Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The Disunited States of Trump (Trump Thread #104)

988 replies

TheNorthWestPawsage · 02/09/2020 14:25

Trump used manipulation and race-baiting four years ago. He’s at it again. We are weary and worried but we shall persist.

Cartoon by Chris Riddell.

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3983600-Less-than-100-days-and-counting-Trump-thread-103?msgid=99566209#99566209

The Disunited States of Trump (Trump Thread #104)
OP posts:
Thread gallery
26
lionheart · 26/09/2020 02:35

He is incapable of debate. And many other things:

www.denverpost.com/2020/09/25/donald-trump-fails-us-national-security-interests/

Roussette · 26/09/2020 04:56

This is terrifying, no idea if it's true. Gilead..

twitter.com/LMGeno/status/1309656263547117568?s=09

Across I wondered if you knew?

TheNorthWestPawsage · 26/09/2020 08:14

I had heard religion rumours about Coney Barrett but hadn't appreciated that she is essentially part of a cult!
Pompeo is also a religious nut person - believes in the rapture etc.
The hypocrisy of these people spouting the bible at every juncture but who live their lives with no regard for the rest of the human race unless they are white, male and english speaking.

OP posts:
lionheart · 26/09/2020 10:18

Yes, I read that 'handmaid' nonsense elsewhere.

Roussette · 26/09/2020 10:50

I hope it is nonsense Grin
She doesn't sound like a champion for womens rights though... unlike the wonderful RBG

Did anyone see the footage of her trainer paying his respects at the coffin?
It was so moving
He got down on the floor and did three press ups.

AcrossthePond55 · 26/09/2020 13:12

Oh yes, Roussette, I knew about her. It's been 'big' on our local (more liberal) TV station.

She's been quoted as saying that a law career is 'a means to an end' which is 'enacting God's laws'. This is blatant evidence that she has an agenda regarding issues such as reproductive freedoms and equal rights for women and the LGBTQ community. A SCOTUS Justice is supposed to be able to put the Constitution before their own religious/moral beliefs, and make rulings based on law alone. She's made it abundantly clear that she has no intention of doing that.

Frankly, she frightens me more than Scrotus. He will be gone in either months or, God forbid, 4 more years. But she will be on the SCOTUS for (potentially) the next 40 years. But her votes on issues will affect generations of women and LGBTQ people.

I'm retired, post-menopausal, and heterosexual, chances are her agenda won't seriously affect me personally. BUT, I also remember before RvW when women where I grew up went to Mexico for abortions. I remember not being able to get a credit card in my own name. I needed a specific order on our divorce decree to take my maiden name back. Employers routinely favoured men over married women for promotions & rises as "you have a husband, you don't need the money". Asking the question "Are you planning to have children?" was perfectly legal in the hiring process. And there was no such thing as sexual harassment.

lionheart · 26/09/2020 13:47

The press ups were good.

TheNorthWestPawsage · 26/09/2020 13:55

That's my fear too Across - the complete dismantling of equal rights and women's access to birth control. Which in the 21st century are STILL woefully lacking!

My DC watched the recent 'Ms America' series about Phyllis Schlafly and the ERA - they were incredulous at the attitudes and beliefs of the women who were against it. Welcome to the Dark Ages!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

OP posts:
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 26/09/2020 14:47

Well, to the 1940s and 1950s, which were not exactly the Dark Ages. Except that we were hoping for of the 2040s and 2050s instead...

TheNorthWestPawsage · 26/09/2020 15:32

Are you comforted by the fact that Trumpy is now asking those with great legal expertise and experience - his donors?

Trump was still polling confidants—including Labor Sec Eugene Scalia, son of late Justice Antonin Scalia, and Ronna McDaniel—about thoughts on who they’d pick during private talks at fundraiser at Trump Hotel last night. At roundtable, he asked donors for show of hands, I’m told.
twitter.com/jenniferjjacobs/status/1309862417774542849?s=12

OP posts:
TheNorthWestPawsage · 26/09/2020 15:33

That post was to everyone not a response to Asking!

OP posts:
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 26/09/2020 15:50

I didn't think it was! Grin

I think that since he has himself no idea what to do about something this complicated, asking anyone who happened to be around at the time was probably his best shot at the problem.

Roussette · 26/09/2020 16:03

Thank you Across for your views and explanation.

I am just wondering if her approval to the SC might scare the beejesus out of a lot of Americans, and that in turn might boost Dem voting?

That link about him asking advice... if it's anything like the time he was sat having a meal and divulging confidential information and asking opinions... it won't be that private. Perhaps he got his golf caddy to vote too....

Back then he was with PM Abe discussing a NKorea missile attack and using private phones to light up the documents he had spread all over the table. A golfer unrelated to Trump's party posted a photo of it all on FB.

AcrossthePond55 · 26/09/2020 16:33

Are you comforted by the fact that Trumpy is now asking those with great legal expertise and experience - his donors?

I doubt this little 'vote' was for advice. I'd say it was more likely for them to show their 'approval' of his choice or a test of the attendees loyalty. I doubt very much any of them showed disapproval. It was probably couched in terms of "Raise your hand if you think I'm right". 🙄

My DC watched the recent 'Ms America' series about Phyllis Schlafly and the ERA

Wanted to see that but we don't have Hulu. I remember her and Anita Bryant both well. And although I was still in high school I wore my ERA button with pride and assisted in door-knocking and leafletting. Both of those women white, wealthy, privileged women for whom equality wasn't truly necessary. They didn't need to work and could afford to feed and raise children they had. Obviously their feeling was that if they and the rest of the 'country club wives set' didn't need equality, no one else did.

they were incredulous at the attitudes and beliefs of the women who were against it

My own mother thought that if the ERA passed, I'd end up in a fox hole in Viet Nam because women would be subject to the draft. IMO, they should be. If my sons can be forced into fighting a war, so should someone else's daughters. She also thought hat it would be the absolute end of marriage and the ability of a man to get a good job and support his family because women would 'get all the men's jobs'. But again, my mum came from a place of (not wealth by any means) financial security and a good, kind husband who felt that her opinions important and would never have made an important decision without her 'advice and consent'. She couldn't see outside her own bubble.

I am just wondering if her approval to the SC might scare the beejesus out of a lot of Americans, and that in turn might boost Dem voting?

Honestly, I think the Dems are plenty motivated and will vote. I mean, if the shit going on now hasn't already motivated a Democrat out of apathy or complaisance, nothing will. The people we need to motivate are independents and wavering Republicans.

I heard on a news show the other night (don't remember which one) that some poll or other showed that close to 99% of the voters polled have already made their decision.

PerkingFaintly · 26/09/2020 16:48

if the shit going on now hasn't already motivated a Democrat out of apathy or complaisance, nothing will.

I'm sure a lot of Trump campaign effort will go into redirecting those motivated Democrats at the very last moment, so that they don't turn out and vote. Remember last time it was "Hillary's emails", except there wasn't anything new there.

So it will be something from out in left field, preferably shocking. Doesn't actually need any element of truth, though there could be optional half-truths bundled in.

Like Trump's behaviour, it will be simultaneously impossible to predict the details, but boringly possible to predict the broad picture.

I think as voters in all countries we have to get used to this as a tactic, and pause before jumping when our strings are pulled. It's frustrating, but there we go. Where media is now transmitted directly from bot to voter brain, rather than requiring the machinery and buy in of journalism, the old adage about a lie being halfway round the world before the truth has its boots on is more true than ever.

PerkingFaintly · 26/09/2020 17:46

From that Vox article about Barrett:

Trump is expected to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court
www.vox.com/21446700/amy-coney-barrett-trump-supreme-court

In a 2013 article, she suggested that justices should not feel bound by precedents that they strongly disagree with.

“I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it,” Barrett wrote in that piece. Thus, if Barrett concludes that a decision like NFIB is “clearly” in conflict with the Constitution, she is likely to ignore it.

AcrossthePond55 · 26/09/2020 18:46

So it will be something from out in left field, preferably shocking. Doesn't actually need any element of truth, though there could be optional half-truths bundled in.

It's now expected to be the so-called 'Durham Report' regarding the Russia probe, which has been expanded to include the Clinton Foundation, although what they have to do with the Russia probe I have no idea. How they expect to tie either of those to Biden I have no idea. He was out of office during the probe and has no ties to the Clinton Fndn.

www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/durham-investigation-clinton-foundation/index.html

The first 'bombshell' was supposed to be the 'Johnson Report' regarding Hunter Biden. But that turned out to be a damp squib and not a bombshell. Still, Johnson did his best to put a spin on it, but the best he could do was to say that Hunter's position on that Ukraine Co's BoD (or whatever it was) was 'awkward'. There was no evidence that it affected any policy decisions.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-johnson-releases-findings-hunter-biden-probe-alleging-conflict-interest-n1240816

lionheart · 26/09/2020 20:33
Sad

eu.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/09/24/kyle-rittenhouse-extradition-subject-friday-court-hearing-kenosha/3520926001/

'Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged with fatally shooting two people and injuring a third during unrest last month in Kenosha, has become a cause célèbre among conservatives and some gun-rights groups.

On Thursday night, his mother and lawyer got a standing ovation at a Waukesha County Republican event after their introduction by conservative commentator Michelle Malkin. The teen has even become a symbol in Europe; fans of a Bulgarian soccer team displayed a banner saying he "did nothing wrong ... he is a hero" at a recent match.'

BruceAndNosh · 26/09/2020 20:55

The debate twixt Trump and Biden will be interesting and not in a good way.
Trump's lies come naturally to him, it is noticeable that he often uses near identical wording when repeating a lie. Therefore it sounds very natural and therefore "true". Whilst Biden will be trying to rebut using pesky facts, and any argument against a lie can often sound hesitant. I hope he's got some smooth soundbites ready to lob at Trump.
I also hope the presenter is firm about interruptions, Trump loves talking over people

AcrossthePond55 · 26/09/2020 22:40

I also hope the presenter is firm about interruptions, Trump loves talking over people

The moderator is Chris Wallace. A Fox News anchor. So we shall see.

lionheart · 27/09/2020 02:42

Something like this interview with SHS perhaps:

twitter.com/i/status/1309616108136271872

Roussette · 27/09/2020 07:13

Does anyone know if it will have a live audience (even if socially distanced)
When we had some live debates last year the best ones were when the audience were asked not to clap, participate, shout etc... it meant there was no hiding place.
It's like Johnson in parliament now, he doesn't have hordes of braying MPs backing him up.
I think if there is no audience that will serve Biden far better than Trump.