line to oversee the Mueller have their own conflict issues, including Steven Engel, the director of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, who is next up to oversee Mueller after Francisco.

Engel’s challenge centers around his time working as a lawyer on Trump’s transition team. He also has some possible ethical concerns related to his prior employment at the law firm Dechert when it was representing James Comey, whose May 2017 firing from the FBI remains part of the probe into whether Trump obstructed the Russia probe.

After Engel is John Demers, the head of Justice’s National Security Division and a former Boeing attorney who doesn’t have any apparent conflicts.

Trump could also try to create a new legal route for picking Mueller’s supervisor from among the ranks of presidential appointees or even an unconfirmed DOJ official, though the legality of such a move is unresolved.

 

[deleted]

Never knew Candace Owens had origins in some Gamergate nonsense

 

[dwalk31]

If they were called thief and uneducated just because they were Democrats, why not call Pelosi the same? How about Warren? How about Schumer? How about Maxine...

Wait. He did call Maxine Waters ignorant...

I’m not sure if you are new to politics, but Trump has been calling his opponents stupid, and worse, since he began his campaign. And the targets have been gender and race-neutral. I’ve consistently said he could do better with his tweets. But he is an equal-opportunity insulter. Any implication that it is limited to a specific gender or race is easily dispelled.

Bottom line is many think he is a racist. So, as a result, people stretch what would otherwise be benign (but immature) insults to racist statements. When thought about logically, it seems foolish to actually say that calling someone unqualified is de facto racist. A smarter strategy is to attack Trump on real issues.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

If you want to narrow the scope to insults, I guess you can call trump “race neutral”, but when it comes to his politics he’s far from it. The way he’s actively turned non white immigrants into boogeymen on the national stage is more than enough evidence of that. And whether he believes in to personally or not doesn’t matter because he’s well aware that his base believes it and that’s who he panders too.