DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump barred Pence's chief of staff from the White House after the president attacked Pence for not trying to overturn the el

Here's what following the Constitution rather than a dictator gets you in Trumplandia....

Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff, Marc Short, was barred from the White House on Wednesday after President Donald Trump criticized Pence for refusing to attempt to overturn the election, Bloomberg journalists first reported.

Short said Trump barred him from the grounds because the president was "blaming" him for advice he gave to Pence, according to the RealClearPolitics reporter Philip Wegmann.

Short did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider.

Pence was tasked with overseeing a joint session of Congress on Wednesday in which the Electoral College votes, already certified by all 50 states, would be counted in a process that is usually nothing more than procedural.

Trump had urged Pence to challenge the results during the session, even though the vice president did not have the authority to do so.

Before the session, which was interrupted by a violent mob of Trump supporters, Pence released a statement saying he would not be following Trump's demands.

"It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not," he said.

The president responded, criticizing Pence, in a tweet that has since been hidden by Twitter: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"

The vice president is thought to be considering a presidential run in 2024, though his political ambitions could become complicated by Trump's criticism near the end of their term.

https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-short-trump-bans-pence-chief-of-staff-white-house-2021-1

Now let the lies, excuses and rationalizations of how Trump isn't a wannabe dictator begin....

Im shocked... how could this happen!!!!

I consider anyone who apologizes for trump a traitor.

Wow.

You all know I'm no fan of Trump supporters, but there is no way in hell that we can condemn, shun, or repudiate 73 million American voters and not expect it to break our country. The truth is that the vast majority of these people were and are decent hard working americans just like us. They are family and neighbors. They were simply and systemically misled, fed a steady diet of lies by right wing media and leaders, and many many many believe they are doing the right thing due to this.

We need to figure out how to break the programming and let them figure out the numerous deceptions they fell for. I have no clue how we do that, but even I am not ready to throw them away. I can hate what they stand for without hating them.

You still don't get it yet. Those 73 million voters were voting for "Not Biden". There are very many people in this country who are against the left's parasitic schemes. They don't necessarily like Trump, they just don't want any part of the left.

Figure it out already.

Okey dokey then. What you are saying is that they are so afraid of the left that they would rather have a dictator and/or civil war. I think it's sad, but you might have a point. Unfortunately that leaves your side staring down the barrels of the federal guns. That didn't work out so well the last time the South rose, did it?

We agree to a great extent. Yes, over 74 million people voted for Trump. But there weren't 74 million people at that rally yesterday. Of the people who did show up for that rally, only a portion of them actually stormed the Capital Building. I'm not going down the same path I've watched others go down and blame an entire political party or lump them all together as supporting, advocating and even excusing what happened yesterday. Sure we see a few of the usual suspects on this board doing it, but they do not represent all Republicans.

Those who were involved deserve the blame. Those who broke laws deserve to be arrested and tried. But I'm not going to blame 74 million people for it. I'm not going to blame everyone who attended that rally for the acts of those who stormed the Capital.

I, much like yourself have no idea how to bridge the divide. What I do know is that trying to call them all names and lump them into all being the same is not true and not helpful. I've watched them do it.

Yes there are Trumpians among them. There are also a lot of good people who simply have different ideas of how our country should move forward. It's about ideology, not good verses evil.

You still can't get past the fact that all democrats are not alike. Biden is about as moderate as any of them. Not all republicans are alike either.

If you think they were all voting "not Biden" you fail to recognize how many votes Biden got because he is "not Trump".

That's why so many voted for Biden. They know Biden isn't some far left progressive Democrat. That smear tactic didn't work this time.

The swing of the suburban vote says it all. People like your neighbors.

You guys are touching on what I have been saying in the other thread, especially regarding the 74 million, and I agree.

I have no idea how to fix this or "deprogram" to borrow OCD's term.

Like we talked about in the other thread, it's going to have to start with Republicans purging themselves.

To add, I am encouraged by what I heard from Ben Sasse and from Adam Kinzinger. Unfortunately, I feel like a disparaging amount of sway on that side now lies with the likes of the opportunists who were like remoras on the Trump shark (Graham, Cruz, Rubio, etc.). That will be an awfully difficult dynamic to overcome since people like Hawley and Cruz have a lot of term left...and a lot of ambition.

Sadly, all we can do is sit back and watch because as you seem to agree with, only Republicans have the power to purge themselves.

Well I'm a libertarian and I find many of your statements patronizing and pathetic, so I'll start there. I'm not sure how YOU get to determine what someone should believe and what's interpreted as right or wrong. Just because someone doesn't share a political ideology with you doesn't mean they're wrong or need "deprogrammed." I find that language apprehensible and if we weren't on the board I'd just call you a sanctimonious, holier than thou [insert choice of words] here.

Why does everyone need to be "deprogrammed" if they don't happen to agree with you? I'll tell you where you find that type of language and philosophy..In communist countries as a way of taking away one's individual liberties and losing their original beliefs. That way if you've been deprogrammed of ideology, past family experience, you can lump in with a common shared belief that the state, government, or group of people want you to. That line of thinking is incredibly dangerous.

You're not anywhere close to any type of constructive dialogue as it sits right now.

If you want to start somewhere then pass term limits and immediately dismiss ALL members of congress over 60 years of age. Then pass a congressional budget, perform a federal reserve audit, and ban acceptance of money from lobbyists.

That's your start in regaining public trust in the government. I also want a ceiling limit on age to run for presidential office, same cap of 60.

Just the lunatics like the Cult of Trump that think the election was stolen.

I agree, however it isn't just right wing media and leaders, but other than that omission, good post.

Your words are charged, and I believe you have taken me out of context, so let me level with you.

I don't classify myself to any political party because I feel the dynamic often leads to me inorganically changing my views in order to "belong." However, and this may come as a surprise, when it comes to most issues and policies, I align myself more with libertarians and conservatives (small C).

I don't think I - or anyone else I was conversating with - ever made the statement or even a rational inference that I get to determine what someone should believe. I think that is a reactionary statement involving emotion.

And when it comes to being sanctimonious, or holier than thou, let me be the first to admit to you: I am flawed. I am far from perfect. Not even close. I am no better than anyone. If you got to know me in person, I doubt you'd call me that bad term, though.

Also, I never said anyone who disagrees with me needs to be "deprogrammed." There is nothing I said that bolsters that point either. I disagree with Peen, Perfect, OCD, Pit, 40 (when he was on here), and I think each one of them knows that I respect them and would never seek to outmuscle them into conforming to my beliefs.

I was borrowing a term from OCD which signifies there are people - like we saw two days ago - that have been manipulated into believing and defending a politician who is - by definition - a demagogue. It is to an extreme level, and Wednesday evidenced that. A subset of politicians on that side of the aisle have also capitalized on that, for their own gain, and have furthered that narrative. So, now, I think we are stuck in a dynamic that has historically proven to be very dangerous.

You highlight communism. I would highlight that as well. I would also highlight dictatorships wherein a person takes advantage of those who have been wronged by a current political system in attempt to maintain power, despite the laws and regulations that currently exist in that system. In neither one of those systems do you have individual liberties, which I uphold to be the most important aspect of America. I think the current narrative though floats toward the latter. Otherwise, I don't think we would have people storming the Capitol.

I always welcome disagreement. I love disagreement. I have learned from disagreement (not always easily, for sure). Yeah, if you deflect or are deliberately obtuse, I will probably call you out for it, and would be fine if someone did the same to me (maybe not right away, obviously, haha).

When I get concerned though, is when I feel there is an element of radicalization, which I feel is the current environment. There are people on this board who have voted for Trump who I respect the hell out of, like Arch and Peen. I never want to force them to change their minds. They're not radical in their beliefs though. My goal in saying all this - and perhaps I phrased it in a way that didn't make sense before - is to highlight and remove any elements of radicalization, engraining, and extreme close-mindedness. I would do the same no matter what end of the political spectrum is in play.

My target goal in all of this is a free-flowing of ideas in the political world, where differences are respected, and no name calling occurs, haha.

Just got done with my other post to you before I saw this one. I agre on the term limits and budgets, and audits. I work in Government acquisition and the amount of waste I see on a daily basis is staggering. Couldn't agree more on lobbyists.

60 - to me - is to low a cap. I would entertain a maximum age, though. Perhaps not being older than the social security age while running for office? Could be off there and would be open to discussion on it, in another thread though.

I don't disagree with you at all, but the events at the Capital mean we have to confront a handful of very uncomfortable conversations.


A mob of people just stormed the Capital building to interfere with an election that has (time and time again) been proven to be legit. Despite a complete lack of evidence, there is a large group of people that still believe, passionately. Maybe de-program wasn't the best word, but the simple fact is that there isn't a way to confront this issue without hurting some feelings.

So you are for age discrimination? That really isn't any different than someone saying blacks should not be able to serve, or homosexuals, or women. Is that what you meant?

I don't think so, but it sounds like it.

I think you swap the age limit with a time-in-office limit (if that wasn't the poster's original intent).

You know what, I screwed that up, too, and I apologize deeply.

It shouldn't come down to age, but cognitive ability. When I wrote my post, I had career politicians, like Dianne Feinstein, in mind, who certainly appear to be suffering from dementia, but that is cognitive, not age-based. Her image was fresh in my mind, because I'm pretty sure I saw her falling asleep on TV during the normal part of Wednesday's events.

I screwed up and that is 100% on me.

I think term limits are a better way of dealing with it than age. I think the intent with the suggestion of an age limit was more of a method of an avenue to help enforce term limits than anything else.

The only thing I see where age plays into any of this for me is in terms of having a group of octogenarians trying to weigh in on internet laws and guidelines, net neutrality and a host of issues their generation has little to no experience in dealing with.

Age discrimination for sure. 60, My guess is that would eliminate 2/3rds of congress.

I actually have no problem with term limits. The question always becomes how many years?

To me, 24 seems about right. There is a need for continuity and for leaders to gain an understanding.

But as things currently stand, we are headed for a future of octogenarians running the country, and that was never the intent.

I really can't stand the fact that McConnel and Pelosi have been around for what seems like an eternity.

I clearly said I didn't think that is what he meant, or at least hoped.

As for term limits, I could probably get on board with that, but maybe not to the extent some people at least seemingly have in mind.

The House term is two years. The Senate, six.

There is benefit to having some continuity in government.

For the House, maybe 6 terms maximum, 12 years. It is the people house. To me, there should be turnover in the house. Sure, in theory they help rule the country, but in reality they represent a fairly small portion of the country.

The Senate, it needs to be longer. They are selected statewide. That one is hard to say. Five terms is 30 years. That is probably a little long, but I guess I don't mind some longevity in that chamber.

I think I'd prefer something like 12-16. You make a good point on the continuity and learning, but after a while, you get to the point where we are with "senior" reps and senators basically telling the incoming reps to just fall in line.

We could work it out...not real high on 16 years, but 7 terms wouldn't be off the table.

It has to be divisible by 6.

Senators serve six year terms.

I thought the same things, then figured out he was probably talking about the house when he started talking about new member being told to get in line.

The Senate is a bit more diplomatic with new members. They know those members are going to be there for 6 years if a one and done.

Yeah you're correct. I guess the Senate would have to be based in 6 years. 24 may be good for both (of course I'd prefer 12 )

I don't want to be ageist because Bernie is one of the older men on the hill and he's very sharp. But Feinstein is a good case for some sort of mandatory mental decline testing after a certain age... or just plain periodically for all. So when they are too old or too out of touch with reality/times, they can be quietly retired or limited in some capacity.

Hell Biden may very well develop full on dementia while in office! I don't want him bombing corn pop! There needs to be a required mental checkup of some sort on a regular basis. Trump might or might not have passed one, but naming and repeating five items is no test.

I'm not really a fan of term limits because we could lose the service of actual great leaders like that. I'd prefer to control the money they can make or raise and keep them from taking money from big donors that expect a ROI. This is the true corruption and destruction of our democracy. Independent PACS running ads or campaigning is ok and a way for big donors to give. Candidate connected pacs, where the candidate has some control of the money, should not be able to take that money. All of the other dark money, trips, junkets, and palm greasing should end. All outside of politics personal money/business should be in blind trusts for the duration of service. Nobody should get filthy rich in Congress for the way they vote. I don't care about writing books, selling swag, or any other non-political-debt way of earning that is legit while there... But I'm tired of rich people buying whatever they want while the rest of us pay the true price.

And as long as I live, I hope we never see another POTUS supported by his entire party while he blatantly craps on America or Americans. Congress is supposed to be a checks and balance on the power of the POTUS, not subservient. Both sides do it, but it has to end after what we witnessed under Trump.

I think something reasonable could be worked out as far as getting the average American to agree to it or find a consensus. But getting those with the authority to change it to agreeing to limit the longevity of their power is a completely different animal.

I'm not sure about your idea of "24 years in the senate" however. While we aren't the same age, we are both older. In our minds 24 years doesn't seem like all that long. But I try to keep things in perspective. In the eyes of most people I would guess that are under 50, 24 years takes you from birth through high school. Through either four years in the military or college and beyond. For many even marriage and parenthood.

I don't think that would fly. There's this funny thing about continuity. It could bring you 24 years of Stefanski or it could bring you 24 years of Hue.

24 years is a career. Hangem up at 24 and go campaign for others if you want to stay in politics.

And that's the issue I actually have with the 24 year term limit. I think the goal should be to elect public servants, not someone for the length of a career. Thus the term, "career politician". I think that very term and definition is what most people want to do away with.

Mitch has 36 years in, and at the end of this term it will be 42.

Nancy has been in congress since 1987.

John Dingle was in Congress for 50 years. Strom Thurmond 48.

I am ok with 24.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I wish all people on the board were as measured as you were.

I think there's a real problem with some in this country, and many of the posters on the board are an example of that, where if some nut job radicals do something bad, the normal people who voted their given conscious are somehow lumped in with insane people's actions.

That is wrong and needs to be called out. I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal but my feelings when I vote are skewed towards wanting less government involvement and a strong economy. That means I care more about economic, employment issues than social ones due to my belief that if you don't have any sort of work, no economy, well then you won't have much of a country left anyway to worry about social problems.

Just because I voted for Trump doesn't mean that I support everything he does or advocate for storming the capitol building. All acts of violence need to be condemned by all sides, whether that be the Democrats or Republicans, no matter if the violence was from the Capitol incident or the riots that happened this past Summer due to fringe anarchists. You see what I did there? I afforded the regular people who support and march with groups such as BLM respect, because I know not all individuals in those movements that partook in such activities were responsible for the burnings. The same such respect should be afforded to people who voted for Trump as well.

Now the incredibly smart thing that someone could do on the Democrat side is investigate what types of behavior inside government built up to make these people act out. That needs to be studied. Why did those people feel the need to do that? I can assure you it didn't just start with Trump, its been building up for a long long time. If I were a politician I'd want to listen to those people to see what I could do for them because that would be my job, to serve them. If that symptom is not addressed then the situation could only get worse, which is what people need to be concerned about.

It's also important to recognize that when Biden is sworn in later this January all of those problems that are happening in the country don't just disappear. I'll wait to see how he's going to heal the divide.

I understand that, but there is something to be said for continuity.

For the house, I think 12 years is good. Six terms. For the Senate, probably 24 years....4 terms.

Could someone do 12 years in the house then 24 in the senate (or vice versa)?

It just seems odd to me that you would give one group of politicians a limit of twelve years and another set of politicians twice as long.

Not odd. We could give them equal amount of terms, 4 each.

In the end I respect the Senate more. At least they are elected state wide. While you or I may disagree with the politics of a Senator, at least most are fairly stately.

With Congress, they are elected by a small segment of the state population. It's far easier for simpletons to be elected.