The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[malchior]

Trumper assholes gonna asshole, but the cop simply standing around doing while that guy repeatedly got in her face was ridiculous.

I'll point out that a second cop rolled up and immediately detained him. Fuck that first cop. You can almost pick out the thought process. White guy harassing a latino girl? Why get involved?

[Smoove_B]

That was uncomfortable to watch, and I'm pretty sure it's been happening daily all over the United States for a few years now. I'm glad she managed to film it as I have no doubt people wouldn't believe it otherwise.

[Skinypupy]

That was uncomfortable to watch, and I'm pretty sure it's been happening daily all over the United States for a few years now. I'm glad she managed to film it as I have no doubt people wouldn't believe it otherwise.

This has been making the rounds on FB, and the response from a few of my conservative acquaintances was "Since we don't know what happened before she started filming, I'm sure it's just more liberal fake news".

When you have to find ways to defend behavior like this, it's time to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Not that any of them ever will.

[LordMortis]

Trumper assholes gonna asshole, but the cop simply standing around doing while that guy repeatedly got in her face was ridiculous.

I'll point out that a second cop rolled up and immediately detained him. Fuck that first cop. You can almost pick out the thought process. White guy harassing a latino girl? Why get involved?

I'm not sure about how I feel about that first cop. He was obviously on the horn describing the situation and was likely waiting for backup rather than accidentally escalating the scene. But at the same time his presence with no interjection at all when she was pleading for an interjection while fuckhead is clearly in the wrong reinforces my fear for my country. Fucko was constantly putting himself in a situation where cop on the horn could do absolutely nothing if the situation turned from verbal abuse to physical abuse.

I believe I understand what he was doing but I think it was a bad judgement call in a situation that was already turning out poorly in small part to he his presence in choosing not to decide.

[Skinypupy]

Trumper assholes gonna asshole, but the cop simply standing around doing while that guy repeatedly got in her face was ridiculous.

I'll point out that a second cop rolled up and immediately detained him. Fuck that first cop. You can almost pick out the thought process. White guy harassing a latino girl? Why get involved?

I'm not sure about how I feel about that first cop. He was obviously on the horn describing the situation and was likely waiting for backup rather than accidentally escalating the scene. But at the same time his presence with no interjection at all when she was pleading for an interjection while fuckhead is clearly in the wrong reinforces my fear for my country. Fucko was constantly putting himself in a situation where cop on the horn could do absolutely nothing if the situation turned from verbal abuse to physical abuse.

I believe I understand what he was doing but I think it was a bad judgement call in a situation that was already turning out poorly in small part to he his presence in choosing not to decide.

Agreed. I'm not well versed on the finer points of police dispatch procedures, but it seems like conveying "white male being physically threatening towards a hispanic female at park on the corner of Elm and Main. Please send backup units" would allow you go intervene in the situation rather quickly.

Brevity is certainly a better option than appearing to simply ignore the situation for a few minutes while the dude gets more and more aggressive, and other people get involved.

[Blackhawk]

FWIW, you don't have 'conversations' on the radio with dispatch. Doing so prevents the next guy in real trouble from getting on the radio and asking for help. Brevity rules aren't just for fun. If you need to have a conversation, you put down the radio and pick up your phone.

What he was likely doing was standing there waiting for a response. He was probably just holding his radio so he'd be ready to answer.

There is nothing - including waiting for backup - that would have precluded him simply separating the two verbally, telling the man that if he didn't stay 'over there', he'd be arrested.

[Blackhawk]

[Carpet_pissr]

That was uncomfortable to watch, and I'm pretty sure it's been happening daily all over the United States for a few years now. I'm glad she managed to film it as I have no doubt white people wouldn't believe it otherwise.

FTFY

[The Meal]

Your Stars and Stripes T-Shirt Technically Violates the Flag Code

[Isgrimnur]

The Flag Code language uses the term 'should' for the vast majority of its items.

FAA

We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?

Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."

[GreenGoo]

Thanks Meal, I was going to post something like that. Hilarious that angry nationalist gets nationalism wrong.

Less hilarious is that angry nationalist uses nationalism as cover for his aggressive racism.

[noxiousdog]

Your Stars and Stripes T-Shirt Technically Violates the Flag Code

They do not violate the flag code. The code stipulates you can't use The Flag for stuff like clothing. Clothes that were designed with flag patterns from scratch were never flown as the American Flag and therefore do not qualify.

[The Meal]

[Isgrimnur]

Your Stars and Stripes T-Shirt Technically Violates the Flag Code

They do not violate the flag code. The code stipulates you can't use The Flag for stuff like clothing. Clothes that were designed with flag patterns from scratch were never flown as the American Flag and therefore do not qualify.

§ 3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag

Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words 'flag, standard, colors, or ensign', as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.

[noxiousdog]

Your Stars and Stripes T-Shirt Technically Violates the Flag Code

They do not violate the flag code. The code stipulates you can't use The Flag for stuff like clothing. Clothes that were designed with flag patterns from scratch were never flown as the American Flag and therefore do not qualify.

§ 3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag

Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words 'flag, standard, colors, or ensign', as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.

That's not the flag code. That's a DC law (or appears to be so.)

[Isgrimnur]

That's not the flag code. That's a DC law (or appears to be so.)

Cornell Law School: U.S. Code › Title 4 › Chapter 1 › § 3

[Isgrimnur]

Public Law 77-623

SEC. 4.
...
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard; or used as any portion of a costume or athletic uniform. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

[noxiousdog]

Can we agree it's tacky?

[Isgrimnur]

You might get by on the Title 4 reading, but the public law was to cover the entire US.

[Isgrimnur]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

[noxiousdog]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

Deal.

[LawBeefaroni]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

Deal.

Next person that commands me to stand and/or take off my hat for "God Bless America" is getting decked.

[Rip]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.

[Smoove_B]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.

Like a swastika?

[$iljanus]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.

Like a swastika?

So ya, thought you might like to go to a show...?

[GreenGoo]

Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.

Like a swastika?

Forget it Smoove. it's Rip town.

Also, Bah-zinga.

[Combustible Lemur]

Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.

Like a swastika?

Forget it Smoove. it's Rip town.

Also, Bengh-ah-zinga

FTFY


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

Was this a poll of elderly white people who only watch Fox News?

[gbasden]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.

I generally don't hassle strangers in public even if wearing MAGA garb. Silenty judge the hell out of them with utter contempt, yes, but that's using the inside voice.

[Skinypupy]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.

I generally don't hassle strangers in public even if wearing MAGA garb. Silenty judge the hell out of them with utter contempt, yes, but that's using the inside voice.

Remember this old Gary Larson cartoon? Replace that last dude with a MAGA hat.



It's a very clear indicator that I want absolutely nothing to do with that person, on any level.

[LordMortis]

Was this a poll of elderly white people who only watch Fox News?

While I'd like to say, yeah "New Poll" is about meaningless. There is plenty of reason to be depressed

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/part ... ation.aspx

Gallup says that as of June 42% of Americans of still lean republican and they live in rural states in a heavily gerrymanderred country. All we need to is move a little faster and this tractor will start flying. It's physics, man.

[malchior]

Posting this in this thread because I think there is a direct line here to this Presidency and its ability to abuse loopholes and norms. Something encouraging I'm seeing is that some pundits are starting to finally start talking about the big picture issues with the Constitution. Especially around representation.

[sarcasm]Noted communist[/sarcasm] Norman Ornstein tweeted about the non-representational features of the government last night. It is important because I think people have to get this conversation going. Unless these realities are understood then you can't understand why our government is so off-the-rails. He was one of the first *very serious people* to really start talking about the Republicans abusing norms and being largely responsible for polarization. And he is starting to get at root causes IMO. Hopefully it'll drive more conversation in his circle. It's a good thing potentially.

[naednek]

The Flag Code language uses the term 'should' for the vast majority of its items.

FAA

We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?

Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."

Including you should stand for the national anthem

[naednek]

Can we agree it's tacky?

As long as we can agree that one shouldn't hassle strangers over their fashion choices.

Unless of course they are wearing some kind of Trump supporting garb.

I generally don't hassle strangers in public even if wearing MAGA garb. Silenty judge the hell out of them with utter contempt, yes, but that's using the inside voice.

I just do it to Dodger Fans.

Going to disneyland was fun. I made sure I had Giants gear all week.

[Skinypupy]

Trump claims - for the third time - that he won Wisconsin and Reagan didn't.

President Trump on Thursday repeated for a third time his inaccurate claim that former President Reagan didn’t win the state of Wisconsin during his reelection bid.

“One of the states we won — Wisconsin — I didn’t realize this until fairly recently, that was the one state that Ronald Reagan didn’t win when he ran the board his second time,” Trump said during a press conference after the NATO Summit in Brussels.

“He didn’t win Wisconsin and we won Wisconsin,” he added.

This is the third time that Trump has reiterated the incorrect statement.

Reagan won the state in both 1980 and 1984. Minnesota was the only state he didn’t secure during the 1984 election

All his lies irritate me, but the stupid, petty, easily-disprovable ones like this feel more infuriating, for some reason. Mainly because there's literally no reason to repeat the lie, and anyone with half a brain and access to Google could take two seconds to disprove it...yet not a single Red Hat ever will. They will just take him at his word that winning Wisconsin when Reagan didn't is just further evidence of Dear Leader's greatness.

Just stop. fucking. lying. About every single thing, every goddamn day.

[Carpet_pissr]

Why would he do that? It appears to be working.

[LawBeefaroni]

He even says, "I didn't realize this until fairly recently..."


So either he doesn't remember using this lie previously or he is lying about not remembering a lie.

[Holman]

He also said something like "I love Germany. My father was from Germany."

His grandfather was from Germany. His father was born in New York.

(Oh, and about that grandfather...)

[milo]

Oh, sure. Like Trump knows the difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota.

[LawBeefaroni]

Oh, sure. Like Trump knows the difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Of course he does. Paul Ryan.

It fits his imaginary narrative better that Reagan didn't get Wisconsin and he did.