The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
Today, September 24, 2019, for only the third time in American history, the Speaker of the House announced a formal impeachment inquiry into the actions of a President of the United States - Donald Trump. (Nixon would have been the fourth, but he resigned before it was over.)
- Johnson's impeachment was over Johnson breaking the law established by Congress in similar fashion as Pelosi described in her announcement; in this case he fired the Secretary of War in direct contradiction of the Tenure of Office Act of 1867. There were eleven articles of impeachment. It is interesting to note that 10 Republican Senators defied their party and voted for acquittal of Johnson. All were subsequently voted out of office.
- Nixon's impeachment proceedings were based on the Watergate cover-ups and subsequent abuse of power and obstruction of justice by Nixon. He resigned once the tapes were released proving his guilt.
- Clinton was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury (lying under oath) about whether he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. The Senate vote in a Republican controlled Senate was not even close for conviction.
- Donald Trump is facing possible impeachment because of breaking Whistleblower law and the abuse of power associated with it. Those are the reasons Nancy Pelosi gave to start the impeachment hearings.
What pushed Speaker Pelosi over the edge was Donald Trump publicly ADMITTING that he had pressured a foreign leader, the President of Ukraine, to dig up dirt on a political rival (Joe Biden) for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the 2020 election. Worse is the potential of a quid pro quo that if the Ukrainian president did this then Trump would release hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid which Congress had directed him to spend on Ukraine. (Note - the quid pro quo only makes things worse, the original request is enough to impeach.)
Thoughts?It's the correct thing to do even if hurts the left in the long run, Scott. I admire Nancy for doing what she didn't want to do, but knew it was the right thing to do. Let the games begin...
Trump is going to continue to play to his base and try to convince them that Biden and his son are the evil ones. That is right out of the narcissistic play book to transfer blame to the accusing party.
He will also try to claim victory which is right out of his mentor's Ray Cohn playbook: "No matter what happens, no matter how deeply into the muck you get, claim victory and never admit defeat."
Fox News also has a huge audience and his propaganda machine can reach many people who just have a blind faith in him and could care less about what he does or says. They will continue to support him.
I think Pelosi is being very smart by taking Trump at his word that he admitted to trying to bribe a foreign power for his own good, not the good of the people.
She needs to continue to broadcast to the world what she said, "The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections."Corrupt for sure, criminal and traitorous perhaps.
Biden is the poster child for all that is wrong with D.C. ... much like Clinton was in 2016. The American people didn't fall for it then, and they won't fall for it in 2020 either.
"By any means necessary" ~ The Anti-Trumpers & Ruling Elites
If THE PEOPLE want Trump out... they can vote him out of office in 2020.
Impeachment means nothing... it did nothing to Clinton but make him more popular, it will do the same for Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afMofYie4LcA traitor should be impeached to stop him from harming the country further. America can't wait for 2021 - he can do too much damage in that year.
Clinton was already popular, it just didn't lower his popularity. Also, Clinton didn't commit:
1. Treason
2. Abuse his power
3. Extort foreign leaders
4. Bribe foreign leaders
5. Obstruct Justice
6. Obstruct Congress
7. etc. etc
What Clinton did was lie to a grand jury about getting a blow job from an intern. In the meantime Trump is on the record about wanting grab women by their pussy - go figureYou feel Trump did those things, maybe because you don't like anything he has done.
Others don't see it that way, they feel he is doing his job, nothing more. Politics that is all these charges amount to.
I get it, he has undone decades of work towards a borderless world, he has undone years of effort to shift the wealth of this nation to other countries, he has restored much of the sovereignty that was sacrificed to the UN, IMF, etc. He is filling the courts with conservative judges that want to maintain and defend the Constitution.
You have plenty of reason to hate him, but I won't support a "soft coup" to remove him, and neither will the majority of America.
If you don't want to wait until 2020 to remove him through the election process, that's just too damned bad, because no other way is acceptable to the majority of America.You presume motives that don't factor into the support for impeachment. Most normal human beings want to see someone held accountable when they witness that person break the law.
As for the majority of America comment, you're not in the majority on your stance towards the impeachment inquiry. That's another false presumption you make in your comment.
In terms of what you believe he has undone...How does spending millions in building a wall that smugglers are cutting through with a $100 saw seal the border? How does borrowing trillions from China in deficit spending not shift wealth to other countries? How does creating policies (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ruling-holds … 48024.html) that lead to the courts ruling there is culpability of our government for the trauma of migrants not waste taxpayer dollars? He nominated young judges to lifetime posts who are completely unqualified for those positions while he ignores major parts of the Constitution daily.
And what brought impeachment was Trump's illegal request of Ukraine to smear Biden after he announced his candidacy for the 2020 election. Allowing Trump to break election laws provides neither free or fair elections. It amazes me that articulate people such as yourself cannot understand what led to this impeachment when it's so clear to a majority of Americans.OK, the Russia Probe was a Watergate type of breach of the Trump campaign, lets hold all those who were responsible for that accountable.
Or how about holding Biden accountable for his 1.8 Billion dollar deal with China that he funneled through his son's 'investment' front. Or the 900k he got paid by Burisma, or the plush job his son had with them, or the Billions of U.S. funds that company made disappear...
Trump is guilty of the worst crimes all right, exposing the corruption in D.C. firing those trying to cover it up, and the Democrats in their wisdom try to flip the blame onto him... for their own corruption, collusion, and criminal activity.
Trump may be uncouth, but the only thing he has really been guilty of as President is exposing all the corruption in D.C.
No, I think Trump is a traitor because he puts Russian's interests over that of America's while Russia is attacking us. It has nothing to do with whether I like what Trump has done or not. (There are one or two things he has done right, but for the most part he has done a terrible, terrible job.)
At the moment, it is 50/50 on who wants him impeached and convicted. Now that the testimony is going public, that will quickly move to 60/40 with rabid Trumpers being the only defenders.
He is killing America and needs to get rid of him fast.
I think the impeachment is meant to give Biden more airtime. It's not to impeach Trump but to give Biden more publicity then Warren or Sanders.
What makes you think that? Isn't Trump asking a foreign leader to help him win in 2020 enough reason to impeach?
Its the timing. They could have started to impeach Trump much earlier. Reasons enough I would say. But now with the elections coming up they use the impeachment to promote Biden.
I was personally opposed to doing it earlier. With the Wistleblower, we now have a smoking gun of Trump's crimes.
That's a weird viewpoint. Most of us really didn't want to see Trump impeached. FYI, I'm not a Republican or a Trump supporter. I wanted to see him defeated at the polls. I think that now to impeach him now would be in defiance of our Constitution.
"Most of us really didn't want to see Trump impeached."
That may be true for you personally, but for a great many (including some in these forums) I'm pretty sure that anything that gets him out of office is what is really wanted. Impeachment, assassination, natural death - whatever it takes. The hatred and vitriol being shown is beyond I would have thought possible.Dan, how is the vitriol surprising to you after 8 years of the Right showing us pictures of a dead Obama in a noose? To me, that is more than anything Trump has had to deal with.
Guess because I never saw Obama in a noose. Never a hint of it, and certainly not 8 years of persecution. Yes, the fringe right had really stupid things to say about his birth certificate, even after it was provided, but this time around it has been an unending stream, about anything, anything at all, that might convince a gullible public that he is unfit to even live.
I didn't think human beings could contain that much hatred and still function. I know I couldn't.Yeah, I did and many, many more things less bad.
This was easy to find - https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/anti … ti%20obamaI see lots of pictures of Obama, just pictures. I see signs decrying specific things like abortion and health care. I see a small percentage comparing him to Hitler, the devil, etc.
What I don't see is a barrage of lawsuits against him personally, constant claims of racism, misogyny, love of the KKK, etc. I don't see where anyone not bashing the president loves him as a hero and defends him simply because they don't bash him. I didn't see a stream of claims of malfeasance based on twisted and spun facts taken out of context. Perhaps it's because I spend too much on social media (and here), but I'm just not seeing the same kind of thing at all.
I get that politics raises the ire in some - people that cannot accept that others have different opinions. But the sheer hatred and mud being thrown today is beyond anything I ever saw in the past.Right wing media claimed Obama was a failure less than 90 days into his 8 years. They attempted to delegitimize him both as an American and as a President for the entire 8 years by questioning his citizenship. They showed us pictures of him dead, hanged.
Trump has been attacked with his own words and statements. Remember "grab them by the pu**y?" or have you forgotten that already?
Please save your victimization for friends and family. I'm not saying all of the attacks on Trump are justifiable, but most are self-inflicted.He was a failure...by the standards set by some. That is not the same as false accusations and years of investigation into specific wrongdoing. Or even accusations that were not investigated.
I mentioned that I never saw a single picture of Obama hanged. The list of pictures provided as "proof" did not, either.
Yep - I remember the "grab them" comment. Stupid, but illegal? I don't think so.
You may feel victimized, I don't. Except by the Democrats in congress who have turned the 2016 election into a circus of accusations they can't prove in an ill-gotten effort to remove a political figure from the office he was elected to. Remember the "Trump colluded with Russia to fix the election?"
Think about the "Boy who cried wolf", and apply it to this latest round of accusations.Why would anyone believe there was a ban on Muslims by President Donald Trump? That is a blatant lie. There were seven countries who had citizens banned from entering the United. Two of them were not even Muslim majority countries. That was North Korea and Venezuela. The other three, as well as the two non-Muslim majority countries, refused to acknowledge or follow the rules of entry as is required by every other country. Muslims from every other country could enter the United States with no problem. They were banned for 90 days, it was not a permanent ban.
Read all about the truth.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39044403Why would anyone believe there was a ban on Muslims by President Donald Trump?
Why, right? Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo_nYQ6ItWM
IB, I'm sure you realize that video from 2015 means nothing. The fact is there was NO Muslim ban. NONE. If you want to know the truth read the link I provided from the BBC. So, there not being a Muslim ban is a fact.
Because they know what the progressive agenda is and we are not in favor of it, It came to fruition with the ACA which was forced forced down our throat without a single GOP vote. It could not have been more divisive.
The fact the Supreme Court went along with it with the help of John Roberts is inexplicable. His tortured explanation had to be the most confusing ruling. Now 9 years after the fact, we conservatives was proven correct. The ACA did a lot of damage to our healthcare system and now we are talking about a single payer system like medicare for all.
Obama ran up our debt so high it is not even debated.
Along with the GOP leadership, they past every budget Obama asked for...some years even more than what he requested. That is why they lost all credibility with the American people. Trump was not their pick in 2016 but the American public voted for him sending a message to DC. Apparently, they did not receive that message or choose to ignore it. To this day, some Republicans, never Trumpers, like Romney is working to undermine Teump...how sad.This is how unattached to reality you are Jack, "Because they know what the progressive agenda is and we are not in favor of it," - OBAMA was no progressive, progressives didn't like him. Why must you always distort things with untruths.
I try to consider you a rational person, but when you insist that it is great thing the 10s of millions of people remain uninsured; and that private insurance companies are allowed to hold life and death decisions over people because they have and they EXERCISE the power to deny treatment, to keep insurance, or to even deny insurance. That doesn't sound rational to me..
What also doesn't seem rational to me is that you prefer America (and the world) suffer a 1929-style depression (or worse) as opposed to the successful recovery that Obama achieved. I get the feeling you are one of those conservatives who believe that a Depression is good for the soul. You would have been very happy in the 1800s where we had one of those every 5 to 6 years, on average (no liberal economic theory back then, only conservative).
Also, the American people picked Clinton, not Trump. The Russians and the electoral college picked Trump.Jack: This is how you think. Liberals bad; Conservatives good. Jack this is not fencing. It's not about thrust and parry, which you admitted that you do in these forums.
This is about a con man that has conned his way into not only becoming president, but holding this most powerful office in the world, but also conning his supporters into believing him even though he has lied and misinformed over 10,000 times.
He is way in over his head. His cons are not working when they are put up against the law, the democracy and the republic of this country. His counter punches, never admitting guilt, and shifting the blame to others is catching up with him.
Yesterday, his tweets earned him an award of intimidating a witness who was sworn under oath. His holding back of key witnesses is an obstruction of justice. I don't care how he lived as a con man. It is not working for him now. This is what I told Wilderness yesterday:
Wilderness: It's not about what Yovonovitch witnessed. It is about why and how she was removed from her post. The reason she was removed from her post is because she served as an obstruction to Trump's grand plans of having Guilianni and his Hench men try to get Zelinsky to make a public announcement on CNN that the Biden's were corrupt in the Burisma deal or he wouldn't release the funding for the security aid to the Ukraine. He only released the funding after he was outed by the whistle blower.
She was told to take the first plane back to Washington and she arrived she was told by Sonland to say something great about Trump (kiss his ass), which she refused to do.
The irony is that Trump calls CNN the fake news and the enemy of the people, but yet he wants the President of Ukraine to go on CNN and tell the world that the Biden's are corrupt.
Jack, Trump is ignorant about ways of the government, protocols, and norms, and his deal making cons are not working for him. I'm sorry to tell you that, but that is reality.Jack: I'm very concerned. I just watched CNN where they had a composite of the Fox News prime time hosts including Hannity, Carlson, Ingram, and Limbaugh. All of them were discrediting the inquiry by ridiculing it with comments, like it's a shame, clown show, waste of time, she got her feelings hurt, and many other comments.
Fox News has the biggest viewership of all the news shows. What concerns me is all of their audience believe the crap that they are spewing, including Trump's rally audiences. If they becoming the biggest voting block Trump will get re-elected, not because he is qualified or deserves it. It is because his supporters have been brainwashed by him and Fox News."It's not about what Yovonovitch witnessed. It is about why and how she was removed from her post. " - AND THAT is what constitutes Abuse of Power, plain and simple.
"What concerns me is all of their audience believe the crap that they are spewing," SHOULD BE "What concerns me is all of their audience believe the LIES that they are spewing,
"He is way in over his head. His cons are not working when they are put up against the law, the democracy and the republic of this country. " - the ONLY reason Trump is still in power is a bunch of no-balls Republican Senators who put their political survival above the good of the country.
I suspect that for many of those Republicans who vote to keep the criminal in office and are up for reelection in 2020, their chances of getting reelected go down considerably. These would be:
Susan Collins (ME)
Joni Ernst (IA)
David Perdue (GA)
Johnny Isakson's seat (GA)
Cory Gardner (CO)
Martha McSally (AZ)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS)
Steve Daines (MT)
Thom Tillis (NC)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Dems need only four of those.
Because they know what the progressive agenda is and we are not in favor of it, It came to fruition with the ACA which was forced forced down our throat without a single GOP vote. It could not have been more divisive.
The fact the Supreme Court went along with it with the help of John Roberts is inexplicable. His tortured explanation had to be the most confusing ruling. Now 9 years after the fact, we conservatives was proven correct. The ACA did a lot of damage to our healthcare system and now we are talking about a single payer system like medicare for all.
Obama ran up our debt so high it is not even debated.
Along with the GOP leadership, they past every budget Obama asked for...some years even more than what he requested. That is why they lost all credibility with the American people. Trump was not their pick in 2016 but the American public voted for him sending a message to DC. Apparently, they did not receive that message or choose to ignore it. To this day, some Republicans, never Trumpers, like Romney is working to undermine Trump...how sad.
You don't see the barrage of lawsuits against Obama because he didn't break any laws. Trump is breaking them right and left, both civilly and criminally and people/prosecutors are suing him over them - As that should.
"But the sheer hatred and mud being thrown today is beyond anything I ever saw in the past." - THEN you weren't looking.
https://ravishly.com/ravs-radar/barack- … d-about-it
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics … index.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/smearing-obama/
https://thinkprogress.org/obama-smeared … ed77c3bb2/He sure is! Like the law against banning travel from some countries. Like the one shifting money to build a wall.
Or...at least that was the claim, until it went past the biased, partisan ninth circuit.This is a ridiculous statement. Banning travel on it's own is not illegal, but banning Muslims from coming into the country is. Given Trump's statements on that topic, he created his own problem.
And don't forget, Congress appropriates money for spending. So diverting funds that Congress did not approve is illegal. Again, he created his own problem. He had a majority Republican Congress. Where was the funding for the wall?
Agree 100%. TDS is real and cannot be explained by any other means. Rational smart people seems totally irrational when it comes to Trump.
They believe everything the media has created this caricature of Trump, not reality.
I tell people just one thing to think about.
If you believe Trump is a racist,
How did he survive Hollywood? In all these years of the Apprentice...number one rated show for so many years?
Compare that to Paula Deen who lost her cooking show with one comment.
The only possible answer is - Trump IS NOT A RACIST.Boy, you are really stretching, Jack.
What I am happy about is Trump has not gained one voter, except people like you who were too young to vote in 2016 (more than offset by people like you who have died since 2016); he has only lost voters. Instead of losing by 4 million votes, or whatever it was, it will be more like 6 million votes as well as getting creamed in the EC.
Here are the states sure to vote for Trump because they are full of people like you.
ID - 20
WY - 16
OK - 11
LA - 15
MS - 21
AL - 22
KY - 15
TN - 13
SC - 7
WV - 20
(the numbers represent the number of points Trump is positive) In every other state Trump has a negative approval rating or, if it is positive, it is
less than 5 points. For example:
ND - 1
SD - 1
TX - 2
Trump is a has been and hopefully will find himself behind bars in 2021 or 2022
Even the Russians won't be able to help him win this time like they did last time.
That is ridiculous. The right has never done to Obama what is being done to Trump. The other big difference is the media. The right was always marginalized with a handful of media outlets where as now, the main stream media is 90% negative on Trump. There is no equivalence here. If you think there is, you are living in an alternative universe.
The polls don't even come close to backing you up, Wilderness.
Having said that, as his "high crimes and misdemeanors" come out, those anti-impeachment sentiments will go away.
The amount of damage he is doing to our country is increasing exponentially with each new EO or rule change. I don't think even Pence would keep up that level of harm.What crime? In order to have impeachment, you must first identify an alleged crime.
Even then, it is a political process which is serious business. Despite all the evidence against Clinton, he was acquitted by the Senate and ended up more popular after surviving impeachment. His popularity leaving office was at 60%.Read your Constitution, Jack. An impeachment requires no crime. All it requires is abusing the oath of office, nothing more.
And Trump has so abused the oath of office (along with committing actual crimes), it is embarrassing.
BTW, as I pointed out previously, the Republicans couldn't even muster a majority to vote for the two Articles Clinton was tried on, lol. A bi-partisan group of Senators acquitted Clinton.
For Trump, at least two Republicans will probably vote to impeach - and I bet before the dust settles and even more damning facts come out, many more will vote to convict. Will it be the 20 no-balls Republican Senators needed to have justice done, maybe not, but I bet it will be close.
Another difference is that Clinton was impeached on lying to a grand jury about a personal matter. It is debatable whether that rose to the level of abuse of the oath of office - which reads, btw,
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Lying to a grand jury about an affair does not seem to come under the heading of "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - but hey, the Republicans were going to have their impeachment come hell or high water regardless.
But
1. Obstruction of Justice does
2. Obstruction of Congress does
3. Abuse of power does
4. Violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution does (although I doubt they will charge that)
5. And one I think he should be charged with, because it can be proved, is Treason (but I doubt they will)
You know what Trump's popularity is going to be after he is impeached? 39% to 43%, the same people who would support him even if he does shoot somebody in the back on 5th Avenue.
What crime? In order to have impeachment, you must first identify an alleged crime.
Even then, it is a political process which is serious business. Despite all the evidence against Clinton, he was acquitted by the Senate and ended up kore popular after surviving impeachment. His popularity leaving office was at 60%.
That is kinda of silly, Wilderness. It is true for me personally as well.
Yes, I don't like Trump, neither his policies nor the man. And I can't say that about ANY of his predecessors who held the office during my lifetime.
I just as soon that he did not receive a second term, but if you ever looked at what I had said, I opposed impeachment as rash, partisan and having the potential to backfire, in addition to the fact that the GOP dominated Senate would never remove him from office. So this is an exercise in futility.
I want to beat him soundly next year so there can be no question in the mind of Trump supporters and Rightwingers that they had lost, fair and square."I want to beat him soundly next year so there can be no question in the mind of Trump supporters and Rightwingers that they had lost, fair and square."
I understand what you're saying, Credence, but I don't think anything about a Trump-involved election will ever be "fair and square". I think he will always find some way to involve Russia, or Ukraine as in this case, or some other foreign country that does not have our best interests in mind.
I'm beginning to think the only legal way we will be rid of this incorrigible man is to impeach him because the reactions coming from the Trump supporters show that they are incorrigible, too. They are beyond reason. They don't have the slightest idea what it is like living under a totalitarian regime. I spent 10 days in the Soviet Union, and I DO.
I was touring with an education group over the New Year's holidays of 1989-90 during Perestroika. The individuals in our tour group were ready to come home, and we were relieved to be out of there. The pressure on us was unbelievable! We saw our guide, a very nice young Russian lady, pulled off our bus in front of us and almost get arrested by the KGB by something they perceived we had done. But we were innocent of those accusations. The fact that this man consorts with totalitarian regimes and perceives that he has the right to put our national security in jeopardy horrifies me.Yes, Ms. B, Trump by his very nature will work against the spirit of our laws even if he avoids violation of the letter of the law.
This foreign interference and influence in our elections not only taints Trump, but the Republican Party as willing accessories to the crime.
Polosi was wise to hold back on impeachment waiting for proper and indisputable evidence that cannot be dismissed as a mere "partisan attack". Trump is an eel and like any eel one needs to make sure you have it firmly in hand to prevent escape.
His supporters are incorrigible, who, in their misplaced loyalties, seek to make a way for Trump's escape regardless of what he does.
But, I want checkmate this time and to make sure there is no way to escape, like the situation for Nixon during the Summer of 1974.
There was NO question on either side of the isle that Nixon was guilty of high crimes and Misdemeanors and could be removed from office on that basis.
As a dumb as Trump is, Nancy knew that it was just a matter time when he would "cross the line" and even more of a firm case could be made against him, that was airtight.
The reasons for Clinton's impeachment were partisan, the circumstances surrounding Nixon's proposed impeachment were not. So, the reasons to start an impeachment inquiry in regard to Trump needs to be more like Nixon and less like Clinton.What America needs in 2020 is that Conservatives be beat soundly so that the thinking Republicans can take back their Party. I want a mix of Republicans and Democrats as they were constituted back at the end of Gerald Ford's or Jimmy Carter's day (minus the Southern conservative Democrats).
The damage Trump is doing to America, a lot of irreversible in the short- and medium-term, some of it irreversible in the long-term (climate change for example) is escalating, exponentially. We can't wait for an election, I fear.
I think I have to correct a word in my last sentence. When I read that statement, I couldn't believe that I'd said that until I realize that it was a typo. Change "defiance" to "defense". I meant to say "in defense of our Constitution." And after watching the hearing today, I really mean that. The man has smeared scat all over our Constitution, and Giuliani claims that he (Giuliani) is going to be seen as the hero!" What a duo!
MizBejjabbers, did you mean "Defense" rather than "Defiance"?
The evidence is growing that he used the Oval Office to coerce a foreign government into attacking his main 2020 rival.
The whistleblower says that 6 Trump officials witnessed these acts.
What would it take for you to support impeachment?Here's what's absolutely clear:
1. Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival, potentially impacting the 2020 election.
2. Officials in the White House tried to prevent the transcript from being in the public record and/or declassified, as required by law.
If you care about the future of this country, this information has to concern you.Thanks. I do care about the future of the country, and the information does concern me.
What concerns me more are the number of people who don't see anything wrong with it.Agreed. They literally do not believe Trump did anything wrong.
And, as Trump has said, if he murdered somebody in broad daylight, his supporters wouldn't care. In fact, if six people witnessed him murdering somebody in broad daylight, they'd just blame the DNC for setting it up.LOL. Yeah, I guess he was right. He can do anything he wants and still get votes.
Promisem, do you notice that there's not a single response to the original statement of fact that I made? A foreign government was asked to interfere in an election. And the White House tried to prevent the transcript from being public record, as required by law.
There are a lot of legal ways to investigate the Bidens if Trump is concerned. Somebody could ask some outside agency to do it certainly. An independent political group could do it. Lots of ways.Back to the socialist argument. Our military is the biggest socialist organization of them all and we all pay for it. Do you conservatives want to privatize it? How about the VA? Would you rather have mercenaries defending us?
Yep, I also noticed the lack of response.
It's hard for anyone to deny that Trump pressured a foreign government to dig up dirt on Biden -- his main rival in the 2020 election -- when Trump openly admits it.They also do not seem to understand that Trump's bargain was to benefit himself and his election, not the United States.
They're using the argument that Biden had a quid pro quo with Ukraine too, except that Biden's deal was on behalf of the country. If you could show that Biden was acting on behalf of himself or for his family's benefit, then you'd have a roughly equivalent situation.Nor do they understand that the Republicans are now proving how much they want Trump out of office.
The House will impeach Trump. The Senate will vote him guilty, thanks to some swing state Republicans who join the Democrats.
Trump will be gone soon. Pence will be President.Except for your "Pence will be President" statement, I hope you're right. Somehow I view him as the potentially "gentleman underhanded president." And I'm afraid he might just get elected on his on unless he, too, screws up.
After flipping through all three news channels last night and reading quite a few articles, two things seem pretty clear:
1. The Republicans are in hiding.
2. Trump's own staff is trying to kick him out.
Regarding Pence, he automatically becomes Prez if Trump is found guilty. So I'm afraid you'll be out of luck.I know, unless the Dems can find some way to implicate him. Something was mentioned about that yesterday on TV that he might be involved.
I hadn't heard that one, but I immediately found an article saying that Trump is pointing fingers at Pence.
Lordy, they're really turning on each other.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ … ls-1512771
There is always the chance (which is not zero) that Pence may go down with Trump and then Pelosi will be President.
It is going to take 19 more Republicans (assuming Romney will do the right thing) to dump Trump, I don't know if there are that many honest ones left in that body. Murkowski maybe. But I have my doubts even about Collins.
"What concerns me more are the number of people who don't see anything wrong with it." - And THAT is the problem with most on the Right - they see what Trump did as fine, just part of the job. That is why you hear know outcry from Republicans in Congress - because they don't recognize that soliciting a foreign gov't, using the power of the presidency, to help you remain in power is an Abuse Of Power - it is just a normal way of operating to them.
Who is the whistleblower? Why not reveal himself? (The death threat thing is complete BS. If he is anonymous, how could he receive death threats?) Why hold all the investigations privately (Volker)? Why not bring a formal impeachment initiative to the floor for a vote? Why? Because the truth will come out and reveal that this whole impeachment thing is a complete sham! You would think that the Democrats would come up with a more creative way of removing Trump. This impeachment thing will blow up in their faces. Sad. I love my country and these Democrat leaders are trashing the Constitution and rule of law in their attempts to destroy a duly elected president. Who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors? Pelosi, Schiff, Cummings, Clinton, Nadler and others for promoting lies to the American people. Their time will come in this life, but most definitely in the next.
What a stupid question. And if you loved America, you wouldn't be supporting the worst thing that has ever happened to it save for the Civil War.
Worse only to the left...for the conservatives, it is God sent to save our country from going the way of Europe. Trump is the most consequential president in recent history. He has single handed stop the biased media, the progressive movement, the corruption in DC. Just his Supreme Court appointments and other judgeships will have positive influence on our country for decades to come.
I will give you that, Trump is the most consequential president in recent history. Unfortunately, it was to diminish America.
He has single-handedly divided America with his Hate Speech and actions.
He has created an whole industry of conservative FAKE NEWS
He has embarrassed America almost daily
He appointed two Supreme Court justices determined to take us back to the 1880s in terms of human rights, a place conservatives love - Trump will be coming after you after he is done with Mexicans and gays.Wow, what conservative justices wants to take America back to the 1800s?
You have a total miss understanding of what Conservatives are about.
We want the Constitution to be adhered to not activist judges changing our laws...The person responsible for dividing America is Barack Obama...he set race relations back 30 years...politicized the IRS, the FBI and the DOJ...and his lead from behind foreign policy was a disaster for the World and lead to the rise of ISIS and the Syria refugee crisis...
All of this and more is precisely why Trump won. The country just floundered out of control.
Yeah, it was the black guy's fault. And Trump is squeaky clean and so honest, why would any right winger not adore him?
You know what Randy, no need to bring race into it... I can guaranty you I never did.
There you go...the race card comes out every time a progressive looses an argument... how predictable.
Do you really want me to repost some of memes about Obama and Michelle depicted as apes by your ilk, Jack? And the birther stuff was okay with you, I suppose?
That is not OK with me and I would never use such language...but look at what your side including your self attacking Trump and his family...
It's not my fault Trump lies daily, Jack. He should be criticized when he's wrong or intentionally lying for his own gain. Do you agree or not?
Then, Jack, I suppose you would object to us attacking Hitler back in his day for his policies and actions.
What comparing Trump to Hitler again? When will you ever learn?
When you over reach like this, you just make yourself to be irrelevant.
You can criticize Trump all day long for policies you disagree...no one will stop you.
But when you make these connections...you are just insane.
Trump is not perfect but he is no racist and he is certainly no Hitler.The ONLY difference between Trump and Hitler is Trump has yet to start a holocaust. And given Trump's level of narcissism and psychopathy, I wouldn't put it past him given the chance.
Please tell me how you see the two's personality traits different from each other.
(BTW - that WASN'T comparing Trump to Hitler. It was comparing policies and acts. Both have very bad policies and actions so if you don't like us criticizing Trump for his hate speech and other bad acts, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want us to criticize Hitler for the same thing.)Not even close...
Hitler was a dictator, unelected and took power by force and enslaved his people and conducted the holocaust of 6 million jews...and started a world war...
Trump was duly elected President of the US, despite cheating by the Democrats and still trying to take him out with a phony impeachment.
Trump did not kill anyone though in my opinion some heads should roll in the deep state and in our intelligence community...FBI and DOJ...
If I was Trump, I would start investigations all day long into these people like Brennan and Klapper and Susan Rice...
Therefore, you comparison is so far off base, that is why you are the poster child for TDS.Come on Jack, please get your facts straight. Hitler was elected, much in the same fashion that Trump was - by a bunch of angry people ready to have the wool pulled over their eyes by a Demagogue.
Hitler usurped power in much the same fashion as Trump is trying to do today. He got his equivalent to Congress to pass an measures to give him "temporary" emergency powers which allowed him to become a dictator. He had malleable elected "congressmen" with no balls or similar right-wing beliefs, much like today's Republicans that did his bidding and a whole bunch of gullible followers willing to march with him into the hell called WW II - like Trump has today.
Also, you know as well as i do the only cheating was done by Trump and his Russian mentors.
Or how about the significant increase in hate crimes because a black president was elected or the resurgence of white supremacists, KKK, Nazis and the like which is gaining steam under Trump's hate speech.
The country was GREAT until Trump destroyed it. Although I must admit the conservative court was starting to take us back to the bad old days of the 1950s.
As I said I felt the country floundered out of control under Obama. Obama is the biggest reason Trump won. He could be set out on a podium and give a nice speech. I am sure he got A+ in every one of his speech classes. He just did not have what it takes to solve problems. He let a bunch of crooks use him like a puppet. he did nothing, he can claim no real accomplishments. As I said the country jut floundered.
Sharlee:
The sentence I hear most from well-meaning, conservative friends since President Trump’s election is this: “We suffered 8 years under Barack Obama.”
Fair enough. Let’s take a look.
The day Obama took office, the Dow closed at 7,949 points. Eight years later, the Dow had almost tripled.
General Motors and Chrysler were on the brink of bankruptcy, with Ford not far behind, and their failure, along with their supply chains, would have meant the loss of millions of jobs. Obama pushed through a controversial, $8o billion bailout to save the car industry. The U.S. car industry survived, started making money again, and the entire $80 billion was paid back, with interest.
While we remain vulnerable to lone-wolf attacks, no foreign terrorist organization had successfully executed a mass attack here since 9/11.
Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.
He drew down the number of troops from 180,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan to just 15,000, and increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
He launched a program called Opening Doors which, since 2010, has led to a 47 percent decline in the number of homeless veterans.
He set a record 73 straight months of private-sector job growth.
Due to Obama’s regulatory policies, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 12%, production of renewable energy more than doubled, and our dependence on foreign oil was cut in half.
He signed The Lilly Ledbetter Act, making it easier for women to sue employers for unequal pay.
His Omnibus Public Lands Management Act designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, creating thousands of miles of trails and protecting over 1,000 miles of rivers.
He reduced the federal deficit from 9.8 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.2 percent in 2016.
For all the inadequacies of the Affordable Care Act, we seem to have forgotten that, before the ACA, you could be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition and kids could not stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26.
Obama approved a $14.5 billion system to rebuild the levees in New Orleans.
All this, even as our own Mitch McConnell famously asserted that his singular mission would be to block anything President Obama tried to do.
While Obama failed on his campaign pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, that prison’s population decreased from 242 to around 50.
He expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, supporting groundbreaking advancement in areas like spinal injury treatment and cancer.
Credit card companies can no longer charge hidden fees or raise interest rates without advance notice.
Most years, Obama threw a 4th of July party for military families. He held babies, played games with children, served barbecue, and led the singing of “Happy Birthday” to his daughter Malia, who was born on July 4.
Welfare spending was down: for every 100 poor families, just 24 receive cash assistance, compared with 64 in 1996.
Obama comforted families and communities following more than a dozen mass shootings. After Sandy Hook, he said, “The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.”
Yet, he never took away anyone’s guns.
He sang Amazing Grace, spontaneously, at the altar.
He was the first president since Eisenhower to serve two terms without personal or political scandal.
He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obama was not perfect, as no man and no president is, and you can certainly disagree with his political ideologies. But to say we suffered? If that’s the argument, if this is how we suffered for 8 years under Barack Obama, I have one wish: may we be so fortunate as to suffer 8 more.
What are the great accomplishments that Trump has done so far?Well Damn Mike! There are several points of your Obama defense I would argue with, but . . .
"Obama comforted families and communities following more than a dozen mass shootings. After Sandy Hook, he said, “The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.”
Yet, he never took away anyone’s guns."
Taken overall, that was a fine and coherent comment.
^5
GAI could argue most of your points. I have no will or want to. I guess I will just agree to disagree. As I said he was a fine speaker, but he always flew under the radar. I think he is a kind human being that did his best. I never said we suffered under Obama. I said we floundered.
"As I said I felt the country floundered out of control under Obama. Obama is the biggest reason Trump won. He could be set out on a podium and give a nice speech. I am sure he got A+ in every one of his speech classes. He just did not have what it takes to solve problems. He let a bunch of crooks use him like a puppet. he did nothing, he can claim no real accomplishments. As I said the country just floundered."Another vague non-answer. And no you can't refute them, simply disagree for some unknown reason. Typical..
I don't think I could have been more clear about my feelings in regard to Obama?
I have no will to dispute anyone on varying opinions. It's like beating a dead horse. I certainly have no reason to insult anyone for their opinion or doI think I should beat anyone over the head with mine.
There are only three reasons Trump won:
1. Clinton's terrible campaigning (which wasn't enough in of itself but let Trump get close)
2. James Comey's screw-up in notifying Congress he reopened (unnecessarily as it turned out) the Clinton email investigation. By the time he fixed his error, the polls had already tightened up.
3. The MASSIVE propaganda campaign by the Russians on behalf of Trump. Trump didn't win, the Russians did and now he is returning the favor.Despite the corruption of the FBI and the DOJ, Trump won in 2016 because the voters were sick and tired of Washington insiders who say one thing and do the opposite once in office.
They voted for a non-politican, a businessman and a patriot who wants to put America first.
Trump also won because many Democrats voted for him...though they would not admit it or tell the pollsters.Jack, no Trump wants to put "Trump" first. He is Mr. Wrong in every aspect regarding the temperament of the sort fit for being President.
I would wager, particularely in this coming election season that his "luck" will have ran out.Face it Jack, the only Corruption is on the part of your hero, TraitorTrump.
You are correct, he did secure just enough electoral votes to technically win. It just took Comey and the Russians to do it. He clearly didn't do it on his own.
Yes, you voted for a non-politician but you also voted for a bankrupt many times over businessman (why do you like failure?), and Trump is the furthest thing from a patriot this nation has seen in a long time. He is a coward that dodged the draft, abused Gold-Star families, put our soldiers in the way of Turkish artillery, trashes every general he has hired and many he has not.
Get a grip on reality Jack. You won't feel so guilty about having to lie to support this demagogue.Just enough electoral votes?
Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton garnered 227. Fact... That's what I would consider a LANDSLIDE Move on. Ready yourself for 2020. I guess you can use the Ukrainians this time around.
Actually Trump is one of the top three in our history to win the most electoral votes. FACT
Which president won the most electoral votes in a single election?
Comparative table of elections
Democratic-Republican · DR Democratic · D Republican · R
Election Winner and party Electoral College
1888 Benjamin Harrison 233/401
2000 George W. Bush 271/538
2016 Donald Trump 304/538
Facts can be hard at times to except, but facts are facts. And one just saying something just dos not change a fact.
I predict he will beat his 304 in 2020. You know with the help of, whoever...So you, along with Trump, do not care where his help comes from? How patriotic....
This was meant to be a sarcastic joke. I was responding to the comment below posted by My Esoteric.
"There are only three reasons Trump won:
1. Clinton's terrible campaigning (which wasn't enough in of itself but let Trump get close)
2. James Comey's screw-up in notifying Congress he reopened (unnecessarily as it turned out) the Clinton email investigation. By the time he fixed his error, the polls had already tightened up.
3. The MASSIVE propaganda campaign by the Russians on behalf of Trump. Trump didn't win, the Russians did and now he is returning the favor."
Just pointed out facts, and yes got snarky. Snarkiness is not a tool only libearla here are allowed to use. Snarky begets snarky.
Come on Sharlee, give ALL of the facts with a real comparable table using percentage of electoral votes.
Trump 2016 - 306 (56.9%) - Lost the popular vote
Obama 2012 - 332 (61.7%)
Obama 2008 - 365 (67.8%)
Bush 2004 - 286 (53.3%)
Bush 2000 - 271 (50.5%) - Lost the popular vote
Clinton 1996 - 379 (70.4%)
Clinton 1992 - 370 (68.8)
Bush 1988 - 426 (79.3%)
Reagan 1984 - 525 (97.6%)
Reagan 1980 - 489 (90.9%)
Carter 1976 - 297 (55.3%)
Nixon 1972 - 520 (96.8%)
Nixon 1968 - 301 (55.9%)
Johnson 1964 - 486 (90.3%)
Kennedy 1960 - 303 (56.4%)
Harrison 1888 - 233 (58.1%)
As you can clearly see, Trump as an also ran as far as electoral college wins go.
Facts matter.So what’s your point.
We don’t elect President by popular vote, and for a very good reason.
If we did, Al Gore would have been President.
Let’s see 2020 what the electoral breakdown will be before making your case against Trump.The point was Jack, that Sharlee and all other Trump supporters (and Trump) say he won by a landslide. That is just another conservative lie - as you can see.
Just think how much better the world would have been if Gore had been elected. No Iraq war, no stupid tax cuts for the rich, and assuming 9/11 still happened - a focused attack on terror and Afghanistan and not the mishmash of things Bush did if throwing away lives and treasure for no good reason.
(I do agree, however, that the popular vote is still not a good way either. They need to go back to the original intent of the electoral college and take the politics out of picking electors like the founders wanted)
Name one decision the conservative court ruled that took us back to the 1950s...
I am glad you asked!
1. Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 - 2013. - Eviscerated the Voting Rights Act which put teeth in the 15th Amendment. Immediately after passage, conservative states started passing laws to restrict voting rights.
2. United States v. Morrison :: 529 U.S. 598 (2000) - Effectively neutered the Violence Against Women Act
3. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) - Restricted scope of Civil Rights Act
There are three, there are dozens more if you want me to retrieve them.Really, to the 1950’s...?
You gotta be kidding.
The really one you care about is abortion rights. Right after the appointment of Kavanaugh to the Supreme court, CNN legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin predicted Roe v. Wade would be reversed.
It was not...he was a pant on fire kind of guy...and never apologized.What are you talking about, Jack. It must be a different comment.
Boy, you sure know how to project Trump's failures on others. That wasn't Obama who did that, it is Trump who is DOING that now.
No, I know exactly what conservatives are all about - stopping society from moving forward.
Conservatives Opposed the 13th Amendment
Conservatives Opposed the 14th Amendment - which the conservative Supreme Court eviscerated between 1870 and 1930
Conservative Opposed the 15th Amendment - which the conservative Supreme Court eviscerated between 1870 and 1930
Conservatives Opposed the 19th Amendment - fortunately, like the 13th Amendment, they weren't able to weaken it.
Conservatives Opposed the Civil Rights Act - and the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have weakened.
Conservatives Opposed the Voting Rights Act - and the Roberts Court has weakened.
Conservatives Oppose a woman's right to chose
Conservatives Oppose gay marriage, in fact they simply oppose gays
Conservatives Oppose anything that has to do with moving the rights of humans forward.Conservative is a dirty word when ever progress is even thought about.
They are inherently against equality preferring privilege for a few to the detriment of the many. The world works better when everyone " stays in their respective places". Fundamentally racist and misogynist they expend a great deal of energy trying to convince you otherwise.
They are fundamentally insecure, thinking that their brandishing of firearms is a natural passage of manhood, such primitive thinking.... I never could relate to that and I wonder why? They are trying to pass strange laws in Florida now reverting us back to the days of Bat Materson and Wild Bild Hickok. Geez, I stop thinking like that while I was in my teens.
They are hypocrites of the highest order with their phony Evangelical advocacy.
The Conservatives and their agenda have never been my friend, they trot out Uncle Thomases and Aunt Jemimas as false fronts. But WE have always known what they have always been all about.
From Barry Goldwater through Ronald Reagan and now Donald Trump, I would have to be a sado-masochist to support anything Republican/conservative as defined today. NEVER...
As far as I am concerned, they get nothing from me but my contempt and determination to vote even the GOP candidate for dog catcher out of office.
When I read a little about the biography of the late William Buckley and found that he attempted to provide an intellectual foundation to conservatism advocating for much of the points I mentioned above, I was astonished. It was like spritzing Chanel No. 5 on a heap of excrement. He acknowledged his erroneous thinking later in life after much of the damage that he contributed to was done.You are one of those being fooled by the liberal media. Conservatives have done more to help the poor and disadvantages then any other groups. Under Trump, he has improved the economic condition of all people across the board including hispanics and blacks and asians...
It is because of the success of conservative policies.
Under Obama, he spent billions to help the poor by way of increasing entitlements and where has that lead? More despair...
Under Trump, he promoted jobs and trade and gave people a chance to work and take care of their families and the result is no less than stunning.
These are real policy differences that lead to results.And who are You being fooled by Jack? Trump, his ilk and his policies have us all at each other's throat, so don't you dare go blaming Obama.
Obama would be contentious in the conservative /right-wingers eye solely because he was black, there need not be another reason.
The man that you support is stupid with the subtlety and finesse of a busted chain saw. The election of Liz Warren will be what the Right will deserve in response. We progressives will see him to the door in 2021 and he had better go quietly.
I don't know who you are trying to fool, Jack, regarding conservatives helping everybody. You need to be aware that I certainly was not born yesterday and my experiences say otherwise.You are right Credence. It is NOT in the Conservatives DNA to help ANYBODY but themselves and those close to them.
Studies consistently show that while Conservatives do have empathy, it DOES NOT extend beyond the immediate family and friends. Liberals (and this is partly why they are liberals) on the other hand show lots of empathy even to strangers.
It is that lack of outside empathy that makes it natural for Conservatives to look down on the poor or, back in the old days, oppose the Civil Rights Act or back in the even older days, oppose the 13th Amendment.
It is also this lack of empathy that leads to the Conservative's belief in a hierarchical society where the rich are naturally better than the poor, that men naturally have higher standing than women, and why whites naturally have more rights than minorities.Thanks for the response, Esoteric
The GOP has always been engaged in a massive deception. They have always been advocates for the One Percent. How do they find people stupid enough to vote for them among the remaining 99 percent? But looking at just this forum alone, obviously they have been successful.
So what does the GOP do?
Advocate on phony cultural issues to attempt to get the indolent to find common ground over nothing. As the GOP are hypocrites in regard to most of these so called issues when called out on them. ( Trump and family values?)
Gin up racial resentment, just as Trump does. His dopey followers are quick to blame minorities and immigrants for their own failed lives rather than focus on the policies that are responsible that they consistently vote for. An old bait and switch trick.
This idea of people having unearned privileges and advantages in Government or in the Economy must end. These hierarchal arrangements must be eliminated. Warren and Sanders are the only candidates that speak my language, leveling the playing field and taking a sincere effort to deal with the inequity that results.
It is a tall order, but I know that Warren has the knowledge, experience and more importantly the fervent desire to get started on it. Wall Street considers her as a mortal enemy, threatening the very foundations responsible as to why we are having the problems we are having. You could not have a better endorsement in my opinion.
I say Conservatism in the Era of Trump be damned. In reference to your last paragraph, we will never have peace with folks having the attitudes and policy positions resulting that you've mention...NEVER
While the conservatives are SO worried about Socialism, I find the slow return of the American Economy to a feudalistic arrangement far more threatening.
But, again, that is just my own humble opinion.
You are mistaken. Conservatives believe that it takes time for major changes to happen. When you rush things before the people are ready, bad things happen. Progressives, on the other hand, want everything to happen instantaneously and if they can’t convince the people to vote for it, they use activist judges to legislate from the bench.
The prime example of this is abortion right.
he has kept us safe
He has built our economy
He has given respect to our Military
He has made fair trade agreements
He has given citizens the pride of being able to work
He has put rogue nations on notice. We don't put up with atrocities...
He got prison reform
He put tax dollars back in many of our pockets
He has all but fixed the immigration problem,
Need I go on?He has made the America much more dangerous, especially for minorities and Jews.
He has maintained our economy, and it is about to collapse around him
We already had respect for our Military - he did nothing.
He has made NO trade agreements, fair or otherwise
We already have pride in working, he has made things worse.
Yeah, like France, England, Germany, NATO. He embraces Russia, Syria, Turkey, and North Korea. He is enabling the massacre of Kurds.
His son-in-law, the Democrats, and some Republicans got prison reform
He has put tax dollars in the Rich's pockets, not yours or mine
He has created chaos where there was no real immigration problem.
Don't bother going on as there is nothing real you can find.
Right on minstrel - let’s review what is really happening
https://youtu.be/ND40ur07Eyo
Finally, a sane voice here on this forum...
This talk of impeachment is TDS on steroid.
I hope you guys learn a lesson and when Trump is elected with 40 states, I hope you come to your senses and throw the main stream media under the bus, where they belong.
So you're okay with Trump breaking his oath of office, but not with Biden running for POTUS? And who the heck is "they"? Let me guess...the Deep State!
They is the republican party who will probably want a conservative democrat to win.
I’m not okay with Trump breaking his oath Randy. I’m not ok with a pussy grabbing Trump at all.
I’m just sceptical about the impeachment.
To be honest I don't think he wants a second term in office himself. He has got what he wanted, lower taxes. Lots of personal deals etc.
He was never up for the job, and he knows it. The only reason he would want to go for the second term is because he’s an attention seeker junky.Sorry, correction.
With They I meant the top of the democrats who probably want a conservative democrat to win.Peter, he probably does not want a second term as his personality and style will just make 4 more years problematic. He simply does not have the temperament for the job once he understands that the Presidency is a far more demanding and skillful office than just being a CEO where he can do as he likes.
second correction. Changed my mind. This definitely looks like smoking gun and not just an election strategy.
Read the book on The United States of Trump by O’Reilly and you will know exactly what Trump is about. The info is in plain sight. Why guess or make up stuff about someone you hate?
That's you injecting into a conversation what was not there.
You keep supporting corrupt politicians like Clinton and Biden and you have a surprise coming in 2020 if Biden is what the DNC rolls out as their nominee.And what is corrupt about Clinton and Biden in the same way that Trump is truly corrupt??
"It's not to impeach Trump"
You must be from Florida...
The Whistleblower details are now in front of the House Intelligence committee. While still classified, those who read them say it is "disturbing" and does not contradict what we already know.
The evidence is now all out there and it is Terrible.
Who cares if they conjur up fifty whistle blowers from every corner of the swamp? Trump released the transcript. It makes all anonymous whistleblowers irrelevant. We already have the conversation. Let them study it if they doctored up the conversation. I don't think so. It would be all over the news if that happened. It's the word for word transcript between Trump and the Ukrainian President. Stop the bullshit impeachment and win honestly on election day! Oh yeah, the Democrats have either leftists or crooks running for office. They will definitely lose if they go the honest route!
It helps the conversation to get your facts straight. Trump DID NOT release the "transcript" - we all would like to see it to determine if the Summary he released is accurate. Even so, the Summary clearly shows he broke the law and abused his power.
The impeachment must go on to protect the Constitution from this criminal YOU and the Russians put into office.
FOUR DAYS LATER (From CNN)
"We are seeing both in real time, with the President's remarks and also through documentary evidence, his corruption," Bernstein told CNN's Brooke Baldwin on Thursday.
The complaint, released on Thursday, alleges that Trump abused his official powers "to solicit interference" from Ukraine in the upcoming 2020 election, and that the White House took steps to cover it up.
Bernstein pointed to Trump's subsequent comments on how spies were dealt with differently in the old days in referencing who provided key information to the whistleblower as a display of "his temperament in an extreme, perhaps even greater than we've ever seen before."
"We're watching, too, an unraveling in front of us, both factually and also temperamentally, in terms of the conduct of the President of the United States," Bernstein said.
"And why?" he added. "Well, partly because the President of the United States recognizes that there is in this whistleblower's documents terrible evidence of the President's corruption.""- Donald Trump is facing possible impeachment because of breaking Whistleblower law and the abuse of power associated with it. Those are the reasons Nancy Pelosi gave to start the impeachment hearings."
Impeachment hearings? She called for an impeachment inquiry. So not even the first step has been taken as of yet.
At any rate at th end of it all, the Senate would end the impeachment of Trump with a quick vote. Just not sure why one could believe differently unless there is a new incriminating first-hand allegation, Congress is going on secondhand info. If it ever made it before the Chief Justice of the Supreme court, he would not even hear it due to it being second hand. After all, is said and done it would be up to the Senate
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/how-d … hUL1WA0IJ/
It would be more prudent for the Dem's to stop all the crazy and make an effort to beat Trump at the ballot box... Otherwise, they have little chance of seeing the inside of the White House. All these investigations and their unwillingness to not do anything else in regards to helping solve America's problems. Leaving them to look foolish and incapable of doing their job.
There one chance is to wake up and find a candidate that has some idea's the general population wants to hear. They need to put forth a sensible agenda for America. At this point, they are one scary bunch.Yes, the #NoBallsGOP in the Senate will probably let the crook go, but his assault on our Constitution is so egregious, America must try to hold him accountable.
BTW, 25% of Real @GOP NOW support the inquiry.The Dem's are in a bad spot. They need to have a look at the party, and as I said try to beat Trump at the polls with a candidate that the majority of American's can recognize an America agenda. Not a path to socialism. Not sure why the Dem's are headed down that path? Seems like they have not realized what it has brought to the countries that are socialist and ones that have failed badly with socialism...
The Dems are headed down this path because they love America and our Constitution; they have had enough of a deranged crook leading the country and smearing our image in the eyes of the world.
Makes sense to me.Sharlee: Mitch McConnell just announced that if the house impeaches Trump, the senate will hold a trial. If they can get enough votes from the senate, Trump is toast.
Your interpretation of socialism is from the old school of communism where the means of production is controlled by the central government and everyone has to share the labor and goods including housing.
The left are advocating for democratic socialism which is horse of another color. Their agenda includes health care for all and tuition free college education. They do not want to destroy our form of capitalism. However, in order to fund these programs, they want the super wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share in taxes. There is currently a huge inequality in terms of what the wealthy and corporations pay in taxes and they just want the playing field to be made more level. Democratic socialism is not even close to what Marx and Lenin's type of communism is about. That is right wing propaganda that they want you to buy into by using fear of communism.Yes, it's a fact if the senate majority vote to impeach Trump would be out. I predict this will never come about. I certainly will be willing to wear egg on my fact if I am wrong.
In regards to what you call " democratic socialism. one we can't afford it, two, capitalism would not survive under the Dem's idea's make the rich pay for the poor. Sorry, what would happen all the cash would move on to countries where they can continue making cash. We are very far apart in our opinion of the rich supporting the poor... It would be a futile conversation for us to discuss any form of socialism. I am a pure capitalist and proudly admit it.Sharlee: Then you are against paying any form of taxes because taxes are a form of socialism. Do you approve of Trump's 32 billion in tariffs that are payed by our importers, not the Chinese even though Trump says the Chinese are paying for those tariffs?
If that were the case why is he subsidizes farmers with our tax money, which is also a form of socialism? Do you approve of that? Socialism has been with this country since the beginning. What do you think the military and the VA are? They are social programs and they exist along with capitalism.
I could go on and and on about how this country is both capitalistic and socialistic, but I'm not going to. Just think about all the social programs we now have in this country that exists along with capitalism.Sharlee: I just found this. It may help you in understanding what socialism is in our country.
Methinks, Sharlee doesn't mind paying welfare to farmers because Trump says so. She just doesn't like helping people who are suffering from no fault of their own.
Shar doesn't care as long as Trump sez it's so.....
"BTW, 25% of Real @GOP NOW support the inquiry."
I had not heard this. Do you have a resource?Various polls show Republican support for impeachment ranging from 10% to 16% versus about 5% from earlier in the year.
I have done a bit of research, and yes I see the numbers are showing more support for impeachment. Time will tell... I believe congress does need to hear the people and vote to impeach. They need to get on with the procedure. It would be not only the prudent thing to do but the fir thing to do. Bring charges forward, this will give both sides ample opportunity to present their case.
You believe that popular consensus of the people should be the distinguishing factor in impeachment, rather than the Constitution and law?
You apparently have lots of company.Actually, you seem to believe that breaking the law is not a reason to impeach a President.
I must further explain my sentiment. I am a pro vote to move this problem along. I have expressed this sentiment on other threads here on HP. At this point, II do not think that the Senate would vote to impeach the president. I have very good faith that Chief Justice Roberts will protect our Constitution. But, it's time to move on and make an attempt to find facts. Let each side be heard. Facts will work to ultimately satisfy all of us...
Yes, the people should be heard. Although, please consider everyone that cooperates in polling have their own reasons for wanting the Dem's to proceed with an impeachment proceeding. Perhaps one such reason is to see our Constitution work as it was created to work."But, it's time to move on and make an attempt to find facts. Let each side be heard. Facts will work to ultimately satisfy all of us..."
If facts are what is desired, what is to be gained by polling the population? Most assuredly the man in the street knows nothing, so what is the purpose?
Is it to convince legislators to vote as the polls say the people want regardless of those desired facts? What else could be the reason to take public opinion in a purely legal proceeding?No, just look at the law. Trump broke the law mutliple times. That's more than enough to impeach him.
But both Barr and Trump believe Trump's above the law, Scott. And apparently, so do his supporters...
Randy, I hate to say this... But it is apparent the congress feels the same way. As of today no impeachment movement. It is up o Congress to hold the president accountable if he committed any form of impeachable crime or misdemeanor.
TODAY --Trump made a statement that unless an impeachment vote o the inquiry is taken the White House will not cooperate with any of their demands. This just does not sound like a guilty man? It does sound like a man that ants to clear his name of the latest accusation. It well appears he wants to move on from this and not let the Dem's drag this kind of politicking on any longer. He certainly is calling their bluff.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4820997/ … hment-vote
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/whi … rmal-vote/"Randy, I hate to say this... But it is apparent the congress feels the same way." - YOU SAY with absolutely no proof, just like your hero does - he just makes things up and you are cool with that. Very SAD.
EVEN worse for Trump, the American public is getting on board with impeaching him much faster (thanks to his own help) than I thought possible.
I actually agree with Trump now. The Ds have enough hard proof now on Trump I think they should go ahead and vote on impeachment. They should throw in counts of obstruction of Congress for Barr and Pompeo while they are at it.
Personally, I think the Ds need to time it such that the Republicans in the Senate have to vote on it say around March or April so that it is fresh in every voter's mind how much these hypocrites value Trump over America.
With any luck, we can go back to having real Republicans in office rather than these pretend ones that are there now.
You mean in your opinion your interpretation of what you read proves Pres. Trump broke the law, right?
Even if pundits or scholars you respect offer their similar opinions, isn't that still what your "proof" is; interpretations and opinions?
It is my opinion that the recently revealed text messages support the president's contentions, (on the face of things), that he is only concerned about corruption. (Wait! I know that is a stretch but in realm of interpretations, that is what they say to me).
Of course, my interpretations and opinions are based on the requirement that the president's actions must be an effort to influence the 2020 election--and they may turn out to be so--but I see no proof of that yet.
GANo, I have already explained it. The actions of the White House lawyers and Trump aides show that he broke they law.
The proof is in the doctored transcription and especially the fact that they tried to hide it, among other evidence..
As I said before, you are not a lawyer and neither am I. But they are.
"I know that is a stretch..." That admission is revealing but not surprising.Okay promisem, I give in. Go ahead and show me your proof that the White House lawyers and Trump aides broke the law by putting the information on a more secure server to hide it.
Show me your proof that an explanation that the information was moved to prevent casual access in an effort to plug leaks is totally out of the question.
I admit and have acknowledged that the call memorandum was just that, and not a true transcript, but I would welcome seeing your proof that it is "doctored" transcription. (am I wrong that your use of "doctored" usually infers a negative meaning, as in purposeful deceit?)
By calling it a stretch I was inferring it might take an effort to believe it. What is so revealing to you about that statement? Just what did it reveal?
GA"Okay promisem, I give in. Go ahead and show me your proof that the White House lawyers and Trump aides broke the law by putting the information on a more secure server to hide it." - Actually, it is, GA as I am well aware.
There are multiple regulations regarding misuse of classified systems. Had I done it in my job with the AF, I would at least have been fired if not tossed in jail.
One of the jobs I held with the AF for many years straddled the line between classified and non-classified systems. The system I managed was unclassified but because of the information it contained, I had to periodically do a review to make sure it hadn't crossed the line into the classified realm.
As a consequence, I became very familiar with the rules involving classified systems and if, which seems to be the case, Trump had unclassified data put on a secure system for non-national security reasons, he broke the laws the regulations I had to follow are based on.That makes sense to me Scott. But now I have the questions of whether there was any information in the call transcripts that could be considered classified, and, do we know that someone with authority to authorize the use of the classified servers did not give such authorization?
I don't know the answers to those questions and I am not promoting either as fact. I would also guess that the folks making the claims of law-breaking don't know either.
If the answer to those questions was "no," then it can be accurately and factually said that laws were broken, but without those answers, what can be said is only opinion and assumption.
Do you know those answers? Do you think anyone in this forum does? I suspect none do. So without knowing that, are you confident enough to proclaim it a fact that laws were broken?
GASix high-level government witnesses seem to think that laws were broken, which is why we are having an impeachment inquiry.
And there you go promisem . . . a statement I don't have a problem with:
"Six high-level government witnesses seem to think that laws were broken . . ."
Do you now see the difference between that statement and the statements of yours that I have challenged?
GAYou have caught me in nothing more than a poor choice of words in a different context.
You have repeatedly said that everything I posted is only my opinion and not fact, including the statements of the witnesses to the inspector general.
I challenge you to answer my most recent post:
"Trump admitting that he asked, pushed or encouraged the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden is an opinion and not a fact? Six witnesses interviewed by the inspector general is an opinion and not a fact?"
Your defense of Trump even puts you to the right of Tucker Carlson. That's awfully far right.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4645 … raine-call"You have repeatedly said that everything I posted is only my opinion and not fact, including the statements of the witnesses to the inspector general."
I don't think you can back up that claim promisem. Now, if you had said "most," then you might have had me.
Which was your "poor choice of words; that those six witnesses said "they think" or that they said he unequivocably did?
GA
GA, I don't "Know" the sun is going to come up tomorrow (which is the kind of proof you are asking for), but I do know there is a very high probability that it will.
All of the circumstantial evidence that we know to be true points to a misuse of a classified system. The strongest of which is Trump and his mouthpieces haven't claimed there was classified information in that call (beyond the Confidential level which does not go on those systems).
Bottom line though is I trust our intelligence community over a pathologically lying president.I don't think my point is quite as restrictive as your "sun" analogy My Esoteric, but I do want it to demand more than interpretation and opinion to qualify as fact.
Relative to this "classified systems" debate, it is the one I am most inclined to favor Pres. Trump on.
Multiple sources I looked at, (NPR, Politico, and the NYT among them), made two common points. One was that the impetus for the decision was that Pres. Trump wanted to contain the leaks of his confidential calls to other leaders. I think that is a reasonable and valid desire.
The second point was that the decision to use the classified servers was made and approved by the National Security Council lawyers. I think that even if some would say that the NSC lawyers were pressured into their decision, I don't think they would have recommended an action that was obviously illegal. I still believe the legal opinion of the NSC lawyers allows the plausible belief that Trump was not intentionally breaking a law and he was not trying to hide, (cover-up?), the information.
With those two thoughts in mind, it makes sense to me that his motive was to restrict casual access, not all access. I do not believe this is anything like Nixon's secret recording system and tapes.
You say you " trust our intelligence community over a pathologically lying president." Do you include the NSC as part of the intelligence community?
GA
I do agree with you, however, the "summary" was not doctored. Had it been, it wouldn't have shown so clearly that Trump was breaking the law with his ask (favor) of Z.
You mean it looks like, and you think, he was breaking the law, right? Don't you need some evidence it involved election interference for it to be illegal?
GANo, I don't mean "looks like". Trump's summary (and Trump's words to the press as well as Z saying he didn't want to get involved in our election) was clear he asked a foreign gov't to interfere on his behalf in our 2020 election. All one has to do is apply the mind that God gave us.
You mean to apply the anti-Trump mind that God gave you right? After all, there are other, seemingly sensible and intelligent, minds that disagree with you.
There is also the fact that there is no unequivocal, non-interpretive, non-circumstantial evidence to support what your God-given mind tells you.
I won't ask you to prove your claim because I don't think you can, (and you know that I have also examined - not just read, the same text messages and memorandum that you have).
I think that the best you can do is present a series of dots to be connected, with no proof that the lines you drew to connect them are the only possible connection.
GA
So let me see if I have this straight. Trump wants to make a deal with Pelosi where he will not turn over the documents they requested until after they impeach him. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? What good does it do to get the documents that would have evidence to impeach him after he has already been impeached by the house? Am I missing something?
Yes, he is demanding that they vote to begin the impeachment process, not actually impeach him first.
If there is any truth to what I heard . . . The president and Republicans want that official vote because then they would have the same legal powers, (issue subpoenas, etc.), to mount their defense that the Democrats now have to investigate their accusations.
GA.There is no truth to it and in fact it's a dangerous step.
This stage is no different than a prosecutor compiling evidence to decide if charges are necessary. There is no defense to mount at this time.
Trump wants to get access to the people who are providing the information to harrass, threaten and intimidate them to stop the entire impeachment process.
It's yet another scumbag attack on the Constitution."There is no defense to mount at this time."
You might be right, I will wait and see what else comes out about this.
In the meantime, the Democrats have carte blanche to conduct their investigation in the court of public opinion without the accused having any voice at all in what the public hears.
In the meantime, the Democrat's investigation news will have free reign to convince the public that their accusations are true--simply because they make them public news.
In the meantime, the accused are denied the authority to provide similarly authoritative counterpoints in that court of public opinion.
By the time we get past all those "meantimes" and into the real impeachment process, the public will have been convinced by a one-sided presentation of "facts."
Does that sound about right to you?
GAOne-sided ? Give us another side of Trump wanting to have Biden's son investigated, Gus. Do you have your own spin as to why he should not be impeached?
Do you have proof Randy? Proof that the claim of investigating corruption is a lie and his efforts are all about harming Joe Biden in his presidential election candidacy?
Although not related to your "impeached" question, do you consider the following to be spin:
Pres. Trump privately and publically stated/states his intentions were/are corruption-related, not election-related. (look promisem, I am going to use that "stretch to believe" qualifier again) Although that might be a stretch to believe.
The newly released text messages, (Envoys & Ambassadors?), clearly say--not inferred or read-between-the-lines:
"The president has made it crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind"
". . . assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate/get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 . . ."
I am not offering those quotes as "proof" of anything, but I do think they could validate Trump's claim more than they validate the charges of election interference.
What similar explicit statements do you have that prove it is all about election interference?
ps. I will leave the "spin" to other folks.
GAI'm stunned that you can't see what's wrong with the President of the United States pressuring other countries to destroy his 2020 political rival.
Especially when he had more than 2 years to make it an issue and doesn't say a word until now.Actually, GA, I do have to ask now (I thought I knew the answer), but You Do think it is illegal for a president to ask for foreign help to win his next election don't you??
It doesn't make any difference if you think he is actually doing that or not, what I am asking is if YOU think that activity is wrong and illegal.I am late to this discussion but it appears all of you have been mislead by Adam Schiff. There is no whistleblower. It was manufactured by the Democrats and the Intelligence community to get Trump.
He actually met and talked with this rogue CIA intelligence official and help him write the complaint. In addition, it appears he is friendly with John Brennan, another one of Obama appointment to the deep state.Of course I think it is illegal for a president to ask for foreign help to win his next election Scott.
GAOK, good, I was beginning to wonder.
So, what proof do you need beyond Trump's summary, the texts, and our intelligence community's assessment that he is?I must jump in... Reading your comment leaves me scratching my head.
To put it very logically, and hope it makes you stop for a moment and think. If as you feel intelligence agency and our Democratic Congress have proof that Trump committed crimes, why have they not acted? Why an impeachment inquiry instead of proceeding with an impeachment. It would seem they are charging It would appear to me this is another attempt to make alligations and hope they stick?
Plus --- The six witnesses you speak of, have they actually declare they have proof of that president Trump committed any form of election interference? Or, is this just once again opinions given from unproven allegations? Keep in mind smoke is not fire. It appears to be media reports that are sensationalizing the intelligence community opinions as they feel suits their narratives,
I would also think there would be several whistleblowers in the intelligence come it coming forward on the record if they found the president was committing any form of crime? Common sense tells me this.How do you know the whistleblowers--several now and more to come--aren't from the Intel community?
Several now? I am not aware of any further whistleblower complaints being put forth? I realize the media has eluded to more, but I ave hear of none setting their complaint to paper? I do not know who the Whistleblower is not sure it is public knowledge as of yet. I am sure it will leak if the Dem's see it will help their case. The more smoke the more hysteria. But still no fire. It would be nice if Adam S would release the transcripts from the various people they have questioned before the Intel committee. The Volker transcripts would be wonderful to start with
If there is proof of crimes let's get on with the impeachment.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1 … s-came-out
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-jorda … transcript
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl … y-n2554198Yes, there are now multiple official whistleblowers from the intel community. They witnessed the actual call.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/0 … ney-031823
Meanwhile, Trumps is now throwing Rick Perry under the bus along with everyone else within his spitting distance.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- … t-n1062931
If Trump goes down, he plans to bring a lot of other people down with him.No doubt there will be many more of Trump's cohorts going down with him. Barr is seeking dirt on the Mueller investigation all over the world. He's doing Trump's bidding instead of the people's, just like Trump expected.
“IC WHISTLEBLOWER UPDATE: I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers in connection to the underlying August 12, 2019, disclosure to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. No further comment at this time,” Andrew P. Bakaj (@AndrewBakaj) tweeted Sunday morning."
This is compelling. I would expect there may be more complaints filed in the next week or two if these persons will stand behind their concerns again regards to the president.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
I would think if Trump finds he is sinking he will take down any and all that he has had in his sights. It would not be pretty.Here is the link to the impeachment process: It's interesting the Constitution does not detail how lawmakers may choose to interpret what does or does not constitute impeachable “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, there is no established standard of proof that must be met.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/p … ion=headerWell, that is unfortunate. I would think that would leave impeachment an option to impeach any president. and overturn any election in the future. I don't put much stock in the NYT.
I have read many articles on the subject, and it is true most are putting out the concept that it's up to Congress to appoint wrongdoing. Although it is apparent cheif justice Roberts would preside over the trial. I trust he would make sure all is done properly.
t any rate, in my opinion, the Senate would not vote to impeach. Just my opinion.
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/how-d … hUL1WA0IJ/That is exactly what impeachment is for. Our founders tried hard to set it up such that Demagogues like Trump would never be elected. They talked a lot about exactly that in the Federalist Papers as well as at the Constitutional Convention.
They also realized that it might happen and the American public would make a mistake as they did with Trump. Therefore, the impeachment process was written into the Constitution to get bad actors out of office.
Now, had Trump played by the rules while president and not abused his power or obstructed justice or obstructed Congress, we wouldn't be here. But he did, so here we are.
That said, impeachment was never about getting assholes out of office and it isn't being used for that no matter how richly deserved. Trump has broken his oath of office in so many ways and must be impeached. Further, anybody who helped him needs to go as well.
To be honest, I hope the Republicans don't vote to impeach him. In my opinion, real Americans will not stand for such an outrage and will vote them (at least those up for reelection) out of office while they (I don't have a Senator to not vote for - Rubio won't be up until 2022) send Trump to a crashing defeat.I have to say you have some very odd ideas. Do you truly believe a president should be impeached due to the losers just not caring for him or his way of governing? And do you feel it's fair to undo an election of a duly elected president for anything other than a crime?
"They also realized that it might happen and the American public would make a mistake as they did with Trump. "
You need to actually read the Constitution in regards to impeachment. I realize that you seem to take many things out of context, but come on...
"made a mistake"... I predict we will make the same mistake in 2020.
Your language leaves a lot to be desired.I wish I could agree with you, My Esoteric, but I'm afraid that if left up to the voters, Trump followers will blindly follow and vote him a 2nd term. They seem to forgive this man anything, or that he's done nothing to forgive.
Has there been any official complaint as of yet? They well might be from the intelligent community. I am not questioning where they would be from.
OK, so what of all we have seen or heard in Trump's words, the Summary, what we know of the ICIG's testimony, Volker's testimony, and the Texts do you consider opinion that I am considering fact?
"ICIG's testimony, Volker's testimony, " I have seen no transcripts on either? Again only media opinions on the very little that leaked? The Republicans's that were present claimed it blew the Dem's allegations out of the water. The Dem's have not said much on the ICIG's or Volker's testimony.
What I see as missing is proof that Pres. Trump's motive was election interference.
So far, everything I see; Trump's statements, Volker's statements, Soundland's statements and the text of the call memorandum, all declare the purpose was an investigation of 2016 events.
Can you point to any of the above, (beyond Bill Taylor's statement which was noted as incorrect, and the 2nd hand comment that President Zelenski didn't want to get involved in our election politics), that can specifically prove the intention was 2020 election interference?
Even if I said I think the issue is exactly as you say, I would still only have interpretation and opinion to support that agreement. I have not seen any proof that doesn't require opinion or interpretation to counter the actual words in the text or summary and be deemed actual evidence.
GA
How about a vote to proceed with impeachment. If all you mentioned in your comment is factual, are you happy with the way Congress is handling this situation? Does it not give you a reason to pause, and consider there have been no facts presented? All we have so far are opinions and media reports.
Sharlee, My Esoteric's obvious answer should be yes, (about being happy). Which, even though I don't like the unfair impact of Congressional leaks and presser grandstanding, the process is working exactly as intended. The Democrats are using a valid investigative process to reach a decision of whether to recommend Articles of Impeachment - which is the phase where giving the Republicans equal legal Rights comes in.
I don't like the imbalance of this process as it is being used, but I do think it is a valid process for the Democrats to be pursuing.
GAI fully understand your view, and I always respect your calm common-sense opinion. Yes, Congress has a right to conduct a VALID investigation. Do you feel they are conducting themselves appropriately? I see a bunch of sour grape fools on TV nightly accusing the president of crimes they have no proof of, as they did for two years while Mueller did their bidding. I have watched this circus from the day Trump walked into the oval office. I have absolutely no respect for most of the Democrats that make up the majority of Congress.
I don't think that Congress is at all serious about impeachment? They are interested in a long investigation, hoping that they will do the trick to dirty up Trump. They have zero in the way of candidates, and Trump's job performance has been actually very good. I will be honest, and offer my opinion. This impeachment ploy is just that a ploy, I might add a cheap ploy. One does not have to be psychic to figure out the Dem's have come to realize they have nothing to lose by trying to impeach Trump. They may have just realized after three years they lost, and all their feet stamping has not worked. Funny they have not come to realize how foolish they look, and how they have ruined the Democratic party.
President Trump has taken this kind of rhetoric from day one, I think he is well done taking it. This week should be very interesting.
They need to put up or shut up...
"consider there have been no facts presented?" As I asked GA, what things that I think are "facts" that you think are "opinions"? For example, I think thee following are FACTS:
- Z: "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." Followed IMMEDIATELY by T:: " I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through ..." followed shortly by P: "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." That is Illegal
- [7/21/19, 1:45:54 AM] Bill Taylor: Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk’s point that President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics. Clearly, Z thinks he is being used for political purposes and That Is Illegal
- [7/22/19, 4:27:55 PM] Kurt Volker: Orchestrated a great phone call w Rudy and Yermak. They are going to get together when Rudy goes to Madrid in a couple of weeks. WHY is the State Dept working with the president's personal lawyer - That is probably illegal
-[8/13/19, 10:26:44 AM] Kurt Volker: Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future. - If THAT was all that Trump asked for, then we wouldn't be here. No, he had to ask for an investigation into his political opponents - and That Is Illegal and he is being impeached for it.
- [9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. Bill Taylor, an experienced foreign service officer, texting to Sundland, large dollar Trump donor with no experience, is clearly upset that Trump has withheld aid for political purposes and That IS Illegal
To me, all of these things are facts. Which of these is simply an opinion by somebody not involved?" " I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through ..." followed shortly by P: "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." That is Illegal"
No, actually it is not illegal. The president has the right to ask a foreign country to help in any investigation in regard to an American citizen. Biden is an American citizen running for president if there is a doubt that he may have broken the law while VP , he needs to be investigated. We have treaties with many country that we mutually cooperate in investigations of crime.
None of the rest means nothing due to the president had the right to ask Zelinsky for assistance. We have laws, and opinions mean very little. i" I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through ..." followed shortly by P: "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." That is Illegal"
No, actually it is not illegal. The president has the right to ask a foreign country to help in any investigation in regard to an American citizen. Biden is an American citizen running for president if there is a doubt that he may have broken the law while VP, he needs to be investigated. We have treaties with many countries that we mutually cooperate in investigations of crime.
None of the rest means nothing due to the president had the right to ask Zelinsky for assistance. We have laws, and opinions mean very little
.
You are wasting energy talking yourself into a
theory that can't be facts. We need Congress to vote and bring their claims forward in an impeachment process.
We would then get facts. Congress is are in search of a crime and hopes to find facts. In my opinion, this is discussing."No, actually it is not illegal. The president has the right to ask a foreign country to help in any investigation in regard to an American citizen."
That might be true if 1) that citizen wasn't the person most likely to unseat him in an election and more importantly 2) there was any TRUTH to what Trump is claiming. You ask for evidence that he broke the law yet you DO NOT ask for evidence that the Biden's broke the law. You are being extremely hypocritical.
- I really am sorry that you and other Trump acolytes have such a low regard for moral, ethical, and lawful behavior that you find it necessary to twist logic in such a fashion as you just did in order to protect your leader." You ask for evidence that he broke the law yet you DO NOT ask for evidence that the Biden's broke the law. You are being extremely hypocritica"
No, I have done nothing but ask for an investigation into Biden and his son to find the truth. I have done nothing but promote an impeachment proceeding to investigate Trump to find the truth... You seem to take much of what I have said out of context? You need to read comments more carefully.
My comment please read my words more carefully...
" We need Congress to vote and bring their claims forward in an impeachment process. We would then get facts. "
And in regards to Trump aking Zelinsky to investigate Biden and his son. he is our president first. If he has become aware that an American has broken the law, he has the responsibility of investigating wrongdoing. Especially if that man is running for the highest office in America.
In regards to hypocritical... Our government officials saw fit to investigate a sitting president in regards to possible crimes. This was a prudent investigation. As it is prudent to investigate Biden. The cat is well out of the bag, and we now need truth, facts on the Biden's.
" I really am sorry that you and other Trump acolytes have such low regard for moral, ethical, and lawful behavior that you find it necessary to twist logic in such a fashion as you just did in order to protect your leader."
I am not twisting logic, I am asking for our laws to be recognized, and followed. You certainly have a knack for being rude. Perhaps you should think about how you respond to others? This kind of pious remark shows poor judgment, not to mention a lack of thought process.
I must ask--- Do you ever actually use common sense to form your opinions or do you always go with the groupthink that media provides? Just curiousNot sure what you are saying? I have explained myself very and dispelled any doubt that I hope to see justice done for Trump, as well as Biden.
Sharlee: You stated that you get your information from Rueters News. Are you aware that Trump called them fake news? Here he is attacking one of their journalist when questioned by him...not very presidential in my opinion.
https://youtu.be/qP549ANdWV8I am aware Trump called Reuters as well as many others "fake news". I prefer Reuters, as a rule, they appear non-bias (not always) keep to what they have learned, and as a rule use name or list resources where they obtained their information in any given quote. I have added an article that gives a good example in regard to what I find to be good journalism.
In my opinion, he is a man that is fighting back. I find it refreshing. I would think him a politician if he let the media get away with what they have been saying about him for three years. It's a sad circus, I do not want a ticket to. And to think, many Americans stand in line nightly for Network media to present the greatest farce on earth.
Oct 4, 2019
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1WJ0E8The only thing he is 'fighting back' is the Truth.
But my opinion is based on FACT, yours is not and that is a big difference.
One of Trump's 13,000+ lies and false statements is that his father was born in Germany (or was it New Jersey if you read his ghost-written book). Why do you trust a man who abuses females and lies about where his father is born?You absolutely have no facts to back up a word you have posted on this thread. Your statement sounds like five-year-olds. "
But my opinion is based on FACT, yours is not"
Sad you have not noted, I have said over and over I'm waiting for facts. I don't buy into if comes or it appears or we are looking into's... I just don't like the egg in my face.
Yes, even though the Biden's haven't been charged with anything wrong, you want them investigated anyway.
Just like the president... Pot calling the Kettle... The Bidens are being investigated, if they did nothing they will be exonerated, just like Trump. My money is on Biden's breaking the law.
Shar, what is your evidence that the Bidens have broken the law? No one seems to have any.
I don't think there is anything in regards to solid evidence. However, have you not heard --- accuse and then prove. Sort of ass-backward?
As I said a cat is now out of a bag, and now many have the need to know. This is simply dirty politics, and we have a president that is not a politician, but a street fighter. This is going to get so ugly. It makes me sad. Trump is going to give what he gets. Most Republicans don't get down in the dirt, Trump does.Sharlee: In a civilian court, a person is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil court, it is the preponderance of evidence. However in congressional investigations, it seems one is guilty until proven innocent. Hillary was under investigation for 3 years with Benghazi and for one year with email investigations. In both cases, they found nothing, but she was presumed guilty. So welcome to the club.
You are right, Trump is a dirty fighter and it has worked in the past before he was president. But hopefully our system of government with checks and balances will work. Many of his associates were indicted and sent to jail as a result of Mueller's investigations. So far, he and his cohorts have made a mockery of our government processes and institutions. They don't respond to subpoenas and if they do appear for a hearing, they refuse to cooperate, e.g., Pompeo and Lewandowski.I think in the end the truth will be found. I will accept whatever the outcome. I am sure our system of government with checks and balances will work. I just think it fair to keep a cool head and wait for some real evidence before condemning anyone.
Trump's MO is to simply accuse, accuse, accuse. He never bothers to even TRY to prove anything.
On the other hand, there are tons of evidence that Trump broke the law which then led to an investigation.Sort of like the Congress... Trump has asked Ukraine to investigate any wrongdoings the Biden's may have committed.
No, NOT "sort of like congress". They have real evidence unlike the Trump Fake News machine.
BTW, why hasn't Trump asked Ukraine to investigate any wrongdoings God may have committed? That is the same thing. Are you saying you are okey with investigating God for political purposes?
There are really no facts as of yet that Trump broke any form of law?
There are plenty of facts, they have been listed multiple times in this and other threads - you just have to say they aren't facts for you to hold your untenable position of a blind Trump follower.
It's useless. As I stated earlier, the willfully blind refuse to see. No matter how many facts you present, they deny, deny, deny. Just like their chosen one.
The blood of the Kurds will be on the hands of Trump supporters...….but they don't give a big dog f**k, Scott! I feel so bad for those supporting such a POS.
The 40% who continue to defend a lying POS are what cause me to fear for the future of our country.
It amazes me that so many American's have given their soul to this dangerous demagogue, just like so many German's gave up their soul to a similar demagogue Hitler.
It is exactly the same dynamic and mind set.
How did you feel when the Syrian people were daily being killed? 500 thousand dead in a short period of time. I call that genocide. Did you complain? There is no blood on Trump's hands and may never well be. He all but obliterated ISIS. Something two presidents were unable to do...Thee are facts, Randy
.
Why not wait to see if the Kurds are attacked? Why not deal with facts, not if comes? Make every excuse you can tell yourself these excuses over and over ---.500 thousand killed on his time, not to mention the people that had to leave their country. You talk about blood on hands? Look to your own. Trump has vowed to keep the Kurds safe, and he will retaliate if needed. If he draws a red line he will uphold his threat. Your statement went over the line. You should learn to respect other opinions because there are plenty of Americans who support this president. So far he has been doing a good job keeping us safe
How do you say it? Pot Kettle...Why not wait to see if the Kurds are attacked? Why not deal with facts, not if comes? Make every excuse you can tell yourself these excuses over and over ---
Turkey launches military assault in Syria as Kurdish fighters say warplanes are bombing region
A planned Turkish military operation in northern Syria has now begun, the country's president announced Wednesday, as Kurdish fighters say warplanes are already bombing civilian areas in the region.
A spokesperson for the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces says Turkish warplanes have "started to carry out airstrikes on civilian areas", causing a "huge panic among people of the region."
https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-sy … ry-assault
https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live … index.htmlSharlee: Most candidates while running for office make promises they can't keep because they know they are unrealistic. Trump makes promises and he tries to keep them no matter how unrealistic they are or what danger they cause to others.
So he promised to bring home the troops from Syria. Now he is doing it for his base. It's all part of his campaign ploy. He could care less about how many Kurds are killed or whether they played a significant role in stopping ISIS. There are 10 of thousands of ISIS fighters being held by the Kurds. Now they are going to have to defend themselves against the Turks and ISIS will be released because they can't guard them.
Trump exhibits all the symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and one of the main characteristic is they are not capable of empathy because everything is about them.
Trump has no empathy for the Kurds. It is all about keeping his promise to his base. He doesn't care that Kurdish troop and families are going to be decimated by Turkish forces as long as he gets to keep his promise to his base.
He says he won't let Turkey destroy them because he will then destroy the Turkish economy. How is he going to determine when to destroy the Turkish economy?
In my estimation, this decision by Trump is enough to impeach him as he is putting our country in danger and and causing an unjustified civil war in the middle east, just so he can gets votes from his base for his re-election.
He doesn't even listen to what is left of his administration and cabinet members, after so much turnover. Ideally for Trump he would love to go it alone as a king of the U.S. He and his cohorts have made a mockery of our government and its institutions...all in the name of King Trump.
If you are subpoenaed, you have to appear. Trump and his people are subpoenaed and they defy the law. with his civilian attorneys who are not even government employees. He even uses Guiliani as a foreign ambassador. I'll bet he is even paying these people with our tax dollars.Trump is delivering on his promise to the American people. What is unrealistic is your party who lies to get into office and does everything against the people and then blame the opposition party for the mess they help create.
The war in the middle east has gone on long enough. It is something we have no control over. They will be fighting for another 1000 years. We have no reason to spend blood and treasure to maintain the status quo. They will fight it out one way or another and the winner will be the peacemaker.Yeah Jack, and Putin wins again with help from your idol.
Putin is responsible for Trump being president (once Clinton put him within striking distance).
Good point. Now that Trump has done such a huge favor for Putin, I wonder if Putin's buddies will give Trump another $100 million?
You think this was about money?
Putin is a thug. Trump a Billionaire. 3.1 B according to Forbes.
Do the math...Trump has always lied to Forbes, Jack. He used his father's assest as his own. Get up to date, dude!
You appear to have no understanding of the importance, throughout history, the Middle East has on the world. Every world power who ever ignored it like you want to do ultimately collapsed and lost their standing - every one.
No he is not, Jack. Trump promised (unnecessarily) to make America great and he has done just the opposite - he has turned America into a pathetic shell of itself. Where we once had values, we now have none.
The US was weak under the Obama Admin. It was Barack that pulled our troops out of Iraq prematurely...
Your bias is showing.
I know the history of the MiddleEast fairly well. I know we have made mistakes in the past.
Perhaps, leaving them alone is better in the long run.,,Your ignorance is showing Jack. Obama had no choice because of the status of forces agreement BUSH signed. Iraq wanted us out and Obama obliged (granted he didn't try hard to stay, but he did try).
If you pull out of the Middle East, history shows America will become an also-ran as Russia and China gain power - but that may be OK with you, I don't know.
BTW - The FAKE NEWS FOX poll shows 51% of registered voters want Trump impeached and Removed. Another 4% want Trump impeached but not removed. ONLY 40%, and falling, don't want Trump impeached.
On top of that, the number of Republicans who want Trump impeached increased 5 points, the same has the increase in Evangelicals.
These are huge increases as previous polls a few months ago only had 40% wanting Trump impeached.
Turkey is now massacring hundreds, if not more, of civilian Kurds - bombing them like Assad is doing. TRUMP IS COMPLICIT in Turkey's continuation of the genocide against the Kurds.
I think I'll say....I told ya so, Shar. How many civilian deaths are you responsible for in this battle? You are something else.....
Very dramatic statement ... But I have to say it's hypocritical.
Actually none I don't believe in policing the world. I do believe if atrocities are occurring we step in to help. 500 thousand killed on his time, not to mention the people that had to leave their country. How many are you responsible for? I have every hope if the UN witnesses atrocities they will step in, and form a coalition to step in and defend the citizens involved. But for our American soldiers to be put in harm's way to police warring countries, I am not a supporter of our troop's policing.
Pot Kettle...Me? I didn't help put the POS in the WH. How about you? You'd defend him against anything it seems. Any other POTUS would be ashamed of America allowing the Kurds to be exterminated, but not your guy.
And now Trump is in the process of throwing Rudy Giuliani under the bus after his two Russian goons were arrested today - just like he did Cohen.
Trump and Rudy have broken SO MANY LAWS it is unbelievable!Yep, they were trying to flee the country--they were slated to appear before Congress on an Impeachment inquiry the next day--and had purchased one way tickets to Frankfort, Germany. Coincidentally, they had lunch with Rudy earlier that day.
I wonder who tipped them off they were on the verge of being arrested? I'll wager it was a guy named Bill. I hope he goes down with Rudy and Don. This is criminal crap!
Randy, I am not his defender. However, I am the defender of facts and waiting for facts before making any accusations.
That is the problem. We don’t have an honest media any more. What is presented is not fact but fiction in so many cases. I stopped watching news years ago.
I agree with your view, the media has become a propaganda machine, Hard to believe a thing they say.
Sharlee and Jack: I believe 90% of what the MSM says. I believe nothing Hannity, Limbaugh, Carlson, and Levin say. They are just giving their opinion and have prostituted themselves to the GOP, Trump, and Rupert Murdoch; follow the money.
The problem is they have a larger viewership than the MSM, but it is made up of people who believe Trump and Fox News based on blind faith.
When Trump came on board, he quickly named the MSM as fake news and the enemy of the people and a lot of the people that voted for him believed him without questioning and blind faith. Propagandist know that if you repeat something enough times, it will believed and Trump is a master at repetition and lies.That is true ONLY of most of the Conservative media. (Now that Shep is gone from Fox, their news, which use to be real, will probably go the way of their opinion shows, chock full of lies and false statements.
Not at all, it's there's a certain portion of the population who have no idea how to view political facts. Those people put the cretin in office and are now wondering what's going on.
Today you have the internet, and you can have news from thousands of different sources. Especially if you can read English.
A fact is still a fact and an opinion is an opinion. A fact is that Trump never showed his tax revenue to the public. An opinion is that there is something wrong with his tax returns. A fact is that Trump said I grab them by the pussy. An opinion is if you find it ok or not.What does that have to do with governing our country? And what does the endless investigation by the Democrats serve?
We already had 2 years of Mueller investigation...
When it was Clinton, having sex with an intern in the Oval office, it was only about sex? A personal matter.I was stating the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Sure, I was citing the dishonest media that focuses on all negative Trump 90%...some with made up stories and distortions...
Are you saying the real media ought to simply Ignore ALL of the BAD things Trump does like the Conservative media does every day?. There are very few Positive things they can report on.
So you say that 90%of what is written about Trump on the internet, newspapers, tele and radio is dishonest?
Maybe it's like they are actually right. Maybe it's like 90% of the scientific world believes in climate change and you still believe it is not happening.
What is your criteria for calling something honest and dishonest, true or false?That is not what I am saying. When 90% of the story are negative, it is a sign of bias.
What do you think the word “bias” mean?
If they would report on some of the great news on the economy under Trump, that would be more balanced. Instead, all the focus is on Russian collusion, and now on Ukraine...based on hearsay...gimme a break...
By the same token, under Obama/Biden, they were treated with kid gloves, despite real scandals. Bias .... bias....
So, I have no problem with the media doing their job - which is keeping a check on our government as a watch dog.
Instead we have a media that is corrupt and putting a thumb on the scale and cheering one party while denigrating the other.
This is not good for our country or for democracy.
The people need good information to make an informed choice at election time. Don’t you agree?
Just as a reality check...
When was the last story in the media you read or saw or heard that had something good to say about Trump’s policies?
The silence is deafening...
Don’t take my word for it.
The media themselves readily admit they are biased...
They have stopped pretending to be fair and balanced. Go google it.That is not what I am saying. When 90% of he story are negative, it is a sign of bias.
What do you think the word “bias” mean?
If they would report on some of the great news on the economy under Trump, that would be more balanced. Instead, all the focus is on Russian collusion, and now on Ukraine...based on hearsay...gimme a break...
By the same token, under Obama/Biden, they were treated with kid gloves, despite real scandals. Bias .... bias....
So, I have no problem with the media doing their job - which is keeping a check on our government as a watch dog.
Instead we have a media that is corrupt and putting a thumb on the scale and cheering one party while denigrating the other.
This is not good for our country or for democracy.
The people need good information to make an informed choice at election time. Don’t you agree?
Just as a reality check...
When was the last story in the media you read or saw or heard that had something good to say about Trump’s policies?
The silence is deafening...In real independent journalism, when 90% of the story is negative, it's usually because 90% of the subject's behavior is negative.
And since Trump has no policies other than creating one crisis or scandal after another, the subject is Trump himself.Your response has just exposed your bias. What if I point out all the good that Trump has done? I am willing to make you a challenge. You list some top 5 wrongs that Trump had done, and I will match it with something good, twice as much.
You just exposed your own bias by insisting that you can come up with "all the good Trump has done".
I will offer facts. You will offerh opinions. There is no point to what you propose.Not all, just to counter some of the bias reporting you have been forced fed...if I post them will you at least be honest and admit you have not heard about them reported?
It is hard to find positive news about Trump because there is so little of it to report. But, the legitamate media did report a lot about:
* The GOP Tax Cut which Trump claims as his
* The time awhile back that the economy grew a little above 3% two quarters in a row (one of those has since been revised downward) - but they can't report today about a booming economy because - well it isn't.
* They have often reported on Trump's deregulation (even though it is making America worse)
* They frequently report on the stock market doing so well
* They reported on the terrible Supreme Court appointments McConnell had to cheat to get through the Senate
* They report frequently on the low unemployment numbers
* They just reported on Trump's new tiny trade deal with China
They have reported on a lot more but you are SO BIASED you refuse to acknowledge that they do.
Now turn to #FakeFoxOpinion. When have they EVER opined on the many, many bad things Trump has done? (I will grant that Fox News TRIED to report on the bad things but received so much criticism, their most popular news anchor had to quit in disgust.)
Here is an excerpt...
“
Ms. Shoe says the paper is “widely, widely understood to be left-leaning.” (OK, that one’s not shocking.) But this admission is: “Our main stories are supposed to be objective. It’s very difficult in this day and age to do that.”
Then Ms. Shoe starts breaking down the new way things get done at America’s most prestigious paper.
“This is what I was trying to say is, like, the last couple years it’s changed for the bad. I think the business model itself is just — there’s so much panic about what to do that, you know, what else is a company supposed to do? That’s the conundrum, is that a business model, in this time, is built on what the readers want.”
Well, then, who are the readers of The Times? Ms. Shoe, occasionally taking sips of a pint of beer, says “some of the readers are liberal,” then pauses before she amends that to, “a lot of them are liberal.”Another source...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/m … ncna895471Oh, please, it's an opinion piece about Project Veritas, which is famous for creating fake videos.
The article begins with "The muckity mucks in the liberal media". You call that a credible source of journalism?Jack: Everything that you say about the MSM, I can say about Fox News. The reason Fox News even exists is to denigrate the democrats and promote republicans and the GOP. That is Rupert Murdoch's mission in life.
Trump just sent AG Barr to talk to Murdoch about Sheppard Smith telling the truth about Trump and Guiliani. Guess what? The next day he resigned or was fired. Coincidence? I don't think so.
The deep state Q anon were created by Sean Hannity as a conspiracy that can't be proved one way or the other, but Trump uses it to blame the democrats for his failings, including Obama.
Chris Como's Prime Time gives equal time to Trump supporters as well as democratic supporters. He has had Guiliani on his show many times, even as he has made a fool of himself with his rants.
Fareed Zakaria on Sunday morning has many notable heads of states and other credible journalist on his show from all over the world's geopolitical spectrum. How many has Fox News had on their shows?
Yes, they have a larger viewership, than the MSM, but their viewers have all been brainwashed by Trump's fantasy universe. That is what he does, he plays to people's fantasies that accept him on blind faith.You are absolutely right. Fox news and a few conservatives radio talk show are the only opposition to the main stream media. The reason Fox is doing so well in the polls is because they are providing an alternative voice which was lacking...don’t you see.
If the other news channels were honest, Fox would not have succeeded.Jack: Here is what a long time ex Fox host says about Fox.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/10/0 … ighlights/The reason Fox is doing so well in the polls is because there is only one to chose from while in the legitimate news, there are many. If Fox doesn't have over 50% of the share, then it is not doing all that great.
Conservatives turn to Fox because it tells them only what they want to hear - not objective opinion (although their News used to be relatively fair as is their polling) But with Shep Smith gone, I suspect his fair and balanced reporting is heading for the trash heap.
BTW - Tell me why Matt Drudge is turning away from Trump?And Jack, please recognize you are NOT talking about Fox News, they are (were) in the same league as CNN and the rest. You ARE talking about Fox Opinion which is an entertainment show that acts as a Trump propaganda outlet.
Project Veritas exposes some of the corruption in the media and in Planned Parenthood and ACORN. People who do these things are not always going to tell you or give interviews on the record. Remember 60 minutes used to do some of the same hit pieces, ambush interviews.
You are buying into the lie about Project Veritas. Who these people got caught red handed...it is always the other guy’s fault.Project Veritas exposes some of the corruption in the media and in Planned Parenthood and ACORN. People who do these things are not always going to tell you or give interviews on the record. Remember 60 minutes used to do some of the same hit pieces, ambush interviews.
You are buying into the lie about Project Veritas. When these people got caught red handed...it is always the other guy’s fault.
What about the CIA whistleblower? Do we know what his background and his connection to the DNC?
No, but know at least 4 different people with access to Trump's Ukrainian conversation, in which the quid pro quo was asked, were alarmed about it. Today the ex-Ambassador said Rudy and his crowd--the recent arrested Ukrainian connections--had her removed to further advance their greed in that country.
It doesn't take a genius to see what is going on Jack, but one does have to recognize when one has been had. And you've been had...Read the transcript. It is public. lies by a partisan hack that has permeated our government. This is not justice. This is not how impeachment comes about...
"This is not how impeachment comes about..."
Sure it is. The Democratic majority doesn't really care about the excuse; they just want to impeach. And will do so with or without an honest reason.We will never know, will we, since they have all sorts of legitimate reasons to do so starting with the Mueller case for Obstruction of Justice and the Ukraine scandal.
What gives YOU the right to speak for the Democratic majority, Dan? As I told Jack, watch the next few days and learn something about the corrupt person you defend and apologize for.
Will you still identify with him? No, you'll do like the rest of Trump's supporters and fade into the woodwork rather than admit you fell for the snake oil salesman.
Are you calling Trump a liar Jack?? If so, you are finally getting it! We all read the summary of the call and it clearly shows Trump breaking the law. Now we have the texts and testimony from the former ambassador which just layers on the illegal acts.
Jack, give it up. Trump's goose is cooked, and so is yours as far as your reputation for recognizing crooks when you support them goes. Watch the next few days and you'll learn something about the rule of law in this country.
Hehe - Besides that, Trump had a really bad day today.
Ambassador Y ripped him a new asshole in testimony today.
The court told him Mazars must turn over his taxes. The Supreme Court will not review the decision.
The court put a stay on his illegal rule change to make it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards.
The court put a stay on his illegal Emergency declaration.
God, I love it.Yes sir, not a good day at all and now a DHS official has resigned because of the corruption in the department. The rats are deserting the ship....the smart one's anyway.
What I know about the whistleblower is that the Trump-appointed ICIG AND the Trump-appointed acting head of Homeland Security said he is credible. What else would a reasonable person need?
What does the investigations serve??? It gets a crook and traitor out of the White House. You should be asking what all of those multiple and endless investigations by the #NoBallsGOP in Clinton accomplish accept exonerate her Each and Every Time.
And yes, you are right, the Clinton's were about sex and not a danger to national security that Trump represents. Also, Trump is getting an even better pass on his multiple cases of sexual abuse of women.
No, I think my statement is very clear. Not sure how you came out the other end with such an opinion? My statement is so clear? Odd you felt it necessary to add your comment, it makes no sense?
Maybe you should read my sentiments once more.
"I don't believe in policing the world. I do believe if atrocities are occurring we step in to help. 500 thousand killed on his time, not to mention the people that had to leave their country. How many are you responsible for? I have every hope if the UN witnesses atrocities they will step in, and form a coalition to step in and defend the citizens involved. But for our American soldiers to be put in harm's way to police warring countries, I am not a supporter of our troop's policing."
I witness America stand down when so many were being killed in Syria. I watched public care less... I watched a president hide his head in the sand... No, I do not believe in Genocide, and still, hold the shame of it.
More to the point, they haven't been accused of doing anything wrong by the authorities that matter, the Ukrainians. This is ALL made up by Trump; it is true FAKE NEWS in the original meaning of the term.
Trump would accuse God of corruption if it suited him. He should never, ever be believed.But they suck it all in, Scott. I think he's a Pied Piper to the Right. Scary, ain't it, Scott?
Yep.
I am hoping that Trump throwing our Kurdish allies to the murderous Turks is enough to put balls on enough GOP Senators to move them over to the impeach column.It seems even the Trump suck-up Graham is against this insane move, Scott. Trump didn't consult anyone--except perhaps Putin--about this stupid decision.
Truth be told, I have no doubt in my mind that Putin told him to do it.
Now let's see if the Ds have enough gumption to hold Sondland and Pompeo of inherent contempt of Congress and throw their butts in jail."Putin told him to do it"? OMG this kind of thought process is scary.
Sharlee: You say you are waiting for the facts and are waiting to see if the Biden's are exonerated. Please enlighten me. Who in our country is investigating them?
Trump has asked China and the Ukraine to investigate them, but who in are justice system is investigating them? It is another conspiracy theory that Trump is using right out of his play book of open-ended investigations with no conclusion...just like the birther movement and voter fraud.
What you are doing is playing a passive resistance role and hoping the impeachment inquiry fails. So you and all Trump supporters can say here is another failed effort by the democrats.Your last paragraph summed it up nicely, Mike. Trump fans will hold on until the very end, and then some. I hope they feel regret for ever voting for the cretin. I know I would never trust their political judgement again.
The New prosecutor in Ukraine, as well as Guliani.
I truly hope to get on with the investigation, although in order for the Republicans to participate and contribute to the investigation the impeachment inquiry needs to be voted on. They need to have the same powers as the Dem's in this inquiry. This is fair play. I don't care how long the inquiry drags on, but it needs to be fair.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/uk … d=66063268
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/76738670 … er-employeWhy? The Republicans didn't grant Ds subpoena power when investigating Clinton. I say turn-around is fair play - wouldn't you?
Also, it was the Rs who set up the rules that the Ds are using now - why change them just because they are whining?
Bottom line, the Democrats are playing by the Republican rule book. When the inquiry is over, then they can vote on impeachment and the Rs can call their so-called witnesses (something the Ds were never able to do).
No - it is Trump's thought process that is scary. I would never had suggested such a thing with Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon - wouldn't even cross my mind.
But since Trump's only friends are fellow autocrats (Putin, Assad, Un, Xi, Erdoğan, etc.), it does cross my mind with him.
Have you forgotten Syria? hate to bring it up, however, Obama turned his back on the death of over 500 thousand Syrians. This is a fact.
Not sure why you can say this? One only has to read my comments to see I am once again waiting for facts. I have condemned no one Trump or the Biden's.
If it is fake news the investigation will exonerate the Biden's. It is a shame they were accused without solid evidence, only lots of smoke. Sort of the same way Trump is being accused. The Dem's are not immune to this new way of justice. They created it, they will have to live with it.
If there had been evidence about the Bidens, Trump would have presented it. He hasn't because there isn't any, he is just simply making it up for his political benefit.
On the other hand, there is tons of evidence of Trump's guilt.
Sharlee: Pelosi is gathering evidence about Trump. It takes time. I don't know where you are getting your information from, it sounds like Fox News (opinion). As far as Biden goes, he has already been cleared of any wrong doing by the Ukrainian government.
There are two issues here. One is did Trump use his power to influence a foreign head of state to find dirt on Biden?
The other is from Trump's side that is distraction by trying to accuse Biden of wrong doing. Those type of conspiracy attacks are right out of Trump's play book. When he is under attack, he attacks the attackers and tries to transfer the blame to them, but he always leaves his investigations open ended.
He did it with the birther movement and voter fraud. Now he is doing it with Pelosi and Biden. He and Fox News (opinion) even accuses Pelosi of Treason and a coup de tat.
Here is the definition of Treason:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Here is the definition of Coup de etata:
": a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group a military coup d'état of the dictator."
Trump and his supporters could care less about looking up the definitions of those accusations because he and Fox News (opinion) has brain washed them.
Pelsoi and her team are building a case to present to the senate. However Mitch McConnel said he would not cooperate in an impeachment. The GOP is too afraid to go against Trump because he would call them names and insult them to the point they would lose their support for re-election.
So they are laying low and in the background. Trump has intimidated them. The only way the GOP senate will get involved is if they see their bids for re-election are being threatened by their own constituents, not supporting Trump. He has made them afraid of him and afraid of losing their re-elections.
These are my opinions based on my observations and research.As I have stated previously I respect your right to your opinion. We just don't hare the same thought process in regard to this subject.
Hopefully in the end, if any laws were broken by Trump, Biden or his son these many investigations will find the truth. And anyone that they find guty of any crimes will answer for their crimes.
I do not apply myself to groupthink, I just have learned to be patient and wait for the final outcome. I would derive no joy from being right or wrong in this case. I certainly would be remorseful if I condemned anyone without factual evidence.
I guess it's once again a waiting game. I do have faith that facts will emerge.
I also tire of haring I ascribe to Fox news. I would think this kind of accusation is getting old, stale.
Time for Congress to call for the impeachment they have been seeking from the time he stepped into the oval office. Time to put up or shut up. Their righteous indignation is getting very old...
Then you are stunned for the wrong reason promisem. Maybe you have wasted a good stun you could have better used elsewhere.
I am not stunned, yet, but I will be if you can find a statement of mine that says I don't see anything wrong with the president pressuring another country for political gain. Just because I point out that something proclaimed as fact is not fact - but interpretation or opinion, doesn't mean I hold a contrary opinion of that interpretation or opinion.
It seems that possibility hasn't occurred to you. After all of our frequent exchanges, I think it should have by now.
GAGA, I think stunned is a good word because your consistent defense of Trump is far apart from your interest in history and government.
You are saying nothing is wrong with Trump pressuring another country for political gain by:
1. Omitting that position.
2. Focusing on secondary issues.
3. Claiming many obvious facts are opinions.
Trump admitted that he pushed the Ukrainian president to go after Trump's main political rival in 2020. He said so on a doctored transcript. They hid the transcript because of what it meant. There are multiple witnesses plus an inspector general who said he broke the law.
Those are the key facts. They are not opinions.
Likewise, by your own statement, you seem to support interference with the impeachment process by a President who has already threatened the first whistleblower.Now you are just being obstinate promisem. A criticism of an anti-Trump statement is not automatically a defense of Trump. Your perception that it is has been repeatedly denied and explained. Yet you continue to view any criticism as such. I think you are wrong.
I see the remainder of your comment as just a repeat of your previous presentation of your opinions and interpretations as facts. I believe I have already shown that they are not facts, but interpretation and opinion. So as you have said, (perhaps a paraphrasing?), "I have already shown you that, so do your own research."
How about taking up my challenge: Do a little research. Show me statements of mine that have been a defense of Pres. Trump and not just criticisms or disagreements with and of your facts.
If your opinion that I consistently defend Trump and do support interference in the impeachment process is truly factual, (as you claim), then the evidence to meet my challenge should be easy to find.
GATrump admitting that he asked, pushed or encouraged the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden is an opinion and not a fact? Six witnesses interviewed by the inspector general is an opinion and not a fact?
Seriously?
I can admit that I oppose Trump. You can't admit that you defend him under just about all circumstances.I agree with your opening statement promisem. And I don't think I have ever denied it. What I have challenged is the declaration of fact that it was for the purpose of election interference.
Do your "six witnesses" all declare they have proof it was for the purposes of election interference? Or, do they just offer their opinions of interpretation that it was?
But you are right that I cannot admit I defend Pres. Trump under almost any circumstances because I do not think I do. I am certain that is not my intention, but I am only sure that I don't.
GAI'm not convinced yet it was for election purposes. The reasoning is that Trump is being Trump: he has been challenged and is responding in a like manner. I'm not sure that his ego would allow him to think there is a possibility he won't win the election whether he can remove Biden or not.
Now there is a perspective that anti-Trumpers should agree with, re. Trump's ego.
GA
There are over 13,000 well documented false statements and lies from Trump - that is a fact! So, why should we believe "Pres. Trump privately and publically stated/states his intentions were/are corruption-related, not election-related."
Why did Z think it WAS election related?No, Scott, I don't think that is a fact. There may be over 13,000 statements claimed to be false, but I am skeptical that all of those have been factually proven to be false.
And yes, I know I am doubting the veracity of countless investigative efforts. However, I am not disagreeing with the point of your statement. I am just skeptical it can be called a fact.
As for your question about President Zelenski, he probably thought it was election-related because it probably was. That is what I think.
GAOK, so there is 12,999 WELL DOCUMENTED false statements and outright lies. Hell, I started a hub on it with truth attached but was overwhelmed by the volume of it.
Define a fact? To my sun example - since it is not a fact that it will come up tomorrow are you trying to tell me you are "skeptical" that it will with the same skepticism that Trump has broken the law?Nope, I can't tell you that, and, since you compromised to a more realistic number of 12,999, (;-)),then I think we can let this point lay and move on to concrete issues.
GA
It sounds like you agree with the plan by Trump and the Republicans to destroy the impeachment process.
Because that's what they are trying to do.
The Democrats don't have "carte blanche" because there are 197 Republicans in the House of Representatives. And they are on every House committee.
By the way, the Republicans are already spending millions of dollars on TV attack ads including my own market.
The idea that they can't have a say in the court of public opinion is absurd.You are partly right promisem. According to your thinking, because I disagree with what you proclaim to be truth and fact . . .
"It sounds like "I" agree with the plan by Trump and the Republicans to destroy the impeachment process."
A point about that is the point I have been making about most of your proclamations of truth and fact - they are assumptions and opinions, just like your assumption and opinion that "It sounds like "I" agree with the plan by Trump and the Republicans to destroy the impeachment process.
But you are wrong about that assumption. Could you be wrong about your others?
As for the Democrats not having "carte blanche;" Can they carry the majority in the House regardless of Republican votes? Can they carry the majority in their committees regardless of Republican objections?
I think the answer to those questions is "yes," so maybe they do have carte blanche after all.
Relative to the ads . . . Are you saying that to the non-Trump base voter a political ad will carry as much weight as a Congressional committee news proclamation? I don't think so, but maybe you do.
Your final point is the part you got partly right. It is absurd that the Democrats can make pronouncements and accusations in the garments of Congressional authority while the Republicans can only spend money to run political ads.
GA
" the Democrats have carte blanche to conduct their investigation in the court of public opinion without the accused having any voice at all in what the public hears." - REALLY? Trump has the biggest bullhorn of anyone to the public and he uses it ad nauseum.
BTW, isn't this the same process the Republicans used against Clinton?Yes, "REALLY." To non-committed Trump voters do you think what comes from Trump's bully-pulpit carries the same weight as a Congressional committee pronouncement? Do you really think that?
If your point were true, would that be analogous to claiming a jury gives the same weight to a defense attorney's statement as they do to a judge's statement?
GAIf your point were true, would that be analogous to claiming a jury gives the same weight to a defense attorney's statement as they do to a judge's statement?
Gag order.Hi IslandMom. Do you mean a gag order for the committees? If so, good luck with that. The information would still be leaked and we would have dozens of leaker investigations to add to the half dozen Congressional investigations we already have going.
GAI have some questions for everybody:
1. Why is Trump going after Biden now for corruption since it has been 3 years since the alleged corruption took place?
2. Why did Trump hold back the funding for the Javelin missiles when congress had already approved the transfer of funds?
3. Why does Trump state that Biden stopped the prosecution of his son, when there was no prosecution and it was the Ukraine government that removed the corrupt prosecutor?
4. What other person or persons has the Trump administration investigated for corruption?
Please copy and paste these questions into your reply. I'm looking forward to seeing your answers. Thank you.Good luck getting factual answers from the right!
Relative to non-Trump base voters we disagree on this point Scott. To those voters I speak of, I think the Congressional voice carries more weight.
Another example of the greatness of Baskin-Robbins.
GAJust visited their plant and had some wonderful ice cream.
Should I guess your favorite flavor, Butter Pecan? Mixed dips of chocolate and coconut are mine.
GA
First I must start with your official theme song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyF8RHM … e&t=77
Okay, I'm not following this line of thinking GA. How can Congress vote on articles of impeachment, when it hasn't yet investigated the matter? That's like charging someone without investigating what crime(s) they have committed first. [EDIT] I see that Trump seems to be asking for a vote on the impeachment inquiry itself, not the articles of impeachment. I think the rest of my post is still relevant, but I wanted to clarify that point.
It's perfectly within Congress' constitutional authority to investigate Trump's abuses of authority via the Congressional committee process if it chooses to. The only issue is that Trump has in-effect put in place a blanket ban on administration officials cooperating.
The logical conclusion of this situation is that Congress can only fulfill its oversight function through the mechanism of impeachment, which is nonsense. It's also unconstitutional.
A president (any president) doesn't get to pick and choose the manner in which Congress oversees the Executive. Anyone with any doubt as to the authority of Congress need only look to the Constitution. The House has no obligation to vote on impeachment until it's good and ready to. Trump has every obligation to cooperate with Congress to the extent the law demands, regardless of whether it's started an impeachment inquiry or not.Excellent choice Don, I will accept and own that anthem. I always did like Whitesnake.
As for the rest of your comment . . . I couldn't find anything to disagree with. Maybe we will have better luck next time.
Wait, that sounds like it deserves an explanation. I emphasized "if" in my original comment because I was repeating a story I heard but had not looked into, and, I made subsequent comments in favor of that idea because I thought--with the daily spectacle of Democrat accusations--it was a fair-sounding idea.
GA
I am not sure if the polls that indicate a moderate percentage of citizens feel Trump should be impeached had anything to do with Pelosi moving ahead with her "impeachment inquiry:? It certainly could be politically motivated. It is clear to me if Congress wants an investigation they do not so far have enough evidence to move ahead with impeachment or the support of the congressional majority. I would surmise in this case polls were used to gain added Congressional support. There were and still are many Congressmen and Congresswomen on the fence.
Indeed the fog of willful ignorance seems to be lifting from some of the smarter folk on the right, just as in Nixon's impeachment. Before it's over there will be many others who continue to swallow Trump's daily lies.
That's a rational, objective and non partisan answer.
The Democrat party and media told you for two years that Hillary was going to win in a landslide.They followed that up with two years of lies about TRUMP Russia collusion. You are not angry about being lied too and having your intelligence insulted? I guess not. Apparently you believe this impeachment is the real deal. Meanwhile, the country’s doing great. Thank you president Trump!
Another Trumpster who cares not about the rule of law. No surprise!
Is it really? Stock market hit its lowest point in 10 years today. It keeps a roller coaster ride going and never stays up for long. Our allies hate us now. It doesn't matter what the braggart says. North Korea is launching mid-range missiles from submarines and the media is asking if long-range missiles are next. Take off your rose-colored Trump glasses.
Really? The market is at it's lowest in 10 years?
Dow Jones:
Oct. 3, 2019 25883
8-23-2019 25629
5-31-2019 24815
12-21-20-18 22445
3-23-2018 23533
1-15-2016 15988
Where are you getting your information? Though it IS a roller coaster ride - has been since its inception.
Fox News talking points.
No, the Dems and media did not say Hillary would win in a landslide. The final polls showed her leading in the popular vote by 3%. She won it with just over 2%.
No, the Mueller report did not say there was no collusion.
Meanwhile, the economy is quickly heading toward a recession and bankruptcy thanks to Trump.
Are you happy now with your support of a traitorous president. In the space of a week, he destroyed all of the gains made against ISIS https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/14/middleea … index.html
I seriously think Treason should be one of the Articles of Impeachment against him along with
Abuse of Power
Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Congress
Violation of the Constitution for Domestic Emoluments
Violation of the Constitution for Foreign Emoluments
Collusion with a foreign government against the United States
Illegally trying to influence an electionWOW, one would really think out od all this we would be voting on impeachment?
I would not like to bet on it. It looks as if Schiff's case is getting weaker and all his shifty rhetoric will most likely get him in trouble. At any rate, can't wait until Friday Horowitz will be tosing out his report. Should shoot all the impeachment crazy out of the media. Where it belongs... Thy need to either get on with it or stop making fools of themselves.
Hope you caught lots of red snapper.
You would think so, wouldn't you? All of those are old news, and were reported days after he took office. Of course, the collusion with Russia was proven false after 2 years and millions of dollars of effort, but the rest are still being claimed...without ever taking action, which is the duty of Congress. Wonder what their reasons are for refusing to perform their duty? Is it possible, just possible, that it's all far more political than real, like the collusion tale?
Good old Schiff's case is getting stiffer by the day. He is now stating he does not need to question the whistleblower. This is downright laughable. I have never witnessed such a bunch of crap in my life. Hey, Friday Horowitz is supposed to release his report. This will blow the impeachment circus right out of town. I have good faith in Horowitz. I feel he will bring all the dirt out into the open. And it's long overdue. My God the country looks stupid with all this craziness going on.
Why does he need the wistleblower anymore?? Everything he wrote has been proven true with other evidence - he is simply not needed now and his safety is at risk because of Trump's rhetoric.
In looking tor a reference to your Horowitz claim, I see the Conservative media is already attacking him for being too soft.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com … 20565.html
I couldn't find where he is supposed to release his report on Friday. I hope he does.Schiff lied about when the was aware of the whistleblower, and there is a question of if Schiff met with the WB. I would well think he would not want anyone to be allowed to question this WB. If they go to an impeachment trial the WB will be questioned by the Senate. Another reason the Dem won't proceed with impeachment.
Their crooks that are knee-deep in lies.
How are you aware of anything being proven? The WB claim did not correspond to the transcript of the phone call? Not sure about what any of the media is saying about Horowitz's findings? I trust he will have done a good investigation and will tell it like it is, and he had no leaks...
"Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo says her sources are telling her an extensive report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses by the Justice Department and the FBI will be released by the end of next week.
Bartiromo, who is the first journalist to report an exact release date, discussed what she had learned on her Fox News show, Sunday Morning Futures, with two Republican congressmen who deduced that former high-ranking government officials are bracing for a scathing critique.
"I’m hearing the IG report will be out this upcoming Friday, Oct. 18, and my sources say it’s as thick as a telephone book," Bartiromo said, adding that it covers "more than just FISA abuse."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … fisa-abuseYou do know that "Schiff lied about when the was aware of the whistleblower, and there is a question of if Schiff met with the WB. " is a lie, don't you? Schiff has never met the WB. Schiff never said his office wasn't contacted by the WB.
How am I "aware"?? I can read. I read the Summary. I read the Texts. I listened/read the testimony from the Volker, the ICIG, the acting head of IC, the former Ambassador
"The WB claim did not correspond to the transcript of the phone call?" IS another lie. WHY? 1) There is no transcript available to compare it against and 2) the WB claims correspond exactly with the Summary and other evidence.
"Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo walked back her announcement that the Justice Department inspector general's report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses would be released on Friday." - that said, I wish he would release it. Hopefully it will clear up many things and get the Republicans off of their witch hunt which as no more substance than their Benghazi fiasco.
How do you say "Of course, the collusion with Russia was proven false after 2 years and millions of dollars of effort, " with a straight face Wilderness? You know that is an absolutely false statement.
What Mueller couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that an actual conspiracy took place (although I still think Manafort met the criteria). He provided tons of evidence that the attempts were made.
We will. Unlike Trump who does things without thinking (like tell Turkey it's OK to murder the Kurds), the Democrats want to do it right and build an air-tight case.
Personally, I think they have enough right now, but I am guessing they want it so dead-to-rights that all but Trump supporters will vote any Republican who doesn't convict out of office the first time there is a chance.Trump won on a no-war no-policing other countries' agendas. He has accomplished all but eradicating ISIS and felt it time to pull out of Turkey. He seemed to put his trust in Erdogan to keep his word in regards to not committing atrocities against the Kurds. Erdogan immediately attacked the Kurds.
Today Trump announced he was redeploying troops to Syria and was slapping turkey with crippling economic sanctions. Woooo--- and all this in one week. he can chew gum and walk too. I appreciate Trump can switch gears quickly when he need be. He very quickly realized Erdogan was not keeping his word and handled the situation This is what's called governing. This is what tells the world America will not sit by and watch atrocities. This is governing through strength, and doing what's right. I for one never again want to live through watching America sit by and witness genocide.
There is no case, there was no wrongdoing. The Dems appear foolish by even pursuing an impeachment without a crime. Think Horowitz, think facts, think indictments. We will have some real crimes to discuss. This will be refreshing.Sharlee, I hate to tell you this, but we aren't pulling our troops out of Turkey. I also hate to tell you Trump has done nothing to get us out of conflict. I further hate to tell you, Trump is NOT redeploying troops TO Syria - he is deploying the OUT of Syria.
I have yet to see him actually impose sanctions. Ask yourself this, even if he does, how many MORE Kurds will Trump be responsible for killing before sanctions have any impact; how many Kurds would Turkey have murdered if Trump had kept our troops in place and not told Turkey it was OK to invade?
Why is it EVERYBODY but Trump knew Erdogan would not keep his word?
How is it "governing" to agree to let Turkey invade Syria against the advise of everybody and is only reversing course because he is about to lose his Senate Republican support.
Trump is making America look very weak and indecisive. It is embarrassing to be an American in the Trump era.Nobody cares about the Kurds, why would they? (they - governments, UN etc.) They are of no financial importance. Turkey is though. And America has never looked at the morality of things when it came down to working with other countries. Erdogan is a dictator and constricted free speech in Turkey. Has put thousands of teachers, intellectuals and scholars into jail. But who cares. Business is business.
Just as the US and the rest of the western world will never put sanctions on the Saudis. As money is more important then human rights.Unless this is sarcasm "Nobody cares about the Kurds, " - THEN THAT is what is wrong with your kind!!! If that is not truly your feeling, great, but it is how many on your side actually think, including your hero.
Sadly enough it is not sarcasm it's reality. I'm not talking about me personally but about the politics that's been there for years on end. When was the last time the UN or the US or any country stood up for the Kurds? Same can be said about the Palestinians!
Personally I think there is a great injustice done towards the Kurds and the Palestinians and many other minorities living in a country.
But if you don't have money, oil or other precious resources, no country will care about you. That's the sad part of the capitalist age we are living in. And that's something that should be changed as hard line capitalism made the west morally bankrupt.
No, we actually are having troops continue to police and help protect the Kurds.
Today the president announced he will place sanctions on Turkey as well as redeploy troops to Syria to police the. ongoing problem. As well VP Pence will be leaving immediately to Turkey for talks to try to bring an end to this accelerated aggression on the Turkeys' part.
I am pleased he reevaluated the ongoing worsening situation and has worked quickly to help the Kurds. It well appears he listened to those around him as well as recognized that Turkey was not going to keep their word in regards to not attacking and killing civilians. This is the third time he stepped up to help stop atrocities in Syria. I very much appreciate this type of governing. Way To Go, President Trump, America should never again sit on the sidelines and witness genocide. We can't police indefinitely but we can't turn our backs on such killing.
https://hubstatic.com/14715951.jpg
Why do all of the Generals to which TraitorTrump *and his mindless supporters) once said were so great and now insults say things like this:
Earlier in the day, retired four-star Admiral William McRaven, the architect of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, said Trump was working to "destroy" the country from "within" and "without."
Mattis went on to joke that "the only person in the military that Mr. Trump doesn't think is overrated" is "Colonel Sanders," the founder of the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast food restaurant chain.
Mattis insisted that Trump's comments didn't bother him. Mattis riffed that he "earned my spurs at the battlefield" while Trump "earned his spurs from a letter from the doctor"
McMaster bluntly trashed his boss, said the sources, four of whom told BuzzFeed News they heard about the exchange directly from Catz. The top national security official dismissed the president variously as an “idiot” and a “dope” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner,” the sources said.AND A sixth source who was not familiar with the details of the dinner told BuzzFeed News that McMaster had made similarly derogatory comments about Trump’s intelligence to him in private, including that the president lacked the necessary brainpower to understand the matters before the National Security Council.
We see much evidence of the latter statement daily from Trump.Those Mueller notes are producing some interesting information that may be used in his impeachment.
This isn't one of those, but goes to show the corruption of his advisor and son-in-law.
SUBJECT - Re: Jared Kushner Sealed Real Estate Deal with Oligarch's Firm Cited in Money-Laundering Case.
That was the subject line on an email to Steve Bannon from some redacted person a Brietbart. Interesting.Isn't it stretching things just a little when the topic of a conversation is used as proof of corruption? When the actual text is hidden, and assumptions are drawn from the fact that a topic is to be discussed?
HAPPY DAYS!! Despite Conservative's best efforts, the Equal Right's Amendment will become an essential part of our Constitution. THANK YOU VIRGINIA.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics … index.htmlDeleted
Would you mind explaining why you find the President giving his objective opinion on the media a violation of his oath of office? I see it as free speech.? Actually he has as much right as you or me to state an opinion, and speak his thoughts. Not sure what the impeachment charges will include, it just may be one of the charges will be a violation of his oath of office. However, I don't think his repeated statement s in regard to the media could be used against him.
In regards to federal extortion, the president has the full right to veto aid to any given country, as well as the right to ask any country we have treaties with to aid in investigation an American citizen. Last I heard both Bidens are just that.
The president had the right to shut the government, for budget issues. It's just that simple. Not sure why you feel this action would be used in the impeachment process? If they could have got him for shutting the government down due to his wall funding, they would have brought him up on impeachment long ago. I don't think anyone knows as of yet what the charges will be or even if the Dems will proceed to impeach? We are still at the inquiry stage.
Although it will be interesting to hear the charges. I am sure they have many in mind. Maybe abuse of power?"Objective"???? Only dictators declare the free press "an enemy of the people". People who actually believe in democracy do not do such things.
Read your Constitution again. The President does not have the right to veto funds appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose - that violates specific laws.
Only dictators can shut the government down - a president cannot. The only way the President can shut the government down is by vetoing appropriations bills and the Congress does not override the veto. So, you are wrong there.
The Articles probably will be:
- Obstruction of Congress - guaranteed
- Obstruction of Justice - 95% chance
- Abuse of Power -guaranteed
- Violating the Emoluments Clause - 25% chance
- Bribery - 85% chance
- Extortion - 75% chanceDeleted
Sharlee: Maybe this will help your understanding of why they are having the inquiry.
Let's stop calling it Quid Pro Quo. What Trump did is called bribery. He tried to bribe the President of Ukraine by holding back funding for the Javelin Missile system until he agreed to find dirt on the Biden's for the purpose of his own political advantage.
Trump even asked him to make a public announcement to the world. Further, he had Guilani and his henchmen running a parallel shadow government that was trying to usurp the authority of the ambassadors and diplomats assigned to the Ukraine.
Trump went so far as to get advice from Sean Hannity who has no official government office, but who was an ex bartender. Trump even had some of those people removed from office as a result of Guilianni's and Hannity's advice.This is the comment that I responded o. I was very simply hoping this gentleman would explain his view on --- "Is violating one's "oath of office" an impeachable offense? If yes, then every single time that TrumPutin has called the media "an enemy of the people", he has violated his "oath of office".
I found this comment to hold no legal truth. It's that simple. He chooses to leave a snary comment in return instead of defending his view.
Compete comment BRUCE UTTER WROTE:
"Going through with impeachment is the right thing to do. It shows that congress is willing to do the job that our Constitution tasks them to do.
Is violating one's "oath of office" an impeachable offense? If yes, then every single time that TrumPutin has called the media "an enemy of the people", he has violated his "oath of office.
Is violating one of the federal extortion statutes an Impeachable offense? If yes, then when TrumPutin threatened to shut down the government if congress did not provide him with funds to build his Mexican wall, he committed an impeachable offense and a federal felony."
I appreciate your comment as well as your view. As I understand it the
Javelin Missile was being purchased by Ukraine. Please read the link it gives a good explanation of the sale and the pending sale of Javelin missiles. The funds that were held back for a few weeks were aid funds the Congress had approved for Ukraine.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/javelin … d=65855233
Trump's phone call transcript certainly is clear in regards to him asking the president of Ukraine to investigate the Biden's as well as the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. It appears for some reason Trump felt CrowdStrike had something to do with Hillary Clinton's lost emails?
My problem with "Bruse Utter" seems to assume he knows what charges will come out of the impeachment inquiry? I have naturally heard plenty of what the public assumes will be the charges. I think at this point no one has any idea what they will be or if there will be an impeachment. We are at the ts point conducting an inquiry. That's all she wrote...
Just my opinion, but I feel they will have one charge that might stick, abuse of power. All the rest of the allegations that are floating around seem flimsy. None of them hold real crimes in my view. The president's authority to hold back funds and ask a foreign country to aid him in an investigation will be hard to argue."The president's authority to hold back funds and ask a foreign country to aid him in an investigation will be hard to argue." -
Biden, at the behest of Obama, European diplomats, International Monetary Fund, and many others, threatened to withhold $1B in "loan guarantees" to Ukraine if they didn't fire a corrupt prosecutor who wasn't fighting corruption. (also, neither Burisma nor Hunter Biden were under investigation)
Now, whether withholding a loan guarantee violates the law or not, I am not sure, but threatening to do so does not - IF it is for national security purposes, which it was. But since the threat wasn't carried out, no problem.
TRUMP, however, not only threatened to, but actually did hold up real aid appropriated by Congress on his own authority. That, in and if itself, is illegal if he didn't get Congressional approval - and we all know he didn't.
Tie that to the fact that holding back the aid, which is bribery, was done for personal gain and not for national security purposes (which nobody but Trump, without evidence, is claiming) makes it doubly or triply criminal and/or impeachable.
That is just the facts of the matter.Not sure why you feel had a problem with the Biden/Obama asking the president to fire a prosecutor? This has little to do with Trump asking the new president to investigate Hunter Biden and his association with the Ukrainian gas company he was on the board of being paid over 50 million a month? Yes, it could appear they hired him to gain access to the White House, and should be investigated and cleared up one way or the other. His association with China should also be looked into.
In regards to the president asking a foreign country to aid in an investigation, he has the authority to ask any foreign country we have a treaty with to help in an investigation of an American citizen that he feels has committed a crime in their country. The president should look into any form of crime or election irregularities if he is aware of it. If he felt the Biden's had committed some form of crime, it's his duty to have it investigated. Biden is running for the presidency of the United States, and if there is a chance he committed the crime of selling his access to the WH, he should answer for his crime.
I see no bribery, the funds were provided rather quickly. President Zelinsky stated he felt no threat and did not realize the funds had been held up. Seems to me the Dems have little to stand on.
The more I hear and read about the impeachment process the more I feel this a waste of time. This is a political ploy that will backfire in the end. However, it will work to wake up both side's base and make for an ugly election. More bitterness more hate... The Dems have taken a huge gamble.
.Oh buggers, Scott, do you realize the irony of your response?
"Biden, at the behest of Obama, European diplomats, International Monetary Fund, and many others . . ."
Why didn't you stop at "at the behest of Obama"? Are you implying that Biden should act at the direction or "behest" of all those others you mentioned? Do you realize how that rationalization looks in print?
Are you aware that your description of Biden's actions is exactly the same as the description of Pres. Trump's actions? You may claim Pres. Trump is doing it for personal gain and Biden was doing it for national, (and world?) gain, but the actions seem to be exactly the same - withhold aid until a demand is met.
Then you say you don't know if withholding something, (a loan guarantee), is illegal, but withholding aid is. Was the loan guarantee approved in the same method as the aid package? Or was the loan guarantee solely on Pres. Obama's authority? (a real question - I didn't check it out) Aren't the circumstances and the goal of both the same?
Yet, to you, it was okay for Pres. Obama to do it, but not Pres. Trump? (of course, I am speaking of the action alone) If Ukraine had not fired the guy and the guarantee was withheld would that have been an illegal act by Pres, Obama? Would that be different from the Trump delay of the aid monies?
I agree with you, facts do matter. Are all the facts of the two actions in conflict, or just the ones that justify the validity of one and the criticism of the other?
GA"Do you realize how that rationalization looks in print?" - Actually, no. Especially since it is the truth. Everybody in the West wanted that guy gone, Biden just pulled the trigger for them since it was in our national interest to do so.
I thought I was clear in making what is to me an obvious distinction. Biden "threatened" to withhold "loan guarantees" but did not do so. Trump both threatened and actually withheld appropriated funds without getting permission from Congress to do so. THAT is illegal if he didn't get permission.
The best I can tell, a loan guarantee is treated as appropriated money so, if Obama made good on Biden's threat, Obama would have probably had to secure Congress' permission. But since Obama did not do withhold the guarantee, he needed no permission.
Trump. on the other hand, doesn't bother with Congress, he just does what he wants most of the time.
There is also purpose. Since Biden and Burisma were not under investigation, there was no "personal gain" aspect of it, just national and world security interests.
Since the ONLY so-called corruption that Trump has said he was interested in had to do with getting him elected in 2020 then that was for personal gain and there has been no showing of a national security interest since everything he has claimed has been thoroughly debunked.
Finally, back to Biden - what everyone seems to forget is that Biden had no power to carry out his threat even it were for personal reasons - only Obama could have done that. But in any case, the point is mute since there is no hint of impropriety other than what the Right conjures up in their imagination.
If Trump were truly concerned about Ukrainian corruption, then he should have followed proper channels - 1) threatened to withhold aid such as what Obama/Biden did and 2) failing getting what they want, go to Congress to reauthorize those funds
What still would have had to checked out was whether the threat itself was for national security reasons, as was the case with Obama, or was it for personal gain was it is for Trump.M.E, The differences and distinctions between ObAma and Trump seem quite clear to me.
Me too! One is suave, very PC, always interested in furthering party interests, very willing to run down the US to anyone that will listen and always operated behind a veil of secrecy and spin.
The other is loudmouthed, obnoxious, couldn't care any less about party platforms, openly declares the US is the best in the world and doesn't bother to hide his tracks.That may be true, Wilderness, but one is honest and a patriot and Trump is a crook and a Russian sympathizer. I know which one America needs and I know which one Russia needs (and help win).
"If Trump were truly concerned about Ukrainian corruption, then he should have followed proper channels - 1) threatened to withhold aid such as what Obama/Biden did and 2) failing getting what they want, go to Congress to reauthorize those funds"
1, 1) threatened to withhold aid such as what Obama/Biden did. (Quid pro quo). A favor for a favor...
Trump did not threaten Zelinsky in regard to holding funds, in fact, president Zelinsky claimed to have no knowledge the funds in question were being held up. Trump held up funds without threat and released the funds after discussing and requesting an investigation of the Biden's and CorwdStrike. Trump, was assured by Zelinsky he would investigate as asked. The money was released without an open media threat or any form of publicity before there was any need to accuse anyone of anything... The president has the authority to ask another country to investigate an American citizen that may have committed a crime in their country. It was clear the way Trump handled this matter he was not willing to make a circus of it, as Obama did. The Dem's have stepped up and made a circus of it. A circus that will cost taxpayers money, and our country embarrassment. Because in the end, the circus will leave town with their shabby tents.
Obama/Biden made an open threat on TV... In the end, the prosecutor was fired, the cash was released... Pro quid quo. A favor for cash. You can call it whatever you please. Both presidents had the right to hold funds if they felt there was a corruption problem. It is very clear due to the phone call Trump asked the president of Ukraine to looks into a possible crime. Hunter Biden certainly raised a good cause to be investigated. After his dad became vice president he snagged two lucrative positions on boards of companies that his education or experience would offer any value. He had one value, his dad. These companies both corrupt, and would have much to gain with a route into the White House.Again, the truth must come out.
- There was a 2) to the 1) which you overlook to make your misrepresentation.
- You keep ignoring Ivanka, Jared, and Trump Jr. who actually ARE using their association with Trump to get rich while there is ZERO evidence that Hunter did.
- I don't believe Biden made the threat on TV - he related the story on TV.
- Biden's threat was legally advancing the national security interests while Trump's actually DID withhold aid for illegal personal gain. There has been ZERO evidence presented that what Trump did advanced the national security interest, only rhetoric.
- Ukraine received no cash, we only guaranteed their loan.
- The president DOES NOT have the authority to "hold funds if they felt there was a corruption problem." IF it is done for the personal gain of Trump
- Bursima was never proved to be corrupt, the investigation was over by the time the West was pushing for the corrupt anti-corruption prosecutor removalYou are headed far off track... Our conversation has had no mention of any of these persons. I have no reason to feel the Trump children have broken any laws? They have not been indited for any crimes or do I know of any open investigations into any of them? Perhaps better to stick to the subject.
" You keep ignoring Ivanka, Jared, and Trump Jr. who actually ARE using their association with Trump to get rich while there is ZERO evidence that Hunter did."
Yes, Biden did speak of his threat that he posed of holding 1 million dollars unless a Ukrainian prosecutor was fired.on TV.
Joe Biden's TV interview where he claimed he held 1 million dollars until demands were met.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o&t=4s
Yes, it is legal for the president to put a hold on aid. And is commonly done.
President power to hold aid funds (Yale Journal of International Law)
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi … ntext=yjil
Legal to ask a foreign country to aid in an investigation.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/04/sorry-dem … stigation/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/ … e-offense/Then you don't think Hunter Biden broke any laws either, I assume. Then why is Trump wanting him investigated if he did nothing wrong??
"Legal to ask a foreign country to aid in an investigation." - Again you misrepresent the facts. So again, let me point out:
1. It IS legal to ask for aid in investigating an American civilian IF it is for national security purposes
2. It IS NOT legal to ask for aid in investigating an American civilian IF it is for personal gain purposes.
So which are you trying to prove with your sources? National interest or personal gain - it makes a differenceTrump's children did not sell their name for pay to play... Hopefully, the Biden's are investigated. I could not imagine if one of the Trump children took money from Ukraine, China, and Romania to sit on boards they had absolutely no expertise to offer.
"During a closed-door deposition earlier this week, a senior State Department official Deputy Secretary of State George Kent told House impeachment investigators that he raised ethical concerns about Hunter Biden’s business ties in Ukraine with then-Vice President Joe Biden’s office in 2015, two sources familiar with the deposition confirmed Friday to ABC News, but was ultimately rebuffed.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/diploma … d=66369013
Trump asked Zelinsky to investigate the Bidens. Hunter was no board of a gas company when he had no experience in that field. It would appear Hunter was a channel into the White House... This certainly could pose a security problem. It has been reported that the Biden's is being investigated by the new Ukrainian prosecutor.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politics … index.html
1. It IS legal to ask for aid in investigating an American civilian IF it is for national security purposes. Please read the link.
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi … ntext=yjil"1. It IS legal to ask for aid in investigating an American civilian IF it is for national security purposes. Please read the link. "
If that is all Trump had done, perhaps you would be right. He put conditions on receipt of funds that were already approved by Congress. Extortion is illegal.What I have been able to decipher is that it is not illegal for a president to hold aid money to a foreign country for a given amount of time to return his concerns on the funds for any given reason. He is required to offer his concerns to Congress why he held the funds. Not sure if Trump went through this procedure before holding the funds? I have not been able to find any information if he did.
So, it would appear he abused his power. I think it would be hard to prove extortion in a trial. Due to the fact he released the money before he had results or the actual investigation he requested. Plus the Ukranian is so far claiming at the time of the call they did not know or realize the funds were being held.
I will agree with you this all appears to be a plan to force the President of Ukraine to initiate an investigation into the Biden's by holding funds up. It just seems te scenario will be hard to prove. The president certainly abused his power and this to me is as bad as extortion. It's a cheap ploy and an embarrassment to our country.Wow, that's a big admission from someone usually staunchly behind Trump.
Kudos for an objective and non-partisan point of view.
I spent a lot of time trying to differentiate between extortion and bribery; I am still uncertain if extortion applies, but bribery clearly does. Also, it is a crime to threaten it and a bigger crime if carried out. The "threat" is akin to "attempted" as in attempted murder or attempted robbery. Even though you didn't succeed, you still committed a crime.
Now, I will argue that Trump committed attempted bribery. Bribery has two essential elements: 1) I will pay you this if 2) you give me that. I this case, Trump effectively said "I will give you your $400 million IF you investigate Biden for me.
It makes no difference if the $400 million was already appropriated for Ukraine, Trump took that off the table by putting a hold on it (according to Mulvaney). With the money on hold, Trump could now bribe Zelenskyy with the release of it IF Zelenskyy would do the investigations into the Bidens that Trump wanted.
Zelenskyy was to go on CNN the day (or the next day) when the blowback from the wistleblower story forced Trump to release the $400 million to tell the world that he was going to do Trump's bidding. After Trump announced the release, Zelenskyy canceled the interview (according to Zelenskyy and the interviewer). Therefore, we only ended up "attempted" bribery.Did you spend a lot of time deciding what Hunter Biden did for his board position in a Russian energy company? Is that bribery or extortion or quid pro quo?
Your double standard is very telling.
Everything about Trump is negative and he needs to prove his innocent.I don't care what Hunter Biden did for Burisma. I know you don't believe in a free market where employers and employees can come to a mutually agreed upon employment terms. Strange, I thought conservatives would support Biden trying to get the best deal he can.
You are almost right, most everything about Trump is negative.Face it Scott, they don't care if Trump is corrupt. Why? Because they voted for him and cannot admit they f****d up. Bottom line...
The only people that can’t accept it is you. You can’t believe how a Trump got to be president fair and square. You grab at straws and come up with all kinds of theories and made up crimes to explain it...
The only obvious answer is - Trump is a winner. He is like king Midas.
Keep it up and you will be disappointed again..."Fair and square." Like anything he's ever done is fair and square. Today we learned Trump added Doral to the list of G7 sites even though it wasn't originally considered. With Trump properties losing vast amounts of money he wanted to cash in on the summit.
Even you ought to realize this is a money grab by your hero, Jack.The man gave up his salary to be president.
He donated to many charities...
He is worth Billions...
Do you really think he used the office to make a few bucks on his hotels?
What a joke.
It just show how out of touch with reality you have been all along.
As president of the US, he would stand to make millions like President Obama right now...with his memoirs and his Netflix documentary...and his speeches...probably to Golden Sachs...You don't know if he has billions or owes billions, Jack. You make a claim you can't prove because he refuses to release his tax returns. You're being willfully duped by a lying, arrogant, self centered asshole. But you'll learn more about him in weeks to come.
I believe in free market and capitalism and free enterprise. The problem with Biden is - IT WAS NOT A FREE environment . My son did not have the same opportunity as Hunter. He is more qualified and yet he did not get a board position that gets paid tons of money. The fact you ignore this shows how dishonest you are and how you failed to understand the basics of capitalism and free enterprise. No wonder you support socialism of the Democratic party.
"Trump's children did not sell their name for pay to play." - THEY didn't??
https://fortune.com/2019/01/21/ivanka-t … rademarks/ AND she just got some more from Japan.
I hope they investigate her, Jared, and Jr. they deserve it. Of course, they will probably be in jail once the State of New York gets done investigating and indicting them.
"told House impeachment investigators that he raised ethical concerns about Hunter Biden’s business ties in Ukraine with then-Vice President Joe Biden’s office in 2015, " - YES HE did, I even heard him. BUT, neither DOJ (who under Obama was an independent agency) nor the Republican Congress found any reason to pursue it. Why Not?
"Hunter was no board of a gas company when he had no experience in that field." - and so you think you know better than the free market and Burisma? Also, the Ukrainian's DID investigate and dropped it WELL BEFORE Biden used leverage to get a corrupt prosecutor fired. FACTS MATTER
Couldn't get your Digital link to work.Hi Sharlee. I also hold the opinion that it may be hard to prove that Pres. Trump asked for these investigations of the Bidens purely for personal benefit.
I think it is entirely plausible that he can defend his actions as being in the national interest because there was obvious corruption in UIkraine. But, from what I have seen, and based purely on my perception of the 'facts/details' presented, I have little doubt that Pres. Trump asked this favor for his own personal benefit of hurting Joe Biden's candidacy.
So I ask a simple question: Do you believe Pres. Trump's Ukraine actions were solely for the national interest?
GA"I think it is entirely plausible that he can defend his actions as being in the national interest because there was obvious corruption in Ukraine. "
- THAT of course begs the question, Shar and GA, that if that were true, why did Trump only focus on the debunked Hunter Biden job, the debunked conspiracy theory that Joe Biden did his son a favor, and the debunked 2016 election conspiracy theory interference? Why didn't Trump focus on corruption in general? Why only those three examples that relate directly with his on election?
I think Trump's focus on only those things that help him personally and his ignoring of the broader aspects of Ukraine corruption (which apparently Zelenskyy was starting to do real things about) speaks volumes [u]against[/b] the idea that Trump had national security in mind. (Plus the fact that it is his defenders and not Trump or the White House that is making a cohesive and forceful case for that theory)I am glad you asked me that question. My comments have been solely on how I feel the impeachment battle will proceed to a big nothing... Due to our own laws. I do not think the Dem's will be able to prove .quid pro quo. In my simple opinion, I don't think the president was seeking to follow through with a blackmail scam. I do think he was willing to push the new president to the point of thinking his funds would be held if he did not cooperate in the investigation of the Biden's. It was a cheap scam that backfired on him. Trump played with fire.
I believe Trump did this to get dirt on the Biden's to use in his campaign This dirt along with the Horowitz/Durham investigations. would give him powerful ammunition against the Dem's. Do I think the Biden's worked a pay for play scam, a pathway to the White House, yes I do...
So, do I believe President Trumps Ukraine's actions were solely for the national interest?
This question id hard to answer. In a way, the investigation of the Biden's may serve our National interests. If the Biden's used the office of the Vice Presidency to promote favors for cash it certainly would be beneficial to bring that kind crime into the light. It well appears the Obama administration in 2014 noted Hunters' newfound appointments to foreign companies boards. They did not carry the ball and investigate when this seed was planted.
However, Trump instead of taking a proper pathway a legal path to investigate the Biden's he did not. He chose to clearly abuse his power, and in my opinion, he may have done it for personal reasons to further his chances of winning in 2020. Although on the other hand he also promised to drain the swamp. It well appears the Biden's may have been swamp monsters. It seems we are willing to sweep many crimes under the carpet. Maybe we need to start cleaning under that carpet not adding to our problems by voting in a president with possible crimes hanging over his head.
So, could have Trump had two motives? Perhaps he did. However, to answer your question. I think he had personal motives when asking Zelinsky to investigate the Biden's. He may have also thought in the end he would be pointing out very corrupt behavior that went on during the Obama administration. I find it hard to condemn one without full facts. Hopefully, the impeachment proceedings will uncover the facts. Hopefully he Biden's will be investigated as they should have been in 2014.
Hopefully, I have answered your question. Your question although simple is very complicated, and requires me to condemn without all the facts. So far I think Trump abused his power of the office of the presidency. That is very clear. I will hold judgment on any unknown charges.Shar - " I do not think the Dem's will be able to prove .quid pro quo." - YOU don't think Mulvaney's admission of a quid pro quo is proof enough?
"They did not carry the ball and investigate when this seed was planted." - As I understand it, they did and found nothing. Also, the Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time didn't object either.
Finally, Holmes testimony today (the guy who heard Trump talk to Sondland) should seal the deal based on his opening statement and leaked testimony. He heard Trump ask Sondland if Zelenskyy was going to investigate and Sondland said yes.
Holmes also asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine and Sondland replied something to the effect that Ukraine means nothing to Trump and that "only the big things" do. Asked for clarification, the "big things" were the investigations into the Bidens.In my opinion, it will be very hard to prove quid pro quo as I have said from the get-go. I do think they will concentrate on the abuse of power. It very well appears to be a quid pro quo. It just would be hard to prove due to the means Trump used to initiate it. There were 12 people listening to the call. Trump's team will say there was no intent to present a quid pro quo. Plus it now seems Congress was aware of the funds being held up.
I read the Cnn article on the Holmes testimony. The call was witnessed one day after the Trump/Zelinsky call. So I would think Trump would have asked Sondland if Zelinsky was proceeding with the investigation. The rest is hearsay. It will depend on what Sondland said about the call and the conversation he had or did not have with Holmes. We do not know if Sondland will confirm the information Holmes provided? Even if he does it is very much Sondland giving his opinion on what he thinks Trump thinks of Ukraine. He offers no specifics to Holmes why he feels Trump cares little about Ukraine. In the end, trump has been providing aid and selling Javelin missiles systems to Ukraine since he entered the office. Which it is in the record that Obama did very little in regards to aid, and nothin in regards to defense weapons. It would be hard to say or prove Trump did not care for the people of Ukraine.
"Holmes also asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine and Sondland replied something to the effect that Ukraine means nothing to Trump and that "only the big things" do. Asked for clarification, the "big things" were the investigations into the Bidens."
It is very clear TRump wants the Biden's investigated. He put it out in the call for the 12 that were listed on the call, he was not hiding that fact. This is one reason it will be hard to prove he had alternative motives. Did he have alternative motives, In my opinion after following this mess, yes he did? Will they prove he did, most likely not.
The opinion of what Sondland is just that an opinion. he offers no real examples (as of yet) of an actual quote from Trump to back up his own opinion. We need to keep in mind if this goes to a trail much will be hearsay and not allowed, and if allowed for some reason will still be considered by many as just hearsay.
So far they have nothing that I feel is an impeachable offense or an offense that the Senate would vote to impeach. I will say his tweet yesterday in regards to Marie Yovanovitchha's job performance put a sour taste in many mouths. I consider it the first nail in the coffin, please be aware this is only my opinion.
Yes, you answered the question Sharlee. Thanks. We seem to agree that appearances support what many claim; he did it for personal gain.
GAIt does appear he did it for personal gain. It's so odd he had to have known with so many listening to his call, and knowing about the aid funds being held he would have deliberately chosen to go this route. He seems to be craving more and more attention? Consider his tweet yesterday in regard to Marie Yovanovitch's job performance. So uncalled for. I must admit this is scary...
Trump has spent a lifetime saying and getting what he wants -- first as a spoiled child of a rich man and then being given a company he didn't build.
He has lived 70 years without consequences until now.
That's not a criticism. It's just the way he is.Right...living the American dream...buying off politicians in NYC, including Hillary Clinton when running as Senator, attending his wedding...
He was a great donor before he ran for President, now he is the devil reincarnated...
Go figure. The media had no problem with Trump until he announce he was running...
Hollywood loved this guy with a top rated reality show...
He had cameo appearances on many top movie blockbusters...
Now he is a white racist...
Who are you going to believe? Paul Krugman or Jack Lee?I believe eyewitnesses, U.S. ambassadors, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, our former allies, three Congressional committees, etc.
I especially find that Trump's own comments and tweets do a great job of condemning him.
But if you would rather believe Fox News, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and the Russian Times, that's your right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlYes, that is the beauty of a democratic system. We are free to choose who we believe.
However, there is one caveat.
Those media sources have a record of being right or wrong. The people you sighted have been right about Trump, about the Mueller investigation, and about this phoney impeachment inquiry...
On the other hand, CNN, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC and Washington Post...have been dead wrong.
I am pragmatic. I go with the people who are right not the one that lied...Yes, that is the beauty of a democratic system. We are free to choose who we believe.
However, there is one caveat.
Those media ources have a record of being right or wrong. The people you sighted have been right about Trump, about the Mueller investigation, and about this phoney impeachment inquiry...
On the other hand, CNN, NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC and Washington Post...have been dead wrong.
I am pragmatic. I go with the people who are right not the one that lied...
"he did it for personal gain"
I never thought that I would hear conservative voices, represented by you and Sharlee, ever admit that.
You both are going to give me a heart attack....
Now that that fact is agreed upon, don't you both believe that the President is guilty of abuse of his office, through what had to be either accepting bribes or extortion?I must remind you I never defend his narcissistic personality. I have appreciated his progressive agenda and his job performance. I knew his history in regards to his personality. I also had the opinion he would blow Washington wide open, which he is well on the way of doing. He has accomplished many of his promises, and it appears he is still dedicated to keeping his promises.
However, he is showing the very ugliness that has been going in Washington long before he ran for office. Not sure we were ready for such a large dose of ugly? At this point, I see he is being pushed into a corner. That tells me he will come out biting like a pit bull, as he did with his disrespectful tweet about Marie Yovanovitch's job performance.
I think he could care less at this point about who he takes down with him. I think the next few months will be some of the most controversial months the country has experienced in a very long time. He should concentrate on the job, his agenda. However, it is apparent his personality will not allow that. I predict he well knows what Durham and Horowitz have found, and this shoe will drop, most likely with shocking revelations. One thing about Trump, he seems to always have the last say, the last word.
In my opinion, this is a no-win situation for Dem's or Rep. This is all too sad."I also had the opinion he would blow Washington wide open, which he is well on the way of doing. " - This is what many Trumper's wanted and it seems they are unconcerned about the damage to America that is being done while he is doing that?
I have had an opportunity to talk to some people from overseas lately and they are appalled at what America has turned into. I am serious, they don't think we are any better than a third-world dictatorship because of what Trump has done with the Republicans aiding and abetting him. They seriously worry about the crumbling partnership with Europe and his turn toward Russia, Trump scares the hell out of them because they can no longer count on America to have their back.Sharee, i am not so keen on his "agenda", but I live with him as long as he stays within the confines of lawful behavior as President, in spite of the fact that I do not like what he represents. What happen to the idea that a "leader" takes responsibility for actions of his or her subordinates?
This is a "corner" of his own making. Why would you attempt such a thing as this Ukraine fiasco, when there was so much heat on him and his administration, already? If he did not know better, his advisors should have interceded, but listening and contemplating the results of an action ahead of time is not something he does well, and is a trait I look for from one who would be my leader. Poor judgement, being impulsive and impetuous is the last thing we need from the "leader of the free world".
As I have said for a long time, his personality and temperament is not a fit for the position he holds. He needs to return to New York and resume the role of billionaire mogul, and get his old TV show back."As I have said for a long time, his personality and temperament is not a fit for the position he holds."
At this point, I have to agree with your sentiment. It well appears he is abusing his power. I can also see his agenda is stalled and will remain stalled if he wins four more years. I would think China will slow down negotiations, and North Korea and Iran will hold out for a new president. He has overplayed his hand and will lose some base over his recent actions. He should have stuck to doing a job and kept his personality in check.There are many who voted for Trump who are not the "deplorables" and as his behavior sinks in, it seems to be not good for him. Many people said they were voting for him to take a chance, to shake things up. Well, they took that chance, and things got shook, that's for sure. I also understand how so many felt about voting for Hillary...they just couldn't do it.
Admitting the guy just doesn't have the personality to be President, isn't admitting that you were mistaken on the direction the country needs to go in, or anything of that nature. It is only what it is. It's clear you understand this Sharlee. As more people understand this, more people are likely to jump off the Trump ship.On the other hand, it just may be that people are starting to realize just how corrupt our federal government really is for decades. Trump in his odd way, has exposed them for whom they really are.
How the State department and politicians work hand in hand to bring favors to their family members...
How the intelligence community was being used to investigate and trap Americans and spy on them...
How the media has been working on behave of the Democratic party to affect election outcomes for a long time...
And how they spin stories to protect one party members while attacking the other...the double standard applied.
Finally, we see them as who they really are, just like the HBO show House of Cards, where truth is stranger than fiction and the deep state is alive and well corrupting our democracy at the expense of the public...On the other hand, it just may be that people are starting to realize just how corrupt out federal government really is for decades. Trump in his odd way, has exposed them for whom they really are.
How the State department and politicians work hand in hand to bring favors to their family members...
How the intelligence community was being used to investigate and trap Americans and spy on them...
How the media has been working on behave of the Democratic party to affect election outcomes for a long time...
And how they spin stories to protect one party members while attacking the other...the double standard applied.
Finally, we see them as who they really are, just like the HBO show House of Cards, where truth is stranger than fiction and the deep state is alive and well corruption our democracy.The sure signs of a brainwashed mind is when they truly believe that it is thousands of dedicated civil servants, working in concert with one another, who are lying rather than the PROVEN liar and law-breaker (Trump Foundation he pled guilty to) - Donald J. Trump
You don't see that as silly, Jack? Come out of your alternate reality and join us in the real world.DOH! Jack cannot see the forest for the trees.
Jack is SO brainwashed, he can't even see the trees either. Trump says it, he repeats it with no neural activity in between - that is the only way Trump supporters can support Trump.
AND THAT is why Trump is going to lose; why he is upside down in approval rating in states like GA, AZ, IA, NE, MT, NC, FL, OH and several more.
The FACT IS Trump has not gained any voters (the few brainwashed young people who can vote next year are offset by the rabid Trump supporters who died) while he has lost lots of them in the states that matter. Who has he lost?:
- Many Farmers and their families who went bankrupt because of him
- Democrat who voted for him that care about morality and other things than the economy
- Anybody with a conscience who was conned by his promises
REMEMBER - Trump won by ONLY 80,000 votes (thank you Russians) spread over three states that lean Democratic to begin with.
If the vote were today and based on what each state thinks about him right now, he would lose 394 - 143.
Sharlee: What is the source for your information?
I will be glad to provide my research sources. Which statement would you like a reference? Here are a few I based my opinion on.
Joe Biden's TV interview where he claimed he held 1 million dollars until demands were met.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o&t=4s
President power to hold aid funds (Yale Journal of International Law)
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi … ntext=yjil
Pesidents Phone call transcript
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics … index.html
Legal to ask a foreign country to aid in an investigation.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/04/sorry-dem … stigation/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/ … e-offense/
Opinion
"Hunter Biden certainly raised a good cause to be investigated. After his dad became vice president he snagged two lucrative positions on boards of companies that his education or experience would offer any value. He had one value, his dad. These companies both corrupt, and would have much to gain with a route into the White House."
"Everybody in the West"?
I still don't see the validation. Biden didn't work for the "West." Why do you think that changes things? It was still a quid pro quo, whether it was just for us or for all of the West too.
And your "threatened" point . . . Wouldn't that fall to the it doesn't have to be successful argument similar to an obstruction of justice charge?
However, your "purpose" point is a valid one, but not one I addressed as pertinent to the points of my comment. One of those points being Biden's action was just as much a quid pro quo, (or a bribe in current parlance), as Trump's actions. It is only your purpose point that makes a difference.
And as to Biden having the "power" to carry out his threat . . . wouldn't you think that anyone understanding that Biden was speaking for the president would also think that he had the power, (even if it was secondhand through the president), to back up his threat?
And finally, in the most friendly of picky jibes, (and only because I see so many others make the same mistake), the proper use and spelling is 'moot', as in beside the point, or now irrelevant, not "Mute" as in no sound. ;-)
GANo worries Scott. I would have blamed it on Spellchecker or Grammerly. By the way, I highly recommend Grammerly. Check it out if you are unfamiliar.
GAI used Grammerly when writing my book. I did like it.
Don't lose the impeachment forest for the trees.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics … index.html
As I am always searching for an entry point Mike, your last statement provided a golden one;
"Trump went so far as to get advice from Sean Hannity . . ."
Of course, it is just my biased opinion, but, I think Hannity is an unscrupulous water-carrier and change channels the instant I hear his voice, (along with Ann Colter(sp?)), and to hear that anyone, especially the president, asks his advice is almost unbelievable to me.
GA.
Well, the latest CNN poll about the impeachment has neutral news for Trump supplicants and good news for those who believe in Truth.
OVERALL, there is no change in the top level numbers of who supports impeachment, think Trump did something wrong, or should be impeached.
- NO CHANGE: 50% of Americans think Trump should be impeached while 43% do not.
- NO CHANGE: 47% of Independents think Trump should be impeached while 45% do not.
BIG CHANGE: 61% of Women now support impeaching Trump. up from 56%From the House Intelligence Committee Report on the Trump - Ukraine Affair:
"In his farewell address, President George Washington warned of a moment when 'cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.' ” [ME - and he has emerged as Donald J. Trump]
"The Framers of the Constitution well understood that an individual could one day occupy the Office of the President who would place his personal or political interests above those of the nation. Having just won hard-fought independence from a King with unbridled authority, they were attuned to the dangers of an executive who lacked fealty to the law and the Constitution." [ME - for this occasion, they allowed for Impeachment]
"Alexander Hamilton explained that impeachment was not designed to cover only criminal violations, but also crimes against the American people. “The subjects of its jurisdiction,” Hamilton wrote, “are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. "
"As he [James Wilson, delegate from PA] noted, 'impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.' "
"As this report details, the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. "
The July 25 call is central to the investigation. In this call " In response to President Zelensky’s appreciation for vital U.S. military assistance, which President Trump froze without explanation, President Trump asked for “a favor though”: two specific investigations designed to assist his reelection efforts." [ME - the "freeze" is a separate crime in and of itself]
The report claims "months-long campaign driven by President Trump in which senior U.S. officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Energy, and others were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President. "
"The damage the President has done to our relationship with a key strategic partner will be remedied over time, and Ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support in Congress. But the damage to our system of checks and balances, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the President’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked. "CONTINUED
"Indeed, most of the facts presented in the pages that follow are uncontested. "
"If there was one ill the Founding Founders feared as much as that of an unfit president, it may have been that of excessive factionalism. Although the Framers viewed parties as necessary, they also endeavored to structure the new government in such a way as to minimize the “violence of faction.” ME - Unfortunately, they failed.
"Today, we may be witnessing a collision between the power of a remedy meant to curb presidential misconduct and the power of faction determined to defend against the use of that remedy on a president of the same party."
"As Benjamin Franklin departed the Constitutional Convention, he was asked, “what have we got? A Republic or a Monarchy?” He responded simply: “A Republic, [u]if you can keep it.[/b]” [ME - and we are as close as we have ever been to losing it!CONTINUED 1
" In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to 'get over it.' "
"Shortly before he was patched through to President Zelenskyy, President Trump spoke with Gordon Sondland. Ambassador Sondland had relayed a message to President Zelenskyy six days earlier that “assurances to run a fully transparent investigation” and “turn over every stone” were necessary in his call with President Trump. Ambassador Sondland understood these phrases to refer to two investigations politically beneficial to the President’s reelection campaign: one into former Vice
President Joe Biden and a Ukrainian gas company called Burisma, on which his son sat on the board, and the other into a discredited conspiracy theory alleging that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election."
"Despite the falsehoods [about the Bidens and election interference], Ambassador Sondland would make it clear to Ukrainian officials that the public announcement of these investigations was a prerequisite for the coveted White House meeting with President Trump, an effort that would help the President’s reelection campaign."
"The White House meeting was not the only official act that President Trump conditioned on the announcement of these investigations. Several weeks before his phone call with President Zelenskyy, President Trump ordered a hold on nearly $400 million of congressionally-" [and didn't tell Congress which violates the Impoundment Control Act]
"President Zelenskyy promised that he would “work on the investigation of the case.” Later in the call, he thanked President Trump for his invitation to join him at the White House, following up immediately with a comment that, “[o]n the other hand,” he would “ensure” that Ukraine pursued “the investigation” that President Trump had requested."CONTINUED 2
"The record of the call would help explain for those involved in Ukraine policy in the U.S.government, the Congress, and the public why President Trump, his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani, his hand-picked appointees in charge of Ukraine issues, and various senior Administration officials should go to great lengths to withhold a coveted White House meeting
and critical military aid from Ukraine at a time when it served as a bulwark against Russian aggression in Europe.
The answer was as simple as it was inimical to our national security and election integrity: the President was withholding officials acts while soliciting something of value to his reelection campaign—an investigation into his political rival."
"On April 24, 2019, President Donald Trump abruptly called back to Washington the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch, after a ruthless smear campaign [Abuse of Power] was waged against her. She was known throughout Ukraine and among her peers for aggressively advocating for anti-corruption reforms consistent with U.S. foreign policy and only recently had been asked to extend her stay in Ukraine. "
"The attacks against Ambassador Yovanovitch were amplified by prominent, close allies of President Trump, including Mr. Giuliani and his associates, Sean Hannity, and Donald Trump Jr. President Trump tweeted the smears himself just a month before he recalled the Ambassador from Ukraine. "
"Following a ceremony in which she presented an award of courage to the family of a
young female anti-corruption activist killed in Ukraine for her work, Ambassador Yovanovitch received an urgent call from the State Department regarding her “security,” and imploring her to take the first plane back to Washington. When she arrived, she was informed that she had done nothing wrong, but that the President had lost confidence in her. She was told to leave her post as soon as possible."
Donald Trump has been impeached!
He is the ONLY first-term president ever to have been impeached!
He is only the SECOND elected president ever to have impeached!! (Johnson was not elected)"As the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday, he addressed a rally in Michigan and said, "By the way, it doesn't really feel like we're being impeached." In that moment, the difference between Trump and former Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton became starkly clear." - SAYS David Gergen, counsolor to four presidents, Democratic and Republican.
He Goes On:
"More to the point, both Clinton and Nixon were contrite and accepted responsibility for their behavior. Nixon, for one, resigned and said, "I regret deeply any injuries that may have been done in the course of the events that led to this decision. I would say only that if some of my judgments were wrong, and some were wrong, they were made in what I believed at the time to be the best interest of the nation." After Clinton was acquitted, he issued a public apology and went back to work, putting his grudges behind him."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/opinions … index.htmlMeanwhile Psychiatric experts are pointing to TraitorTrump's dangerous mental illness - https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/psychi … mpairment/
Another Obama Legacy Trump is bent on Destroying and hurting America in the process.
Terrorist organizations, including ISIS have been rapidly expanding in West Africa. President Bush recognizes this and established Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008. Obama expanded the operation and, among many things, established major drone base in Niger in 2016 and deployed 7,000 troops across Africa.
Trump is, like in Syria, turning Africa over to the terrorists and our enemies like Russia and China and withdrawing from the "shithole" continent. (I bet he even said those exact words). His view is "if they can't pay for it, F--k them"; who cares if ISIS takes over Africa?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/25/opinions … index.htmlFor you POLL watchers out there, here is a handy little guide of who to trust and who not to trust:
'A' Rated Polls:
* Survey USA - bias: D - 0.1
* Marist College - bias: R - 0.2
* Emerson College - no bias
'B' Rated Polls:
* Mason Dixon - bias: R - 0.7
* Public Policy Poll - bias: D - 0.3
* YouGov - bias: D - 0.4
* American Research Group - bias: R - 0.3
* Quinnipiac - bias: D - 0.2
'C' Rated Polls:
* Rasmussen Reports - bias R - 1.5
* Zogby Interactive - bias: R - 0.8
* Harris Insights - bias: R - 1.3
'D and F' Rated Polls:
* Research 2000 - bias: D - 1.4
* Survey Monkey - bias: D - 1.5
* TJC Research - bias R - 4.5
* Strategic Vision - bias R - 1.6
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/I am guessing the TraitorTrump supplicants are dancing with Joy that Trump just declared WAR on Iran by assassinating one of the highest ranking member of Iran's gov't. Sort of like if Iran had assassinated Mike Espy.
Now all Americans must leave Iraq (and probably the rest of the Middle East) because they just became active targets.
Oh, then there is the fact that Trump threw out the Constitution (AGAIN) by not getting Congressional approval to assassinate an Iranian gov't official thereby starting a war.
Pompeo SAYS it was to disrupt an "imminent attack". If Gen Mattis had said this, I would believe it without question. But because a Trump supplicant said it, I must wait for verification from our intelligence community.
BTW - Am not saying the terrorists Trump ordered killed didn't deserve to die, they did; but it is the innocent Americans that will die because of his actions that don't deserve it.Mike Espy.? And how many people is he responsible for killing? This is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. Are you attempting to make a hero out of a Murderer? I must point out that President Trump has not declared WAR on anyone. This is once again something you believe that holds no truth. Trump just last week drew a redline, stating if Iran chooses to kill American's we would respond. As he did yesterday.
Yes, he has ordered that American's leave Iraq for there safety This certainly is a wise move. Iran has no other retaliation but.terrerisum. And it's time to stop this kind of threat. I realize many hope to keep the status quo. Letting the threat live on and grow, instead of solving the problem.
.The president made a decision to act, why would he ask a Congress that is clearly biased, and ineffective. He ordered a defensive move, and he had the authority to act due to this man's plan to kill American's. He was within his rights.
Pompeo's statement was clear. there was a threat to Americans across the Middle East. I suggest you listen to his statement. Pompeo is a distinguished man as well as a patriot. I am not sure how you have the nerve to question his ability or his patriotism? This shows a lack of respect, and I must add very shallow opinion.
" am not saying the terrorists Trump ordered killed didn't deserve to die, they did; but it is the innocent Americans that will die because of his actions that don't deserve it."
You are predicting once again, sort of like when you predicted the market crash when President Trump took office. One would think you would learn from your mistakes? Perhaps you wait until we see how this all plays out. As a rule, you scream fire! And we never see even smoke...
It well appears you thrive on hysteria. Why not just accept Trump is a president that makes every attempt to solve problems not sweep them under a rug.
I hate t bring in Obama... However, when he killed Osama bin Laden he did not inform Congress until after the deed was done.
"Four White House lawyers worked under intense security measures to deal with all possible outcomes of the 2011 operation, allowing the US to send soldiers into Pakistan without its consent, delay telling Congress, kill the al-Qaeda leader and bury him at sea."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 14751.htmlCome on Shar, put your thinking cap on and consider what I was comparing. To make it simple for you and make it more direct.
When Trump assassinated the 2nd most powerful person in Iraq, he declared war. If Iran assassinated Mike Espy, that would be a declaration of war as well.
Is the comparison clear now? Or are you of the opinion that American can go killing whomever Trump likes in Iran and he wouldn't be making war on them?
"I realize many hope to keep the status quo. Letting the threat live on and grow, instead of solving the problem." - And of course you are willing to send your kids to Iraq or Iran to fight this war Trump just started.
On the stock market crash, you are right, I underestimated the power of the tax giveaway Trump promised and delivered at the cost of skyrocketing deficits and debt.
I accept Trump is, unfortunately, President. I also know he is unfit for the job so we will have to continue suffering until he is gone.
Osama bin Laden was NOT the second most powerful person in a nations government. In any case, he had prior authorization and didn't need to inform Congress.Trump has not declared war on anyone. You were crying a few weeks ago that he pulled troops out of Syria.
"And of course you are willing to send your kids to Iraq or Iran to fight this war Trump just started."
You were more than willing to leave "our kids" in Syria. Your logic is hypocritical.
Trump does not appear to be a president that would not keep his word in regards to the redline he drew last week... Warning Iran not to kill American's. And I expect he will handle Iran if it becomes necessary. And I trust it will be swift and sufficient to solve the Iran problem.
I am proud of Trump's quick swift retribution.
Stock market crash? Good day to buy-in. Let's have a look-see on Monday... LOL
"Osama bin Laden was NOT the second most powerful person in a nations government. In any case, he had prior authorization and didn't need to inform Congress."
Neither did Trump!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … -soleimani
It was you that claimed Trump did not have the right to order the military strike on a known terrorist.
"Oh, then there is the fact that Trump threw out the Constitution (AGAIN) by not getting Congressional approval to assassinate an Iranian gov't official thereby starting a war."
No, Obama did not have the authorization to kill Osama bin Laden. He did not consult Congress, he did the exact same thing Trump did. Are you saying what Obama did is in some respect acceptable, and Trump's action was not?
It's very obvious something is wrong with you, your opinions are just so bazaar, and it seems you don't even remember your own posts? Your opinions are clearly hypocritical. Not to mention odd?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin … -soleimaniUse your head and eyes, since I said once already, Shar. Assassinating a senior leader of a country is, by definition, declaring war.
As to Syria, I don't throwing your allies to their death is a good thing. You might, but I don't.
"No, Obama did not have the authorization to kill Osama bin Laden. " - Get smart Shar, Obama had the same authorization Bush did.
""Osama bin Laden was NOT the second most powerful person in a nations government. " - WHY do you Purposfully mix things up, Shar? I was talking Solomeina. I can't believe you think Trump killed Osama bin Laden. LOL.
The Manufacturing Index (PMI) has fallen to 47.2, the 5th straight month of contraction. It is now at its lowest level since June 2009
I thought I would publish some excerpts from the Prosecution's Brief that was submitted today. The defense submitted one as well, but they don't dispute the facts; they just say that what Trump did was not illegal.
- Article 1 - "President Trump abused the power of his office by pressuring the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election for his own benefit. In order to pressure the recently elected Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to announce investigations that would advance President Trump’s political interests and his 2020 reelection bid, the President exercised his official power to withhold from Ukraine critical U.S. government support—$391 million of vital military aid and a coveted White House meeting.
FACTS:
1. During a July 25, 2019 phone call, after President Zelenskyy expressed gratitude to President Trump for American military assistance, President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelenskyy to “do us a favor though.”3 The “favor” he sought was for Ukraine to publicly
announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political prospects.4 One investigation concerned former Vice President Joseph Biden, Jr.—a political rival in the upcoming 2020 election—and the false claim that, in seeking the removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor four years earlier, then-Vice President Biden had acted to protect a company where his son was a board member.5
The second investigation concerned a debunked conspiracy theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 Presidential election to aid President Trump, but instead that Ukraine interfered in that election to aid President Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.6"
"Although these theories were groundless, President Trump sought a public announcement by Ukraine of investigations into them in order to help his 2020 reelection campaign.10 An announcement of a Ukrainian investigation into one of his key political rivals would be enormously
valuable to President Trump in his efforts to win reelection in 2020—just as the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails had helped him in 2016. "
"The President’s own National Security Advisor characterized the efforts to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations in exchange for official acts as a “drug deal.”12" --sworn testimony Circumstantial Evidence
"His Acting Chief of Staff candidly confessed that President Trump’s decision to withhold security assistance was tied to his desire for an investigation into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election, stated that there “is going to be political influence in foreign policy,” and told the American people to “get over it.”13 " - video direct evidence
Speaking of the Trump-Giuliani-Sondland effort to get dirt on Biden "Another one of President Trump’s key national security advisors testified that the agents pursuing the President’s bidding were “involved in a domestic political errand,” not national security policy.14 " - sworn testimony from a subject area expert Strong circumstantial evidence
"And, immediately after speaking to President Trump by phone about the investigations, one of President Trump’s ambassadors involved in carrying out the President’s agenda in Ukraine said that President Trump “did not give a [expletive] about Ukraine,” and instead cared only about
“big stuff” that benefited him personally, like “the Biden investigation.”15 " first hand sworn testimony Direct evidence.
"Mr. Giuliani repeatedly and publicly emphasized that he was not engaged in foreign policy but was instead seeking a personal benefit for his client, Donald Trump.17" public record Direct Evidence
"Every relevant Executive Branch agency agreed that continued American support for Ukraine was in America’s national security interests, but President Trump ignored that view and personally ordered the assistance held back, even after serious concerns—now confirmed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)20—were raised within his Administration about the legality of withholding funding that Congress had already appropriated.21" - email evidence Direct and circumstantial evidence.""Although these theories were groundless..."
Umm. Won't we need a multi year, 50 million dollar investigation to find out if they're groundless? Or is the opinion of high ranking Democrats, without ever looking, sufficient to make that determination?Nope, they have plenty of evidence now with more coming in daily.
CONTINUED
FACTS
"In this case, an Oval Office meeting with President Trump was critical to the newly elected Ukrainian President because it would signal to Russia—which had invaded Ukraine in 2014 and still occupied Ukrainian territory—that Ukraine could count on American support. That meeting still has not occurred, even though President Trump has met with over a dozen world leaders at the White House since President Zelensky’s election—including an Oval Office meeting with Russia’s top diplomat."
"President Trump’s solicitation of foreign interference in our elections [bribery] to secure his own political success is precisely why the Framers of our Constitution provided Congress with the power to impeach a corrupt President and remove him from office. One of the Founding generation’s principal fears was that foreign governments would seek to manipulate American elections—the defining feature of our self-government. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams warned of “foreign
Interference, Intrigue, Influence” and predicted that, “as often as Elections happen, the danger of foreign Influence recurs.” The Framers therefore would have considered a President’s attempt to corrupt America’s democratic processes by demanding political favors from foreign powers to be a singularly pernicious act.
"President Trump obstructed Congress by undertaking an unprecedented campaign to prevent House Committees from investigating his misconduct. " ... If the President could both avoid accountability under the criminal laws and preclude an effective impeachment investigation, he would truly be above the law."As is common with your "facts", they are nothing of the sort: instead they are opinions based on a hatred of the President.
"The “favor” he sought was for Ukraine to publicly
announce two investigations that President Trump believed would improve his domestic political prospects.
This is your opinion, not a fact. You need to work on understanding the difference.The body of evidence turns that "opinion" into FACT. Also LOGIC points to that conclusion as well.
- The ONLY thing Trump wanted was investigations into his most likely political opponent in the 2020 election and the view that his 2016 election was not legitimate (given he was giving aid and comfort to our enemy Russia, I consider that Treason)
- There was NO connection made between investigating Biden and Ukrainian corruption
- There was NO mention of corruption whatsoever
- Smearing Biden would help Trump's election just like smearing Clinton did in 2016.
- Smearing Biden might cause Biden not to be nominated
- Smearing Biden has no other practical use.
The only logical conclusion is that Trump wanted to smear Biden in order to help himself win in 2020 - there is zero other alternatives.
OH Yeah, over 70% of American share that "opinion".I have to ask...
"The only logical conclusion is that Trump wanted to smear Biden in order to help himself win in 2020 - there is zero other alternatives."
Why the hell would you think Trump would need help to beat anyone of the Dem candidates. He will win in 2020 even with all this crazy BS that the Dems have thrown at him. In fact, the Dems have done nothing but give Trump a bigger forum to get his accomplishments out to American's.
With all of this crazy, he is a shoe-in. Thanks, DemsBecause he is paranoid maybe?
Because virtually every poll in every state polled has Biden beating Trump - handily in most cases. (remember, Trump lives and dies by polls)
That is why the hell why.
I have already shown you that most women will not vote for him again that voted for him the first time. You are one of the rare ones.
Trump can't win without the support of women and most women can't stand him."remember, Trump lives and dies by polls"
Yes, he certainly died by the polls in 2016, didn't he?
"The only logical conclusion is that Trump wanted to smear Biden in order to help himself win in 2020 - there is zero other alternatives."
I have to ask... Why would you even think Trump would need help to beat Biden or any of the candidates in 2020?
Even with all the crazy BS the Dems have thrown at him from the moment he walked into the WH he is still a shoe-in. In fact, the Dems have helped him by offering him a bigger forum to get all his accomplishments out to the voting public. Plus a new chant --- "lock him up" it's just a matter of time before his crowds will be coining that phrase.
Just a hint --- You can thank your party for Trump, and his pending win in 2020. One would think you would have realized that? Trump needs no help in 2020, the Dems have given him a ton of assistance.
Wonder why they just did not spend their time finding a great candidate?Sharlee: "Just a hint --- You can thank your party for Trump, and his pending win in 2020. One would think you would have realized that? Trump needs no help in 2020, the Dems have given him a ton of assistance.
Wonder why they just did not spend their time finding a great candidate?"
I hate to go back to square one. Trump was impeached by the house because he violated his oath of office by not defending the constitution.
If he doesn't need help in 2020, why did he ask Guilanni and Zelinsky to find dirt on the Biden's? Why did he withhold the money to the Ukraine and then release it as soon as the whistle blower released his transcript? Why did he obstruct congress once he found out he was going to be impeached by the house?
The house impeached him because they don't want future presidents to do what he did? They have an obligation to do that as they are the overseers of the other two branches of the government. The Senate could care less because they are afraid of Trump and their jobs. It's not because they think he is innocent.
As I said before, the highest authorities in the land are corrupt, that includes Trump, Barr, Pompeo, Guilianni, et al. He is doing what he has always done when he is under attack. He hires high- powered lawyers to defend him and then he usually settles out of court.
He will not be impeached by the senate, but hopefully we can vote him out of office. Remember, Hillary won the popular vote. Trump won by rallying the electoral college states that yield the 270 votes with the least amount of voters. In my opinion, the electoral college is corrupt in itself when they can use faithless voters to swing the vote. That is now under SCOTUS scrutiny.To be polite, and keep the piece, I must state I just don't agree with the opinion you have expressed in this comment. At this point It would seem very repetitious to keep defending my view.
In regards to the electoral votes
"Ultimately, Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton 227, as two faithless electors defected from Trump and five defected from Clinton. "
In my opinion, he will do better this the next election."I hate to go back to square one. Trump was impeached by the house because he violated his oath of office by not defending the constitution. "
LOL Trump was impeached by the Democrats of the House (and ONLY the Democrats - not a single Republican voted to impeach) because they cannot win in 2020 without removing him from the race. That will shortly be shown when the Senate laughs at their charges and throws them in the gutter where they belong.
"In my opinion, the electoral college is corrupt in itself when they can use faithless voters to swing the vote. That is now under SCOTUS scrutiny."
Your opinion is worthless as there is no requirement for the EC to vote as the people do - we all saw the cries of liberals that Electors ignore their conscience and vote Clinton. Nevertheless, they generally do follow the will of the people. That 3 more defected from Clinton than from Trump had zero effect on the election.Wilderness: I agree, they will throw the charges in the gutter, but not because they are wrong, it is because they and you are afraid of the truth.
It's interesting that Trump's lawyer, Dershorwitz, is now saying that from a legal standpoint, Trump did nothing illegal. However, from McConnell's viewpoint, the trial is not about legal process, it is about political process.
And yet, during the Clinton trial, you have Dershorwitz saying that you don't need a legal basis to impeach a president, buy now he and Trump's team is saying you do. It's funny how lots of money can change a lawyer's view point.
So, is this trial based on legal process or political process? Trump knows he violated the constitution and that is why he never came forward, never allowed prime witnesses, and never allowed any documentation as evidence. Why would an innocent person do that?
The charade isn't from the dems, it is from the GOP senate, Trump, and his lawyers.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBZ9D32?m=en-us&a … InAppShare"I agree, they will throw the charges in the gutter, but not because they are wrong, it is because they and you are afraid of the truth. "
Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion, isn't it? We'll just have to see what the 100 Senators have to say about it; we've seen what the Republicans of the House had to say already.
Dershorwitz is 100% correct; the impeachment is a political move, not a legal one (not meaning it is illegal, just that law is not involved)
"Why would an innocent person do that? "
As I've said a thousand times in these forums, ignorance of an answer (that you wish to hear) does not give the right to draw any conclusion desired, OR to simply make one up that pleases you. Whether it is "Is there a God" or "Is Trump guilty" makes no difference; you cannot simply make something up that you want to be true. Not and expect reasoning people to agree, anyway - you can certainly say anything you wish, true or not.
Nevertheless, I'll give you an answer to your question. No sane person, after watching the fiasco of the witch hunt into Trump's alleged collusion with Putin to fix the last election, would give the House the time of day, let alone something new they can chase for more years in a fruitless search to harm their political opponent.
The only real question is how many more times House Democrats will try to remove their primary opponent from the White House over the next 5 years.The problem you have Wilderness is that Trump has no choice but to comply with the House subpoenas unless he makes specific challenges in court (of which 90 to 95% of previous tries, failed)
I see. Which is why he and his cohorts have promptly complied with all of them; because he has no choice.
Do you have any idea what the term "fact" means, Eso?
I suspect the prosecution will use Dershowitz's previous position that the articles do not need to include a real crime to discredit his current defense that is does.
I mean it is a stupid argument on his part. Back when the impeachment clause was written, there were no statutory "crimes" on the books, so it would be impossible for the framers to consider specific crimes. Further, and more important, they based High Crimes and Misdemeanors off of England's use of that phrase which clearly did include "non-crimes" in its application.
Now I know the Trumplicans don't care about the truth, they just want a rigged trial that will insure a guilty man gets off and we make this country look and act like Russia.
I do agree that Impeachment is a political process which is why no statutory crime needs to be stated. As it turns out, and imagine the prosecutors will go here, Bribery is an included offense of Abuse of Power.
It is a good thing this isn't a legal trial because when the defense claims Trump didn't get due process during the House impeachment process, the will be perjuring themselves and subject to disbarment and jail time."Now I know the Trumplicans don't care about the truth, they just want a rigged trial that will insure a guilty man gets off and we make this country look and act like Russia."
Now that's just another flat out lie (assuming that "trumplican" means anyone not on the bandwagon with you): they all want a completely fair trial. The house, through it's actions, defined what "fair" is; let's keep it that way.There is Graham who claimed he "would not be a fair juror"
There is McConnell who said he is coordinating the trial with the White House
There is McConnell who just released the draft rules which rig the trial.
Is that enough for you?
https://www.axios.com/lindsey-graham-se … 09dbd.html
No, Trumplicans are like you, Graham, McConnell, Brasso, Scott - those that bend over and do Trump's bidding. Who isn't a Trumplican? Collins, Murkowske, Romney, Sasse, and a couple of others."There is McConnell who just released the draft rules which rig the trial."
That's what I said: the Senate will use the same rules the House did. Pelosi set the rules and allowed only what she wanted to hear, what she thought would provide a guilty verdict. The senate should, out of fairness, allow what they want to hear, what they think will provide an innocent verdict.
Fair, right? Exactly as Pelosi set it up.You are making things up again Wilderness. The House followed the same rules the Republicans have used in the past and more.
- They let the Trumplicans and Republicans participate (and try to make a circus of) in every committee hearing. (Some Trumplicans deny that)
- They let the Trumplicans and Republicans ask any LEGAL question they wanted (the only think off-limits was the whistleblower's identity - some Trumplicans deny that)
- This is new I think; they asked Trump and his lawyers to participate in the Judiciary hearing - HE REFUSED
The defense is never allowed to participate in what is effectively a grand jury type investigatory proceeding, yet the Democrats allowed it (are required to actually) and the defendant is never asked to participate personally, yet the Democrats invited Trump - WHO REFUSED.
Now, according to the defense brief, the Trump lawyers are going to perjure themselves by trying to claim Trump didn't get due process.As the House impeachment was not a court of law, there WERE no "illegal" questions. Instead, there were lots of questions, and witnesses, that the Dem's did not want to hear, and that the Republicans were barred from.
This is the FACT of the matter, whether it agrees with your spin or not."Instead, there were lots of questions, and witnesses, that the Dem's did not want to hear, and that the Republicans were barred from." - LOTS???? Give me a break and be honest, Wilderness.
There was only ONE area out of bounds and that was anything that would lead to the identity of the whistleblower. That is it and the Chairman and a legal obligation to follow the law that protects his identity.So? How many witnesses were the Republicans allowed to call, and what was the process for doing so?
And how many were denied? What was the procedure for getting a Republican witness into the show (you forgot to describe that)?
There is Graham who claimed he "would not be a fair juror"
There is McConnell who said he is coordinating the trial with the White House
There is McConnell who just released the draft rules which rig the trial.
Is that enough for you?
https://www.axios.com/lindsey-graham-se … 09dbd.htmlThe House let the Republicans ask (and got) relevant witnesses.
The House asked Trump to participate in the Judiciary Committee hearing (you don't let the accused be part of the investigation) and he declined.Last I heard no Republican got to call a single witness.
But if what you're saying is true, they were allowed to call witnesses...that the Democrats approved of. That is what "relevant" means, right? Only those the Democrats wanted to hear?
So...let that be the definition of "fair", and Democrats can call all the witnesses they want. As long as it is pre-agreed that they will only provide evidence of innocence. Fair.
The ONLY reason Republicans didn't vote for impeachment is because Trump threatened to cut their nuts off if they did. That is the kind of guy he is.
Sorry PeoplePower but our founding fathers were counting on "faithless" electors to be independent in order to keep things honest. They did not want political parties influencing the election of a president. Their system was quickly corrupted by the parties.Is that first paragraph just more sarcasm, or do you mean it to be true? Judging by other comments, you could well mean it as factual.
"Trump needs no help in 2020, the Dems have given him a ton of assistance." TOO BAD for you, you have no data to back up that opinion.
Of course it turns opinion in to FACT...in YOUR mind, using YOUR "logic". The only difference between us is that I understand the difference between FACT and opinion; you don't seem able to distinguish them when it comes to finding fault with Trump.
Just like considering that speaking to Russia was Treason; you know the definition as well as I do, and there was nothing even resembling Treason, yet you will call your opinion FACT.
Just as stating there was no connection between investigating Biden and Ukrainian corruption, when you have zero to base that on without an investigation. Opinion, then, not FACT.
Smearing (finding corruption) with Biden has no use...to YOU, and therefore no other practical use...any more than finding criminal activity from Al Capone would. Opinion, then, not FACT.
Not that it would matter if 100% of Americans share your opinion, but even stating that 70% do is opinion, not FACT.
You just don't seem able to distinguish the two.The latest poll has 51% of Americans (48% of Independents) wanting Trump removed from office. Most impressive is that is UP from 36% a few months ago - people are getting smarter.
58% said he Abused his Power
57% said he Obstructed Congress
69% said there should be witnesses
59% of women want Trump removed from office for your benefit Shar
86% of blacks want Trump removed from office
65% of Hispanics want Trump removed from office
You know who doesn't want him removed? Trumplicans."Smearing", in case you didn't know, is saying there is corruption when there isn't any. It was established a long time ago by Republicans that there was no corruption. Consequently, Trump is just making it up.
OK smart guy, show me where in either of the calls, or anywhere else in the public domain, where Trump establishes there is a "connection between investigating Biden and Ukrainian corruption"
By not doing so, you are admitting you are wrong and I am right.
It makes me wonder what the Dem party has on the back burner when this impeachment fails? I have to say they have no problem moving on quickly after making fools of themselves. As do their followers. One would think Democrats would start demanding more from their party?
As it stands the prosecutors brief had nothing of factual evidence. It holds the same opinionated allegations they push in the media.
Trump's team has the constitution as well as the law on their side. It's so simple, you must stop assuming hearsay will cut it against our Constitution.
Trump will be exonerated in the Senate.An area of obstruction that I hadn't considered is the Intel Community.
Trump has politicized DOJ
Trump has politicized State
Trump has politicized DOD
Trump has tried to politicize the FBI
I had forgotten that with his last appointment, he has politicized the Intelligence Community to such a point that they are now hiding information from America as well.
Dictatorship, here we come. I hope you will be happy with living in a Russian state.If you don't think the Democrats have "politicized" the FBI you really, really need to go back and review their actions. Just as they "politicized" the IRS.
I figured you would project like that, Wilderness. But, as a matter of fact, before Trump, neither party politicized any of those organizations for a very long time. I think just after Lincoln with Andrew Johnson was the last time that was tried. That was why he was impeached. They had to bribe a Senator to stop him from being convicted, as it turns out.
It took a dictator wanna-be to do it because that is how dictators become dictators. Just ask Putin (who has probably given Trump his playbook).We get to see the Republican Senators cover up for Trump, Scott. They're terrified of Bolton and Mulvaney testifying, but no matter what they said, how guilty Trump appears, they are more afraid of him than the American public. I hope they enjoy their part of American history.
Well, Moscow Mitch officially did it, he pulled a Putin and is covering up Trump's crime by rigging the Senate trial with his draft resolutions. He won't even let the prosecutors introduce the evidence the House collected, let alone any new things. The man is simply unAmerican.
I suspect Schumer will submit amendments that will strip that and other horrible things out of the Resolution and will argue that the voters of Maine, Colorado, Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, Utah, and similar states with Senators up for vote will be watching closely to whether their Senator follows the Constitution or follows Trump.
Americans, not Trumplicans, have always shown they come down on the side of fairness and when they see their Senator toss that ethic into the garbage can, they will seek revenge at the ballot box.The 111 page Trump defense starts off with an entirely false and illogical premise - that their were statutory laws existing before the United States ever came into being.
They claim "By limiting impeachment to cases of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,”1 the Framers restricted impeachment to specific offenses against “already known and established law.”
Here is the problem - there were no known or established laws created under the Constitution at the time the impeachment clause was written!!! They were referring to the English use and application of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" and that clearly included, as Alan Dershowitz once said, non-technical crimes.
I knew that Trump was dumb, but not this dumb.
ON Obstruction of Congress they state -
"The Framers restricted impeachment to reach only egregious conduct that endangers the Constitution."
What do you think ignoring Congress entirely is??
If Trump gets away with this then Congress might as well stay home and let the president enact laws by EO, as Trump has done. Since he or she can ignore anything Congress wants, why bother. Since the president can do anything he wants, whether it is criminal or not, why bother with laws they have to follow because they can get away with breaking them - just like in any third world nation.
They will go down in history as infamous as the Senator that let Andrew Johnson off the hook. It took a bribe to do that, history shows. I don't think Trump bribed these guys (who knows, it is his style) but he has threatened to figuratively (I have to put that in there for Wilderness' benefit so he doesn't get confused) cut their nuts off.
"who knows, it is his style"
More opinion stated as fact, or do you have proof of previous bribes? A conviction somewhere, maybe with jail time?How did I state any of that as "fact". You are making things up again.
Odd. How do you account for the IRS going after only right leaning non-profits then? Was it because all conservatives outfits are criminals?
I can't, because they didn't ONLY go after right-leaning groups. They went after the few left-leaning groups that made the same false applications.
But if you have 100 right-wing groups trying to abuse the system and only 3 left-leaning ones, wouldn't you expect more right-wing ones to be inspected. Now I don't remember what the real numbers were, but it was extremely lop-sided. So the whining about just the right-wing being picked on is simply BS.
It's time for Mitch to call for a vote to dismiss the articles due to lack of the House proving their case. Not to mention the fact that they never should have offered these articles to the Senate. The articles do not meet the Constitution's explanation of high crimes and misdemeanors. Enough is enough.
Yep, the same attorney who helped get OJ off is doing the same in this case. All the GOP needs to dismiss the case is any kind of excuse.
I predict the outcome from Trump's escaping from being made to pay for his crimes will be similar to what happened to OJ after his aquittal. Trump will scrtew up even worse next time.Unlike OJ, Trump's problems are already in the works. There are at least 6 state and federal investigations into him and his kids, all of which could land him in jail, where he belongs.
Could you add a resource to back this allegation? Six states... Please list those states as well as what the president is being investigated for.
Have you looked at how many "investigations" the 5 of them have seen in any given period in the last 10 years or so? How does it compare to the 6 they are in now?
Pure guesswork, but I'd have to think that 6 is not an unusual figure for such a group of people with such far-flung business interests.Wilderness and Sharlee: You want to talk privilege and nepotism. Jarred and Invanka are both senior advisors to Trump. Neither have ever held a political office or I venture to say are knowledgeable enough about geopolitical issues to advise their way out of a paper bag. It's just that daddy trusts them.
They both applied for secret clearance and were rejected by the clearing agency. So what does daddy do? He gives them both top secret clearances so they have access to the highest level of secrecy of the United States Government in any world wide geopolitical situation daddy wants them to be in.
I was cleared for a secret clearance with crypto access and the clearing agency went to Italy to interview my relatives for character references. And even at that, I worked with the National Security Agency and they only gave me access to stuff I could prove that I had a need to know.
Let's talk about Biden's son. He was on the board of directors of Burisma. How many board of directors do you know who are knowledgeable of the day to day workings of the company? All it takes is big bucks and a buy in vote by the other board members.
It just so happens, his daddy was Vice President at the time and was investigating the Burisma for corruption as ordered by Obama. Aid was held up for the Ukraine until the corruption was removed.
And this all happened before Hunter was even working for Burisma and Trump was even president. It was not for personal gain of election advantage like what Trump and his cohorts did."Neither have ever held a political office"
Neither has Trump. Your point?The point is that neither would have gotten those positions without influence from their father who works in government. On one hand, there are calls in investigate nepotism with the Bidens, but then ignore the nepotism of the Trumps.
No, the point is that one was hired on the board of directors, in a for-profit business, without having any significant experience in business and the other was hired in a political position, for which no experience is necessary, as plainly shown by the President's hiring by the people.
You're trying to say the two are identical but they are not.
"Nepotism" is not defined as Dad getting son a job in a business he has not stake in.
nepotism
[ˈnepəˌtizəm]
NOUN
the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.
Biden did not give his son a job; he (may have) forced an unrelated business to do so through the use of political power. Trump's children could be the result of nepotism, though.
TRUMP'S LIES DURING THE 2020 STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH.
First things first - why did he have to award the highest civilian honor, the Freedom Medal, there is to the misogynistic racist and divider Limbaugh?? That award as now lost any meaning.
TRUMP said: "Thanks to our bold regulatory reduction campaign, the United States has become the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world, by far,"
{b]FACTS FIRST[/b]: "The US did not become the world's top energy producer under Trump: It took the top spot under the Obama administration in 2012, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration."
TRUMP said:"Trump claimed "the unemployment rate for disabled Americans has reached an all-time low" under his presidency."
{b]FACTS FIRST[/b]: This metric has ONLY been tracked since 2008, so "All Time Low" loses its meaning given that the first 4 or 5 years of existence was impacted by the Republican Recession.
TRUMP said: "The unemployment rate for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans has reached the lowest levels in history," Trump said in his speech.
FACTS FIRST: It is true that the unemployment rate for these three demographics continued the significant trend set by Obama, but he didn't keep up the rate of decline. In fact, there was an uptick in all three Dec 2019. The question is whether it will continue to grow in Jan 2020?
TRUMP said: Trump said seven million new jobs have been created since his election, "more than government experts projected during the previous administration."
FACTS FIRST: In isolation, Trump is once again correct - as far as it goes. A minor point first - it was 6.7 million. A major point is Trump promised 25 million by now. Also, nobody knows what he means by "government experts projected". And there are these comparisons to Trump's stupendous achievement in this area with a 1.5% annual growth,
Ford - 1.4% annual growth,
H. W. Bush - 0.6% annual growth,
G. Bush - 0.5% annual growth,
Obama - 1.9% annual growth from 2014 - 2016
Clinton - 2.0% annual growth,
TRUMP said: "Under my administration, 7 million Americans have come off food stamps,"
FACTS FIRST: NO, the number is closer to 5 million, continuing the decline started by Obama. In fact, the number of people receiving food stamps has increase over the last couple of reporting cycles which Trump failed to mention. Trump is also trying to rig the numbers by making it harder for people to remain food secure.
TRUMP said: Trump claimed to have built "over 100 miles" of a "long, tall and very powerful" border wall.
FACTS FIRST: The TRUTH is different. US Customs and Border Protection said that, as of January 31, 115 miles of "new border wall system" had been built. The overwhelming majority has replaced dilapidated barriers with a new, enhanced wall system. Around one mile has been built where there was no previous barrier.
TRUMP said: "Before I came into office," Trump said Tuesday, "if you showed up illegally on our southern border and were arrested, you were simply released and allowed into our country, never to be seen again."
FACTS FIRST: A Trump Lie. Government data shows that, as of 2017, a majority of asylum seekers show up for their court hearings.
TRUMP said: Trump, touting his efforts to curb illegal migration, said that "as a result of our unprecedented efforts, illegal crossings are down 75% since May -- dropping eight straight months in a row."
FACTS FIRST: A cherry-picked truth surrounded by a Lie. The total number of illegal crossings under Trump has increased, not decreased, from the late Obama era.
TRUMP said: "I've also made an ironclad pledge to American families. We will also protect patients with pre-existing conditions,"
FACTS FIRST: A Flat Out Lie. While Trump may mouth those words, he has no intention of following them up with real action. In fact, he is pushing hard to kill ACA entirely through the courts.and legislation.
TRUMP said: "And I was pleased to announce last year that for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down,"
FACTS FIRST: Another Lie - The list price of brand name drugs rose 3.2%, on average, over the 12 months ending in September 2019, after adjusting for inflation, according to SSR Health, a consulting firm that captures about 90% of these medications sold in the US.
That's similar to the increase for drugs sold at the pharmacy and through mail order. The annual change in the consumer price index for prescription drugs was 3% in December, the third straight positive reading and its highest rate since June 2018, according to Altarum, a nonprofit research and consulting firm.
YOU GET THE PICTURE - I'll stop here.Well, he will have four more years to pick up the pace. I am not sure where you get your information from, but you are certainly wasting a lot of energy continually posting it. Your information is very flawed.
Prove it, Shar. Point out the flaws in his post.
And there you go Shar putting your blinders on because you can't stand the truth about Trump - HE IS A CON MAN SUPREME. He has con you for some reason.
Prove my statements and facts wrong. You won't because you can't, you will just stick your head in the sand and say NANANANANANANA .like my Sister-in-law does - literally.Shar's idea of everything going well for our country.
I will keep this post for next Nov, and remind you of your prediction. He will not only win but a Republican will follow him for the next 8. The Dem's have made such fools of themselves with all their investigations, and not to mention the candidates they have running.
No, I am 100% positive Trump will win. Because the Country is winning. Yes, some are whining. It's a shame they get the benefits of Trump's accomplishments. I guess you might start thinking of an excuse for why Trump prevailed once more. Maybe the Ukrian or how about Boris Johnson? Yeah, blame it on him. That would be interesting. Maybe they are long lost, brothers. Sound good, as good as anything. LOLYou love beating that dead horse. Seems that investigations worked for the GOP prior to Trump. And whoever emerges from the primary is going to have the full support of the entire party because of the chaos and self-dealing of the current administration.
Yeah, it's a shame we get saddled with the crippling debt, the increase in price of goods from his tariffs, the $28 billion farmer bailout, the environmental rollbacks that protect clean air and water - I mean who needs those to survive, having to watch children dying at the border because he implements a policy with no foresight of the consequences, the cost of a wall he promised Mexico would pay for, and the $128 million tab for his golfing or the $3.4 million for the superbowl party he held at his property. That's so much winning, I'm so appreciative of those benefits.I will predict that Trump will get 30% of the vote - those with their heads in the sand.
They are scraping and pasting from the bottom of the barrel at TDS.com (cnn). Who just a couple hours ago had to edit their own Fakenews Fake Facts stories.
Very embarrassing, even for the Clinton News Network.
Here is a few replies from Mark Dice on the Twitter
CNN is fact checking themselves now, and even that reporting is wrong!Who in the hell is Mark Dice? And which office has he held? Dogcatcher?
Because I have to constantly go back and forth from mobile to desktop to post here, about half of my post was lost.
Mark Dice is a popular figure on the Twitter and Youtube. He has been invited to the White House. Is it a shock to you that there is a private sector in the world? Of course it is, you being a liberal.
Here is where cnn cant keep their fakenews stories straight.
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/122 … 76738?s=09Damn, you can answer a question....somewhat. Again, what office has he held?
Interesting development. Could all these supporters be wrong, ill-educated, deplorable, smell, you name it?
Then why did Trump lose NH in 2012??
And still Obama got 368,000 votes in 2012
And Clinton 349,000 in 2016.
Your point?The actual data:
Official results released Wednesday by the New Hampshire secretary of state show 300,622 ballots were cast in the Democratic primary and 150,438 in the Republican primary.
The total is about 30,000 more than Secretary of State Bill Gardner had predicted and sets a record for the most ballots cast in a presidential primary when an incumbent is running for reelection.
Shar can put her pom-poms away now. When the Dems consolidate that vote for whoever emerges, Trump is toast.Let's look at this a different way.
In 2012, 60,000 votes were cast in the Democratic primary. In 2020, 300,000 votes were cast in the Democratic primary. Trump has motivated a 500% increase in Democratic voter turnout.
In 2012, 248,000 GOP voters turned out for the primary. Only 150,000 this time. Apparently, he scared off 40% of the voters.
And 300,000 still beats 150,000 last I checked. So when the Democrats consolidate that vote, Trump is toast in NH.And to back you up:
At this moment in time:
AL: Trump - 54; Bloomberg - 40
(AL: Sessions - 53; Jones - 41)
TN: Trump - 54; Bloomberg - 39
TX: Trump - 46; Biden - 44
NH: Trump - 41; Buttigieg - 51 (before the primary)
IA: Trump - 45; Buttigieg - 44 (before the caucus)
WI: Trump - 45; Biden - 49
FL: Trump - 47; Sanders - 53
NV: Trump - 39; Biden - 47
GA: Trump - 51; Biden - 44
AZ: Trump - 44; Biden - 44
NM: Trump - 41; Sanders - 59
VA: Trump - 45; Biden - 49
Women Dislike Trump 62% to 35% which has been steady since 2017
Black's Dislike Trump 86% to 21% - again steady over time
College Educated Dislike Trump 60% to 38%
The Electoral College votes for states who Dislike Trump more than they like him 369 to 168
Doesn't look good for Trump, does it.What are your thoughts on the integrity of the voting in individual states? I am concerned about foreign interference but also outright systemic cheating. Cheaters for the GOP undoubtedly feel emboldened by recent events and the clear message that criminal behavior by this president will be accepted , don't you think?
It depends on the state. Most states, I think, have paper ballots, so ultimately those votes are safe. Conservative states like Alabama, and I think Georgia, (there might be a blue state as well) who have electronic only voting.
Since Trump refuses to even admit the Russians attacked America, he has not lifted a finger to stop them from doing it again - so they will. They will interfere to Trump's benefit again.
Most problematic is conservative states continual attempt to limit voting. They have been somewhat successful.
It is interesting to note that the only recorded case of voter fraud in recent history that changed an election was the conservative attempt to effect the absentee ballots which changed change the outcome in a NC district.Today Mitch refused to back a bill which required a candidate to report any contact with a foreign power attempting to aid in an election.
Why? Does this tell us who Moscow Mitch sides with?
Definitely concerned. It has been reported that there's been some Nixon-like interference in the Iowa results, and all the comment boards are being flooded by Pro-Trump comments.
Turns out Witness Retaliation is a federal crime. One more thing Trump will hopefully be tried for in 2021.
What Nixon-like interference have you heard about?
GAI suspected it was something the Trump enablers did, or the Russians, who are Trump enablers as well.
It seems, according to quoted Iowa caucus officials, that you suspected wrong.
Of course, it could still turn out to be Trump enablers that caused the app coding problem. So there is still hope.
GANope, the app coding problem was poor testing - hell they didn't even train the precinct managers how to use it and have test runs. I guess the were proofing it for the Nevada caucus who is using the same app.
I have only read one article on the trolling. At the time, they were putting on rank-and-file hackers, Trump supporters, Sanders supporters.That is the impression I have also. I couldn't find any sources that say they tested the app at all. As I understand it, if the app had worked, there was no need for any telephone reporting.
I was just offering Randy a sliver of hope that it could still be the fault of Trump-enablers. Maybe the company that coded the app, Shadow, is owned by Trump-enablers. *shrug*
GAGA: Here is everything you wanted to know about Shadow and Acronym, but were afraid to ask.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/5/211 … us-resultsThanks peoplepower, that was an informative article. I guess the Trump-enablers-did-it hope is dashed for good.
GA
Thanks, Valeant. I hadn't heard of that troll-calling. However, both links said the prank calls weren't the reason for the problem.
I agree this seems a.purposeful effort, but I don't see the Nixon connection.
GAThe troll calling prevented the precinct managers from calling in the results.
I feel Nixon's people engaged in efforts to disrupt the opposing campaign, that's how I see the similarity.
Okay, I see what you mean, but it just seems typical of all political movements to me.
GA
And the finger pointing has begun.
Trump threw Pence under the bus and Rudy 'I wasn't operating on my own' Giuliani is blaming the State Department and Volker.
By the way, THIS is Donald Trump:
"You know, these animals in the press. They’re animals. Some of the worst human beings you’ll ever meet. (An audience member yells: “Fake news!”) They’re scum, many of them are scum. You have some good reporters, but not many, I’ll be honest with you...
But basically that person never saw the report, never saw the call. Never saw the call. Heard something, and decided that he or she or whoever the hell it is — sort of like, almost, a spy. I want to know who’s the person that gave the whistleblower, who’s the person that gave the whistleblower the information, because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now.”
SMHOnly the way he talks and tweets should be enough for an impeachment.
It's not a president of a country worthy.His rough talk is a "high crime or misdemeanor" now, is it?
Oh well - anything in a pinch, when nothing else can be found, I guess.No it is not high crime, but is it something to be proud of? Having a president that likes to scold and talk rough?
I would be ashamed, even if I supported the party.Nope, if that was all it was, but it isn't. His tweets are a national security risk in and of themselves because it provides information (and the occasional secret he slips in there) about himself that our enemies (his friends) should not have. Yet he hands it to them on a silver platter.
In any case, what he is going to be impeached for, and hopefully convicted, is abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of Congress. Pretty simple charges and easy to understand by the American public.
I bet that by mid-November, over 50% of the country will support impeaching his ass.Yep, and last time he was convicted (by liberals) of colluding with Putin and Russia to throw the election. It was a fact known to everyone but Trump supporters, who are too stupid to feed themselves.
Unfortunately Muellar was too stupid to find supporting evidence (or too honest to make it up) so that one failed when it came time to provide actual fact.
But this time it will surely work, and Trump will be removed from office forever! After all, we have hearsay evidence from unspecified people that is being reported by someone that doesn't know anything himself. Bound to work!
(Why was it that he isn't already impeached? Because Democrats needed time to raise public opinion, and that trumps truth and fact every time?)And there you go again, ignoring the truth. Every bit of that so-called "hearsay" evidence has been proven to be true, mostly by Trump himself, lol. Let's consider the "hearsay":
1. "President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election." - TRUE, Trump said so
2. "This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. " - TRUE, Trump admitted it and the "Summary" backs it up
3. "The President' s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well." - TRUE, the Summary substantiates it.
4. "Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. " - TRUE, Trump admits it
5. "after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid. " - TRUE, the Summary makes this clear.
6. "the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyr to ...initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;" - TRUE, the Summary makes this clear
7. "the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyr to ... meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem." - TRUE, the Summary makes this clear
8. ""Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States." - TRUE, posted on Zelenskyr website about the call
9. "In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced -- as is customary -- by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call." - TRUE, the White House confirmed this and that it was not normal procedure
10. "White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials." - TRUE, confirmed by the White House
11. "On 26 July, a day after the call, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker visited Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy and a variety of Ukrainian political figures ... Volker ... was accompanied ...by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. [they] ... provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to "navigate" the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy." - TRUE, verified by the White House and Volker just resigned.
So much for your "hearsay" deflection. There is much more to the complaint, but the actions by Trump outlined above constitute a grave abuse of power, an impeachable offense.
What absolutely amazes me is that Trump supporters dislike our country so much that they excuse ANY wrongdoing by Trump and get mad when someone points it out. They would rather have a traitor they elected remain in office than admit they screwed up.It's been a slow week Scott, so I hope I can jump in here before Wilderness does.
I think your wall of truth, (your list), has a couple of weak spots.
1. There is the appearance that the president is using his office to solicit interference from a foreign power. By inference, reading between the lines, and using what impeachment folks are calling common sense, your statement is true. But it is still an interpretation. The solicitation is not explicit. (I think your interpretation is correct)
2. Once again, there is the appearance that your statement is true. By inference, reading between the lines, and using what impeachment folks are calling common sense, your statement is true. But it is still an interpretation. The "pressure" nor the "reason" are explicitly shown. (I think your interpretation is correct)
3. & 4. Seems non-debatable.
5. Too subjective. It started on page 3 of a 5-page document, and there was another major topic discussed first, (Germany and Europe's support of Ukraine). Tsk. Tsk.
6. Once again, there is the appearance that your statement is true. By inference, reading between the lines, and using what impeachment folks are calling common sense, your statement is true. But it is still an interpretation. The "pressure" is not explicit and is actually couched as a request. (I think your interpretation is correct)
7. Again, there is that "pressure" interpretation. It is not explicit. (I think your interpretation is correct)
8. Seems right.
9. Now, this is a tough call for me. I would say that by inference and interpretation this point may be correct, but, it is also a point where I can find room to offer him the benefit of the doubt. With all the other leaks of his confidential national leader's calls, I can see this action as much of an effort to contain leaks as you do as an effort of "cover-up."
10. Probably true, but I would qualify that as an adjunct to my reasoning on #9.
11. ". . . how to "navigate" the demands that the President had made. . . " Who used the word "demands"? Since the summary doesn't explicitly note any "demands," would that quote be someone's interpretation?
With all those weak spots Scott, I have to add the caveat that my agreement with your noted points is only an agreement based on appearance and my interpretations, not a factual basis.
GAThat's about where I stand as well. Everything but the call requires spin and "interpretation" to find anything wrong.
We'll see if the Senate agrees with the Democrats spin on it all, I guess.Actually, it requires no spin whatsoever especially with Trump supply a lot of the corroboration.
And you are right, it will be the cowardly Senate Republicans who are so scared for their job (save for a few) that they will let a criminal remain in office.
GA, question:
Would the "appearance" pass as enough circumstantial evidence which is often used to convict in a trial when combined with a lot of other circumstantial evidence? Keep in mind also that impeachment is not a criminal procedure. Reasonable doubt doesn't apply. It is more like, I think, a civil trial where the preponderance of the evidence is enough.
That said, "let me ask you for a favor" to investigate the Bidens again, seems like an unambiguous ask. Conflate that with Trump's complaining that the Ukraine isn't doing enough to earn the largess America is giving it seems like a mafia-style threat to me. Also, Trump himself validated the claim.
Same is true for #2 - Trump validated it.
# 5 - Consider the following sequence:
President T - A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
President Z - "... Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. (Actually, that is not true.) I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."
And then the next statement -
President T - "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. " and then he goes on to mention the DNC server and then hints sideways at the Bidens "I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."
President Z says - "I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you."
President T follows up as part of the next conversation - "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.'
#6 and #7 - I would think the "appearance" of pressure is all that is needed - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck - it's a duck.
#9 and #10 - You might have a point if that was the Normal practice with presidential phone calls to other leaders - BUT it is not. Only three are known at the moment - Putin, the Saudi Prince who murdered the journalist, and now President Z.
# 11 - Testimony will shed light on that.On 1 through 7; are you still trying to convince me? I agreed with you that appearances and applying the Trump M.O. would make your claims appear to be true. All you have done in this response is to explain what I have already agreed with, but still, you have nothing that can be attributed to anything more than appearance and inference. Even if you are right it is still speculation.
I agree that this isn't a criminal proceeding and different standards apply. I would never want circumstantial appearances to carry the day in a criminal proceeding, but they may very well do just that in an impeachment process. Which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. After all, that was the Framer's purpose in choosing High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Just as was the safeguard of a House indictment and a Senate trial process.
As for the secure storage thing, (#9 & #10), I don't think we have been dealing with "normal" for a long time, so I am still willing to leave that one in the doubt column. I don't buy the 'it's not normal so it must be nefarious' argument. If I were in his shoes and all my confidential calls were getting leaked I would take steps to plug the leaks too.
GAGA: How about he is plugging the leak from incriminating information?
That is one possibility Mike. Just as I think another possibility could be just to plug the leaks.
I do have a thought, (I know, I should just let it go), that I think leans to my "possibility."
This wasn't the first national leader's conversation moved to that more secure server. So maybe this one wasn't moved there just to hide incriminating stuff. That thought might be bolstered by Pres. Trump's order to make the bulk, (?), of the conversation public.
To completely discount that possibility we would have to hold a 'conspiracy theory' thought that the "transcript/memorandum/summary" was purposely edited. I don't know that I believe that.
That leaves me with my original thought that he gets my benefit of the doubt that the more secure storage server move was used to plug leaks, not hide incriminating stuff. Particularly when that server didn't make the information inaccessible, it just made it harder than just casually accessible.
GA
GA - Nope, you said you were convinced. I am trying to convince others who are still on the fence.
Just to note that circumstantial evidence often carries the day in criminal trials. Sometimes that is all you have, but it must be much harder to convict that it is now, IMO.
"If I were in his shoes and all my confidential calls were getting leaked I would take steps to plug the leaks too." - and I would agree - except for the fact that he didn't. He just cherry-picked a very few for that treatment which is strong "circumstantial" evidence that he knows he is doing wrong.
We (meaning leadership of the intel committees) do need to see the contents of the other two that we know have been improperly stored to determine that indeed, the storage wasn't politically motivated.Regarding those other stored calls, I would need more information before considering your reasoning:
How many, (and to whom) national leader's calls were not moved?
Do we know how the process originated? Was it a decision based on the president saying he wanted a way to stop the leaks of his calls? Who made the original decision to use this process? Who makes the determination to move them? Does Pres. Trump decide on a per-call basis? Does someone else?
I think that because I don't know the answers to those questions it would be hard for me to jump to the conclusion that the process was politically motivated to hide incriminating stuff.
GAAgreed. But that is why Congress needs to dig deep into it.
"Every bit of that so-called "hearsay" evidence has been proven to be true, mostly by Trump himself, lol."
That will include the crux of the matter, that he threatened to withhold or eliminate aid if the investigation was not carried out? I'd be really interested in seeing that bit of evidence, albeit without your spin or "interpretation" of the words.Yes, that is what the impeachment investigation will determine - to ALL but Trump supporters, there is no question that is what Trump was doing.
Basically, the left is attempting to reduce the office of the president to a popularity contest. If you can sling enough mud, even if nothing sticks you hope to build a pile of mud high enough to obscure facts and truth.
Death of democracy at the hands of the angry unhinged mob.You nailed it! Was it Pelosi that said they needed more time to build public opinion before applying the law and impeaching?
Of course that's what she said and believes because unless the public is behind impeachment, which they probably still are not, it will damage the country and Democrats, much like Republicans with Bill Clinton, will be held responsible.
By the way, what was Clinton impeached for? Do you remember?
Only your side is doing that in order to defend a bad decision for voting for the worst president in the history of America.
Everything Trump has been accused of appears to be standard practice I've noticed for years of the Democrat leaders. I get the frustration. You just refuse to look at the reality of Washington, the reality of the bait and switch behavior of democratic leadership or the hypocrisy of your base.
I disagree with the mantra of the goose stepping left on Trump being the worst ever. Because the underlying truth of every accusation leveled at Trump is the powers in the democratic party are simply doing what every addict I've ever met does. Lie about another to keep their behavior from being scrutinized. And you appear to fall for the lies lock stock and barrel of those corruptly grasping for power.And you think his accusers are not? They have grossly exaggerated, they have spun actual facts into something they never were and they have outright lied about his actions. What makes this time any different?
Why would Pelosi lie and start an official inquiry based on these "lies"?
You do not start an official impeachment based upon lies. This is far to official.
You can lie and threat etc. on twitter or in the newspaper, during elections campaigns etc. but you can not start an official investigation on lies. The investigation would be failed even before it started. And I do not think the Democrats are that stupid.Actually NO, they are not lying. The public knows this because they have read the evidence and listened to Trump's own words incriminate himself.
Yes, I saw your list of "facts". And GA's reply (which I found spot on) wherein there were only two that were true, and neither of those two were illegal. 100% of the rest was spin and exaggeration by you.
You are free, of course, to spin a statement into something it was not, and you are even free to believe that your spun version is true, but you are NOT free to assume that everyone else in the world will accept your spin as gospel.What lies? Trump asked the President of the Ukraine for a favor - to investigate a political rival and potentially interfere in an election. That's a foreign government, btw.
That's misuse of power. Trump is supposed to be acting as President, not as candidate. He's not supposed to be negotiating with foreign governments for his personal benefit.SO, Wilderness, are you calling Trump a liar when he said "“The conversation I had was largely congratulatory. It was largely corruption—all of the corruption taking place. It was largely the fact that we don’t want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to [sic] the corruption already in the Ukraine,” WHICH when tied to his ask of Ukraine to investigate Biden is a smoking gun that Trump was soliciting a foreign gov't to help him win in 2020. NO SPIN just the TRUTH.
No she doesn't and neither did those who believed in Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Mao, Mussolini, etc - and for the same reasons.
oh lordy Scott. You are so over-the-top on that one you probably need an oxygen mask.
GAMocking him for that comment sounds once again like a devoted Trump loyalist.
Actually, I am not over the top, GA. Every one of those terrible leaders had a following that would die for them, even after their atrocities were known. Studies have shown, and I have written about some of them, that when these people are analyzed, a certain set of traits emerge that is common between them. The question being asked was why would otherwise intelligent people follow someone like Hitler as blindly as Trump's core followers do today.
I suspect that if one studies LiveToLearn we would find that she would score high marks in the following criteria:
Fear: Exhibits a high degree of fear, often irrational, about socialism, immigrants, secularism, the burgeoning debt, they're coming to take your guns, etc. They fear anything their chosen leader tells them to fear.
Self-Righteous: Exhibits a high degree of self-righteousness, e.g. in-your-face patriotism.
[bDogmatism[/b[: If their chosen leader tells them what to believe, that is the end of it because it is true, period.
Authoritarian Submission: Exhibits a high degree of obedience to their chosen leader. (Milgram conducted a very interesting experiment on this phenomenon.}
Hostility: Exhibits frequent hostility when confronted. It is not because they are naturally mean. It has more to do with extreme frustration with their inability to logically defend their positions.
"Biggest Problem" Syndrome: Tends to focus on the chosen leaders problem of the day, be it Mexicans or the liberal take-over of America or any one of a host of issues,
Compartmentalized Thinking: Has a larger than normal habit of accepting their chosen leader's statements lock, stock, and barrel, and file it away in their memory. It makes no difference if it is contradictory to facts or other statements made by the same leader.
Double Standards: Has a high propensity to be hypocritical.
Feeling Empowered Within Groups: To blindly follow a chosen leader means you are a highly conforming individual.
Prejudice: Exhibits a certainty that not all people are created equal, that society is best served if by a hierarchical structure, e.g., the-man-of-the-house, the landed have more rights than the pauper.
[b[Ethnocentrism[/b]: If taken to the extreme, the Us vs Them mentality.
A Lack of Critical Thinking:This is a central characteristic found in all people who follow people like Hitler and Trump.
Now, much of what I list above is true whether the chosen leader is Right (Hitler) or Left (Stalin). It is simply true of anybody who willing throw themselves behind despots and demagogues.Hmm . . .
I know I will catch hell for this, but . . . I see those traits, (or at least the majority of them), in base supporters of any leader; Trump, Hillary, Obama etc. So I don't think your comparison application means what you intend it to mean.
GAAgreed a little. The most avid Hillary, Obama, Sanders, etc exhibit many of these characteristics, many to a large degree. The difference is their numbers are small compared to the army that will back Trump to the death.
In my hub on this, 21% who self-identify as Republican or Republican-leaning score above 50% on the RWA scale while only 5% of self-identified independents do (caution, small sample size for independents). Only 3% of Democrats or Left-Leaning score 50% or more. This is in line with other statistics I have seen.
You might find it interesting by taking the survey yourself. My guess is you will score in the 25 - 49% range.
- keep wearing the blinders until the left finishes up. After that. Keep the blinders on because what we will have left won't be worth seeing.
Speaking of blinders, did Trump admit that he told Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden?
Just wondering if you have a problem with POTUS pressuring a foreign leader to dig up dirt on the leading Democratic candidate in the 2020 Presidential election.
Yes, Trump and his followers -- including the ones on here -- are following the same path as other fascists in history.
The only difference is that Trump is near the beginning of the path and not the end.
"Everything Trump has been accused of appears to be standard practice" - NO, it is not standard practice. In at least that instance, and probably two more, he violated national security rules by mixing personally embarrassing communications with highly classified material thereby jeopardizing national security (again).
It is the Right that goosesteps, by the way. Trump has become the greatest at one thing - Lying. Name me one important thing that the Democratic Party has lied about concerning Trump.Trump isn't the greatest liar. He's just the worst at lying. That trophy goes to the democratic leadership.
The phone call transcript reveals a President of the United States violating his oath of office by attempting to withhold aid to a country until the President of that country did him a personal, political favor.
That's cause for impeachment. That's a violation of his oath of office. That's using his office for personal, political gain. That's allowing a foreign government, encouraging a foreign government, to interfere in an election.
How does that have anything to do with popularity?
You call that "mocking"? I was intending it to be a friendly light-hearted chide, but if it helps you to perceive my responses as those of a "devoted Trump loyalist" then so be it.
That perspective may explain why you seem to always think my responses to your comments are just more devoted Trump loyalist drival instead of the factual corrections they usually are.
GA ;-)Do you really need "copy and paste" for reference Mike? Damn, what a taskmaster. But okay, in the spirit of cooperation, and because you pegged your questions to my comment, here goes:
1. " Why is Trump going after Biden now for corruption since it has been 3 years since the alleged corruption took place?"
I think it is to damage Joe Biden's election campaign.
2. "Why did Trump hold back the funding for the Javelin missiles when congress had already approved the transfer of funds?"
I don't know why the appropriation was delayed. I also don't think anyone else in this forum knows either. (you didn't ask for guesses so I won't offer one)
3. "Why does Trump state that Biden stopped the prosecution of his son, when there was no prosecution and it was the Ukraine government that removed the corrupt prosecutor?"
I think it is Trump being Trump - confusing the issue with unsubstantiated claims. (but, I also think Pres. Trump does not have a monopoly on this tactic. I think the Democrats are doing the same thing)
4. "What other person or persons has the Trump administration investigated for corruption?"
I don't recall any other such investigations, but that is just my recall, I haven't looked. Do you know of others he has had investigated for corruption?
Now for an all-important caveat: I have emphasized all of my responses with "I think" because I am answering your questions based on interpretation and opinion. I don't have any facts, (related to your questions), that allows me to make declarations that what I think is fact.
GAJudging from the tweet that he posted today it seems that he has lost his mind. Has he got mental health issues.
Yes, he has major mental health issues, judging from this tweet alone. But we have known it for a long time.
"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over..."
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrumpYou have to admit, great and unmatched wisdom does fit right in with stable genius
GA ;-)Yes, he does. But in this case, is his typical tactic to distract. He desperately need it.
Trump had it coming. I think he knew he couldnt get away with what he was doing but in his warped mind he saw no wrong. Rest is up to Congress but it will make history as he is the third president to be singked out. Nothing to be proud of but in case he wins and impeachment motion fails he will be even more unrestrained. The American people may well regret they voted him in
Great list Mike. I think you scored big time with a simple rundown of some of Obama's accomplishments. If our country has ever "floundered out of control" we are seeing it now...under the crotch grabbing president.
"Scored big time"? (This statement is so telling) Is this a game or is it a thread where one can offer an opinion? I would think if it's a game the few conservatives that post here should quit due to groupthink, and the majority of gm players.
Scored, yes, scored with facts. That is my opinion. Why so serious?
Because of the facts.....she don't like them.
I did not actually dispute his list I stepped back and did say I could dispute them but had no will to do so. Some of what Mike listed is factual. Although some of his points could be argued in my opinion. but Mike has a right to his opinion. I have the right to agree to disagree.
What I tried to point out in my comment to you is pretty clear. I just don't consider going back and forth with anyone a game where points are scored. However, I see your point, I may have been taking your comment to serious. Sorry if I offended you, and you certainly do have a right to cheer on Mike. He worked on that list, and he does believe all that he posted. I respect that.Indeed, Mike does deserve some credit for the list of facts he put together. I gave him that credit. We are not making real-life decisions here, so stating someone scored points in favor of a certain argument isn't a bad thing from where I sit.
What was your point in stating we floundered under Obama, if not to, in some way, take credit (or points) away from Obama's accomplishments and in some way bolster the political arguments that you make? That is what we do here. No offense taken and none meant coming from me either.I appreciate your comment, the way you communicated your thoughts. Makes good sense to me.
Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to consider what I wrote...political differences don't have to mean we completely tune out the thoughts of those we often don't agree with. I think you understand that though. Our country would likely be better off if more people did IMO.
In regard to political differences, I know I will be giving my age away.
I have lived through many political storms, with climates almost as bad as what we find ourselves in today. I have been on both sides of the aisle, and in the middle. I have traveled down political roads that have created a road map that not many would want to navigate.
I have learned that believfs can be fleeting, and it's not always smart to defend beliefs as if one's life depended upon it. Just better to keep in mind we all have a right to our beliefs, and if we share them be ready to get push back. It smart to respect other's opinions, and keep in mind we all came about our opinion for one reason or another.Very good advice.
" smart to respect other's opinions, and keep in mind we all came about our opinion for one reason or another."
For sure. I thoroughly understand how a couple of my most dramatic life experiences helped to shape my current political beliefs. If this is true for me, it's true for others.
Not to further date you or anything, but from your comment I gather you think that US politics are at least a bit more divisive today compared to the 60s. Is that your opinion?Yes, today politics are much more divisive. Most likely due to media and social media. We have tons of news =in our faces 24/7, and debate vigorously. In the '60s the political climate was horrendous, but nothing compares to what is going on today.
There were differences in my view of how "we the people" digested our politics. And when looking at the now Baby Boomers you might understand where many of us come from. Being a BB I can tell you in the '60s my politics came from the left. However, a left that was still willing to use common sense and listen to others. I protested the war and had a husband that was drafted and had to participate in that war. It did not change my opinion of the war, but it did have me accepting his decision not to burn his draft card. I hope you see what I mean with that example. I guess some of us had the thought to keep our beliefs alive to fight another day, in another way.
This may sit oddly with you... But I think the BB grasp o to Trump due to his radical, yet common-sense agenda. It resonated and woke up a lot of feelings from many years of witnessing all kinds of what appeared crazy. governing. Please keep in mind once again this is just my opinion, and I hope I don't get ripped up one side and down another. LOLThanks for the answer. It makes a lot of sense. You can object to a happening while still honoring the nation and system that brought us that happening.
I think some of the left and right lost "common sense" and are no longer willing to listen to others.
I do know some good people who feel, or felt, the same way about Trump's agenda. Even I can see some sense in closing the border, and not getting involved in wars that aren't really our business, a couple of the things he campaigned on. You know what I really think of Trump, but I'll spare you from that today..lol.I respect your opinion, and I can even decipher how you came to your opinion. Mine is very complicated, a lot of weighing out scenarios, a lot of looking at politics as I never have before. We can always agree to disagree, and just know we as people are diverse, and have many other qualities we might just admire.
"We are not making real-life decisions here, so stating someone scored points in favor of a certain argument isn't a bad thing from where I sit.
. . .
"That is what we do here. No offense taken and none meant coming from me either."
Look Ma! He gets it. ;-)
You are right hard sun. We participate here because we enjoy it, not because we are wise pundits that reveal the true answers.
At best, we may offer honest discussions of our perspectives, and at second-best, we may demonstrate our Googling stamina. At worst, we blindly repeat party mantras as if they were unassailable Gospel.
Personally, I prefer and participate for the honest discussions, especially when it involves legitimate counter-views.
GAha ha...Yes indeedy. I enjoy learning facts and understanding how/why people think what they do about issues, especially when they think differently from me. I too have been forced, more than once, to dig deep into Google to make, or understand, an argument here. Some occasional back and forth with smart a** comments is fun also as long as it doesn't get to the point of straight disrespect.
I think these forums do bring more honest discussions than other platforms such as FB and Reddit. It doesn't take a "wise pundit" to provide incites on how, very likely, a good portion of Americans view a political matter. We can get this even if the counter-views are not legitimate, but I too prefer the more legitimate arguments.
Also, my primary job, while I like it, is monotonous work-from-home labor. These forums offer a respite and sometimes make me feel young when I consider other frequent Hubbers here, which is good for a guy in his mid forties, lol.Oh gawddd . . . stop it. I agree, but this sounds too much like a choir room session, so let's find something to disagree about. ;-)
By the way, my searches for other political discussion forums reflect what you say about Fb and Reddit. Too much incivility and rhetoric. I seem to always come back to HP forums for a bit of honest disagreement without the FU's and moronic idiot charges.
I think one reason for this is that here on HP we are only semi-anonymous, so we feel a bit more accountable for our comments, whereas on other sites commenters can be completely anonymous and thus be complete assholes.
GAThat’s why I changed my profile picture recently. To make it more personal and less anonymous. I think it helps to the conversation.
Yes, we should all stand behind our words and opinion. Debate the issues and let the chips fall. The personal attacks leads to nowhere.
The best thing about HubPages is an open forum of ideas, with views from all sides. This is not always the case in the traditional media, on college campuses and in online blogs...Actually you can get that on traditional media. It is devoid from conservative media, however.
Peter's original of this post must be on another page. I agree with you both about not remaining anonymous. After I retired, I changed to my real name and posted my photo. To have done so beforehand would have been a firing offense because I did not have freedom of speech working for state government like Trump does in the federal system. But anyway, I notice that on the forums, I'm still listed as MizBejabbers. That's HP's doing, not mine. I'm trying to go by my real name now.
I think using a pseudonym is not a problem. My name is a pseudonym as well. My real name is Joost Gerritsen. I simply did not want to have Hubpages as number one when somebody googles my name. But my own art website.
A portret image helps though to become more personal and perhaps it get rid of the rough edges of the discussions. talking about myself, I know as well that in the heat of the discussion I wrote something which could have been phrased more politely. As it is good to realize that everybody here comes from a different background and are real persons.
Whatever, I just want you to pay off my school loans.
She is an American conservative commentator and political activist. She worked for the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA and is a well-spoken common-sense woman... A woman like Candice garners the ear and respect of common-sense women, women that respect family, religion, and strong-minded women of all colors. This tweet rings very true to me. Move on...
If the Dems would have moved on they may not be facing defeat in 2020. Hopefully, you will watch this youtube in its entirety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-sgrki4pu4Yes, I read all about her, Shar. She seems to be a female Hannity. And you're in no position to advise anyone from your opposite party about anything as your choice of a leader is up to his neck in trouble.
Or have you only been watching Fox News who, for the most part, are still spinning ridiculous conspiracy theories only a moron would believe at this point?I did not expect you would read a bit about her or at least watch the youtube.
Your comment is absolutely off the chain. You have no real thoughts other than what you are getting from CNN. This is clear. I realize it must bother you to have to watch the President that you dislike doing such a good job, and it has got to really irritate you he will win again. Move on...CNN is doing you wrongCandace Owens: college dropout, failed business, online harrassment, privacy violations, etc.
She became a conservative "overnight" in 2017 when she discovered that she could make big money by spouting pro-Trump nonsense.
Before her dramatic change, her blog "frequently posted anti-conservative and anti-Trump content, including mockery of his penis size".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_OwensI was literally responding to Randy's question Who Is CandiceOwens?
"She is an American conservative commentator and political activist. She worked for the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA and is a well-spoken common-sense woman... A woman like Candice garners the ear and respect of common-sense women, women that respect family, religion, and strong-minded women of all colors. Her tweet rings very true to me. Move on..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-sgrki4pu4
It seems futile to comment here. I gave a simple answer to what she is all about and posted a youtube so Randy could hear her speak, and perhaps see what she is all about. I certainly did not want to start an insult fest on a young woman that has no way of defending herself. She is a very good speaker. Would it hurt anyone to give her the benefit of the doubt, and have a listen?
I can see I really don't have a place here on this forum. I can see it is a great place for liberals, but not so great a place for anyone that is not liberal. I should have discovered this a bit back by the fact there are only a handful of users that post. Just can't buy into such negativity.
I truly respect others opinions but can see not many here follow that train of thought.
Have you ever heard her speak or did you only Google her....Typical Trump aficionado. Knows nothing....
Is this the same as my accusing you of listening to the talking heads at Fox News, Shar|? I'll give you a week to listen to the real evidence of your chosen one being on the up-and-up. After that, you're on your own as a Trump flunky. See you in a week's time!
All meant to be sarcasm. Context is important, reading the comment you are responding to is important too... And just calming down a bit also helps.
I'm pleased you're calming down, Shar. I realize it's difficult when your idol is being proven to be corrupt to the core. Have you heard some of Trump's financial records are already being scrutinized and show what Cohen claimed. He devalued his properties for Tax purposes and upped their worth for getting loans from banks.
Tip of the iceberg, though.Show me facts. Just do not respect CNN to report the truth.
Just don't respect Fox News to report the truth either.
I have been asked time after time here at HP if I watch Fox. I do not atch Fox, CNN or MSNBC. I find talk jocks repulsive. I o most of my research on the internet. My comment should have included the other two media outlets.
Actually, I find Fox News to be relatively honest, but nobody watches it much - it is the entertainment opinion shows that drive the high ratings.
Strange most American's think CNN is fair and unbiased. Everybody else think Fox Opinion is legitimate news rather than the entertainment channel that it is.
From https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
Most Trusted in Order:
1. Associated Press
2. BBC
3. C-Span
4. Christian Science Monitor
5. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (I have no idea either)
6. The Economist
7. NPR
8. ProPublica
9. Rueters
10. USA Today
Most Trusted News Programs - ALL (Business Insiders):
1. CBS (63%)
2. NBC (61%)
3. ABC (60%)
4. WSJ (59%)
5/6. CNN/NYT (53%)
7. FOX (51%)
8. NPR (49%)
9. MSNBC (48%)
Most Trusted New Programs - Ds:
1. ABC (81%)
2. NBC (80%)
3. CBS (79%)
4. CNN (74%)
5. NYT (72%)
6. MSNBC (67%)
7. WSJ (65%)
8. NPR (60%)
9. Fox (42%)
Most Trusted New Programs - Rs:
1. Fox (70%)
2. WSJ (50%)
3. CBS (50%)
4. ABC (48%)
5. NBC (45%)
6. NPR (40%)
7/8. NYT/CNN (32%/32%)
9. MSNBC (31%)
Doing some math and assuming the number of Rs, Ds, and Is are split evenly -
Most Trusted New Programs - Independents:
1. WSJ (62%)
2. CBS (60%)
3. NBC (58%)
4. NYT (55%)
5. CNN (53%)
6. ABC (51%)
7. NPR (47%)
8. MSNBC (46%)
9. Fox (41%)
Interesting where Fox stands among Independents.Check this out...
This website rate media sources for bias.
Here is CNN -
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
Surprise...Sharlee and Jack: We are all suffering from political cognitive dissonance. You voted for Trump despite the fact that he is a narcissistic pathological liar and is a morally bankrupt person.
You support him because in your mind he has accomplished all the things that you listed in your previous posts. The cognitive dissonance comes into play because focusing on all of his alleged accomplishments makes you feel good and allows you to sleep at night, even though he is a despicable person.
On the other hand, I suffer from cognitive dissonance because I can't trust a leader of the free world who is narcissistic pathological liar who is morally bankrupt and is a despicable person. By not supporting him and not trusting him, it makes me feel good and allows me to sleep at night. You see the difference?
Evangelical Christians support him even though he violates their moral code, because they believe he will save them and it has something to do with Israel and the rapture of the end times. It makes them feel good and allows them to sleep at night, even thought he has had three wives, and many affairs, they don't care.
We all have to find a way to feel good about our decisions. It gives us balance so that our thoughts and values are not in conflict with each other. That is what cognitive dissonance is all about.Not sure why Jack voted for Trump or if he even did? As I have said numerous times here on HP, I voted for Trump because I liked his progressive agenda. I am very satisfied with his job performance. Not proud of how he conducts himself at times. However, I think he is doing a very good job keeping his promises. Just my opinion.
On the contrary, I did not vote for Trump. I had reservations as many of you. However, since elected, seeing how unfair he was attacked, and seeing the positive results of his many accomplishments...I am convinced he is the right man for the job and the right time to save America from the progressive suicide.
I totally agree... I am more than satisfied with Trump's job performance. I think he has turned out to be one of the best at problem-solving. He is no politician that's for sure. However, he is a problem solver. He does not give up, even with all the swirling crazy he has to endure daily.
I always struggle to take someone who supported Hillary and Bill Clinton believing they are in a position to judge President Donald Trump and his supporters. The word that comes to mind to describe this situation best is hypocrisy.
Readmikenow: That makes you feel better to make that comment, right? Because of it does, you have just proved my point.
Aside from serial philandering at which Trump and Bill are both guilty; Trump is something to avoid and Bill and Hillary are people to look up to.
Jack: Here is the disclaimer from your site:
The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of individual reviewers for Media Bias/Fact Check. The opinions expressed on Media Bias/Fact Check are protected under “Fair Comment.” The information is provided by Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness or accuracy of opinions/information on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.Interesting article. I found this information I thought you would like to check out. One would think CNN would reconsider the format they have been following the last few years?
"It has been a mixed July for CNN in the ratings department.
The good news for the network is that it beat rival MSNBC in the A25-54 demo -the one valued most by news advertisers- during dayside hours for the 65th consecutive month, as well as across total day (131,000 vs. 125,000). It also beat MSNBC on weekends in the key A25-54 demo, and earned a top 10 ranking in total day viewers across basic cable (No. 7).
The bad news is that CNN continues to post more significant year-over-year losses than its competitors, and finished a distant third place behind Fox News and MSNBC in prime time. The network ranked No. 13 across basic cable in total prime time audience."
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/july-20 … ay/409984/And then there is this no surprise - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
No, I am not surprised by the article you have offered. It is very clear Fox is biased in favor of President Trump.
I thought Jack might be interested in the ratings of CNN due to their own practice of bias against all Trump. I wanted to point out the fact that CNN has plummeting ratings, perhaps due to the way they show their bias so blatantly.
It's odd that one network (Fox) would thrive even with bias reporting in Trump's favor, and the other CNN fail so badly? Makes one wonder?And then there is this based on Adobe Analytics and Comscore.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2019/ … nd-social/
Go figure.
My comment was meant to be sarcastic. Context is important, reading the comment you are responding to also matters. You have an outstanding reputation for posting the Fox news schtick. "When in a corner jut pull out Fox news. It's truly passé
WTS, that is excellent. Always have been a fan of Candace Owens. She did not hold back the last time she spoke to Congress. Candace put some white liberal ladies in their place and it was sweet.
What political experience does she have, Mike?
What political experience do you have, Randy? Candace has more than you.
Do I speak to Congress, Toddy? Or do you know the difference between someone who has held office and simply someone with an opinion? Apparently not, as you put an opinion guy in the WH who has screwed the pooch.
What political experience did Trump have?
Apparently people don't find political experience important any more...
Before you know it you have Kim Kardashian going for President. (and win it!)She would be SOOO much preferable to the mob boss, Putin wanna-be who is there now.
Running around 500 businesses and managing billions of dollars makes for a much better POTUS than a 'community organizer,' and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
Yes, you are right - but your forgot to mention his six bankruptcies - everyone of his casinos were a flop - most of his golf courses are barely making it or are actually losing money; that most of his income comes from leasing his name; that American banks WILL NOT lend him money because he is a terrible financial risk; that his only real source of money is from Russian oligarchs.
Yep, the proof is in the pudding alright.
AND NOW he has allowed Turkey to kill the very people responsible for allowing him to claim he has put ISIS away (actually, it was Obama's policies that he plagiarized that put ISIS down.
NOW, because of #TraitorTrump's extreme stupidity, ISIS is about to rise again and the Russians have won (probably an agreement between Trump and Putin) their soft-war to take over Syria - Trump handed it (and probably the rest of the Middle East now) to Putin on a silver platter.Do you think it is the same proffesion? Would you vote for a pilot who has done more then a 500 flights. Or an artist who has made more then a 500 works or an editor who has done more then 500 articles?
Could anybody without a degree become POTUS?
What qualifies?In my humble opinion the only thing you need to become the POTUS is money and fame. Therefore by default the US is ruled by the 1% elite.
The only qualification according to the Constitution is a natural born citizen and at least 45 years old. The only other requirement is having an educated voting population of citizens. The common denominator is having some common sense.
And what experience does the Candace-Trump mouthpiece person have - or you for that matter?
Anyone who knows what CNN is is far more qualified for virtually any job in the world than a person who thinks CNN is 'news.'
Just so they can stick to the idiot narrative, they'll call her a 'white supremacist.'
It's well known that, as a group, the Left has a higher IQ than the Right.
Studies show:
1. As a rule among the general population those who say they lean left have and average IQ of 105 while those that lean right averaged 94.
2. Out of a population of above average IQ students it was found those on the higher end preferred more extreme Left or Right positions while the rest generally favor centrist positions.
3. In cultures who have lived through extreme gov'ts those that prefer conservative views have, on average, lower IQs than those who lean Left.That just doesn't seem to be the case for anyone from the left who responds on these forums. I can honestly say I've NEVER met someone from the left who impressed me with their intelligence. Do you have a link to that study?
" I can honestly say I've NEVER met someone from the left who impressed me with their intelligence."
I can take you to a few liberals that would blow your mind with their knowledge of things like physics, chemistry, and biology. That was a fairly disrespectful statement. At least Esoteric used stats as opposed to just stating that basically every single conservative is a bonehead. Personally, I don't give much credence to either argument. Once again, it's all a bunch of counter-productive generalizations. Americans seem to have that type of argument down.I suppose I should clarify that I'm sure they are good at their job, but politically, I've never been impressed.
"It's all a bunch of counter-productive generalizations."
I agree...have you ever heard of the theory of point counterpoint debate?I understand Mike. I'm just growing weary of the needless attacks on the intelligence of people we don't even know. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not stating I've never fell into the same type of back and forth...I've just been attempting to do better on this. I always think of people I know who like Trump for their own reasons, who are very good, and generally intelligent people. They are just wrong about Trump
And two wrongs don't make a right. I do understand though. I'm just trying to do better on this front personally. I think of people I know, good people, not idiots, who support Trump. They are just wrong about Trump
His antics and morals are horrendous for the world IMO.Antics, morals, human beings are intricate beings. Made up of multiple qualities. Have you ever had an acquaintance that perhaps showed poor morals, had a filthy mouth? But was there when no other friend was there for you in perhaps a crisis. So could one say this person with bad morals is perhaps trustworthy, patient, kind, helpful, and yes intelligent? Could this person have qualities that outweigh some of his bad moral judgments?
You see where I am going, and please do not think I am at all comparing this anonymous friend to Trump. I just hoped to point out everybody looks at people differently, recognizing different qualities. I voted for Trump for several reasons, none of which included his personality or the lifestyle he persued. He certainly is like no other president we have ever had. Sometimes one takes a leap, starts to look at things outside the box when dissatisfied with the status quo.
I am very sure you will choose a candidate in 2020, one that you will take a good long look at. And that will be the right one for you to vote for and support. I will respect your opinion because we all have a right to one. But keep in mind everybody is made up of complex intricate personality traits.
I will adopt your sentiment --- Two wrongs don't make a right.Trump has proven he is none of these: trustworthy, patient, kind, helpful, and yes intelligent? I respect your opinion on who to vote for as well. As I've said many times before though, Trump is an ugly person who sets bad examples every day. That is something, IMO, that everyone should see and no one should want four our country. But, I'm just me.
There is a reason I asked you if you knew about the theory of point counterpoint debate. It explains much of what happens on these threads.
Of course it does. My entire reason for commenting is just pointing out how personal people get when it comes to political leanings..both sides. I.E. you're an idiot because you support a Dem or Trump. As, I stated, I'm just me. Personal insults are in no way necessary for a point/counterpoint debate.
By that criteria, you might as well elect Mother Teresa or some other saints. Just look to history and see what were the attributes of some of our greatest presidents...they all had flaws of one thing or another.
My own favorite was Ronald Reagan. They called him a cowboy, a second rate actor, a person cannot be trusted with the nuclear button...yet, he was one of the great who took down the soviet empire without firing a shot.
We are looking for someone who is a patriot that is looking out for the American people vs. the special interests.Yes, all presidents have flaws, but most have far more good character traits than bad, far more dignity and grace than baseness, far more conscientious behavior than recklessness, far more attention to truth than lying, far more civility than hatefulness.
This president has none of that. He has brought shame and dishonor to our country.Spoken like a true partisan. What about Bill Clinton? Was he a good president? With all his flaws and impeachable offenses? He was disbarred...yet the Senate acquitted him of high crimes and misdeaeener.
What about Nixon who resigned in disgrace...shall I go on...Neither of them sunk to the depths of depravity of this president.
I don't know why I bothered addressing a Trump defender about Trump. I temporarily forgot that you are lost. Gone. Values in shambles.
Carry on. Nothing anyone can say or do, including Trump, will awaken you Trumpeters from your insidious cult.You just described yourself on the opposite side of the coin. Nothing Trump has done is good in your eyes...which is insane. It is so transparent the people who are inflicted with TDS cannot see the forest from the trees.
Look to your 401K balance and tell me it is just a fluke...My 401K balance is a result of what Obama started and Trump continued - so far. Chances are good that value will decrease in 2020.
AND it is a shame, Jack, that your only measure of GOOD is money. All other values which are supposed to define America as an exceptional nation are violated by Trump on a daily basis and you apparently don't care.That is where you are wrong. I used the 401 K as one example.
The other accomplishments were listed by others...2 Supreme court appointments (conservative originalist justices) will have long term benefits for our country.
His foreign trade agreements will also have long term benefit for us in a global economy.
His defense of Israel against growing anti semitism from the UN is another...
Another point being missed by most is the exposure of the corrupt media.
Just icing on the cake.Jack, I have to agree with ESOTERIC in regard to " Chances are good that value will decrease in 2020.". If a Dem wins it would most likely cause a true recession. I am considering pulling out of the market and sitting it out until after the election. Just not willing to give back what I have made in the past two years. It will be very ugly, and I for one am not willing to be a victim of all this crazy hysteria.
Just like Trump, all you care about is your personal wealth.
Like I said. Values in shambles.When you ASSUME, you make an ass out of u and me.
Lol, I don't have to assume. Trump.lies several times a day. You still support him. Trump abandons our allies and kisses up to Putin. You still support him. Trump solicits foreign governments to interfere in our elections. You still support him. Trump spends more time tweeting lies and insults than he does reading policy briefings. You still support him.
But, hey, your 401k.....What has he done has more impact than what he says or tweets...
The media and you apparently focuses only on his failings...and I think it is by design. He has figured out how to deal with a biased media.
It is like a magician...who uses slight of hand...
Meanwhile, he has accomplished more conservative policies than most conservative politicians ever could. That is his genus, why he is a winner.Everybody: We are all using cognitive dissonance to justify why we support Trump or don't support him. We all have the need to make decisions that are consistent with our values and belief systems. If we don't, then our thought processes are out of balance and we don't feel good about ourselves. To put it simply, we don't sleep well at night. Psychologist call this process cognitive dissonance. Further, if our decisions are challenged, we will double down on justifying our decisions.
It has become very apparent to me that comments in this forum have two patterns. If you are a Trump supporter, the highest priority value for you is Trump's performance. Everything else about him being a narcissistic, pathological liar who's moral values are bankrupt falls by the way side compared to his performance. That allows you to sleep at night.
If you are not a supporter of Trump, your highest priority value is Trump's immorality, you focus on him being a narcissistic pathological liar who's moral values are bankrupt and that can't be trusted as president, and that allows you to sleep at night.
I believe cognitive dissonance is the reason that Evangelical Christians support Trump, even though he violates their moral values and has had three wives and many affairs while in and out of marriages It is because they think he has something to do with the end times and Israel. That is their highest priority value and that allows them to sleep at night as well.
I believe Trump understands all of this at an organic level. That's why he only plays to his base and keeps the country divided by calling the MSM the fake news and the enemy of the people. By the way, that is what Hitler did when he was coming into power. He also took over the radio stations and used them for propaganda broadcasts...sounds like Fox opinion News to me.
I am one of those who doesn't trust Trump as president of the United States, because he screws with my highest priority value which is morality. In my view, he is despicable person and that thought process allows me to sleep at night as well.
No..not at all...no comparison between Trump and Reagan. And I don't think Trump is patriotic unless he is patriotic to himself.
I can see my comment was not taken as it was meant.
"You see where I am going, and please do not think I am at all comparing this anonymous friend to Trump. I just hoped to point out everybody looks at people differently, recognizing different qualities."
I certainly have no way of knowing if president Trump holds any of these qualities. In fact, at face value, I would think not. However, I am not in a position to insult him just because I can.
I voted for an agenda, I am very satisfied with his job performance. In my opinion, I hired a president to solve some of the country's long-time problems. As far as I am concerned he works daily at keeping promises.that is in line with his agenda.I don't like his agenda or his personality. It's quite simple. I'm sure you've insulted Obama just because you can.
I have not really insulted Obama as a man, I have pointed out my opinion of his job performance. He seems to be very genuine, kind, and very intelligent, he was a wonderful speaker. I was just disappointed in his lack of problem-solving skills, his job performance. I am old school I am not about to insult anyone just because I can. Although, as I said I will bite back if bitten, and this is as a rule to make a point.
I can understand that you don't care for Trump's agenda. We all have different problems we hope our government will solve or work on. Something important to you might be at the bottom of my list.In terms of insulting someone as a man; Trump insults people on a daily basis. It seems to me a duty as a citizen of a "free" nation to insult him back.
I agree completely with your statement about agendas. I do like some things Trump has stated about his agenda..and others I dislike; some of those would be the same no matter the Republican (abortion rights being high up on that list.) I never saw a lack of problem solving skills from Obama, though I wish he could have put higher priority on a few things. The list Mike presented speaks for itself as far as problem solving skills. Trumps problem solving skills seem to amount to.."call an attorney." But, this is certainly debatable I know.Just today Trump acted quickly, listened to the people and the House to solve a problem in Syria. (Most likely it will be a bandaid.) And Yes, he made the decision to pull troops out of Syria. However, he quickly saw the situation spin out of control. He quickly has worked and will work to solve the problem. This is problem-solving.
I think I will leave the subject of why I felt Obama had poor problem-solving skills alone. because I respect you have a right to your opinion and everybody comes about their opinions due to their own experience, and. learned views.
I won't discuss abortion rights with anyone. You see I am an RN, and I have seen it first hand. It haunts me. I have seen too much, and have such strong feelings on the subject.Problem-solving one's own self-made problems isn't a very admirable trait when one keep's repeating the same mistake over and over, Shar. Trump's mouth is his worst enemy...
Strong feelings on abortion rights go both ways. Randy pretty much beat me to it as far as the Syria issue. It really does seem to be Trump's presidential MO.
"Strong feelings on abortion rights go both ways"
Yes, it does, that's why I stay away from the subject.
Randy's comment ---
"Problem-solving one's own self-made problems isn't a very admirable trait when one keep's repeating the same mistake over and over, Shar. Trump's mouth is his worst enemy..."
I think it admirable that one sees their mistakes, and take steps to amend their mistake. And I have to agree with Randy in regard to Trump getting himself in trouble with his "mouth".
Trump shouldn't have had to act quickly - he shouldn't have had to act all if it wasn't for his massive, impulsive screw-up in throwing the Kurds under the bus.
He wasn't problem-solving, he was covering his ass by kicking the Kurds out of their homes (as opposed to letting the Turks slaughter them.
I agree with one Democrat I heard today, Congress should pass a resolution condemning their genocide of the Kurds as well as recognizing their right to exist.
AND THEN we have Mick Mulveney telling us that Trump lied, there actually was a quid pro quo - and to Get Over It.The excuses for Trump's breathtakingly bad decisions are just as breathtakingly awful.
The fact is he did act and quickly. He listened to House, and ultimately the people. He assessed what was happening, and made an attempt t problem solve. I give him credit. He did not just dig in turn his back and ignore atrocities. Hopefully, he will continue to work on solutions to a war that is not our war, a war that has been going on for a very long time.
No need to respond, you have repeated your opinion on previous posts as have I. Please save your energy. I don't intend to repeat my views on this subject. Take comfort in the fact I noted your opinion, and I guess I am one of who you referred to as mindless...
Have to point something out. How this thread got to the point of taking about IQ.
Out of the blue, this comment was posted, Why, not sure?
"READMIKENOW WROTE:
WTS, that is excellent. Always have been a fan of Candace Owens. She did not hold back the last time she spoke to Congress. Candace put some white liberal ladies in their place and it was sweet."
My Esotericposted 12 hours ago Replied
"It's well known that, as a group, the Left has a higher IQ than the Right.
Studies show:
1. As a rule among the general population those who say they lean left have and average IQ of 105 while those that lean right averaged 94.
2. Out of a population of above average IQ students it was found those on the higher end preferred more extreme Left or Right positions while the rest generally favor centrist positions.
3. In cultures who have lived through extreme gov'ts those that prefer conservative views have, on average, lower IQs
than those who lean Left."
Just my opinion but this was uncalled for... It was very easy to insult a person that we know little about, and insinuate she is unintelligent, due to her being a conservative. This conversation turned to baiting.
Does this form of conversation fit into an intelligent conversation? Insulting a stranger, making claim"I am smarter than you because I am a liberal".. Not to me it doesnt.I'm not endorsing that comment any more than Mike's or the "Good one" or the "a bit deep for most liberals" meme above....I'm sure you all will be broken up about that /s. I too thought it came out of left field.
I appreciate your attitude. I am a conservative, and anything I post here is swarmed. I received lengthy comments composed of what is in the poster's opinion facts. The only problem, as a rule, the facts are really opinions not backed by any form of resource. Most comments I receive are summed up with a vague passe insult. So I must explain why when I see a comment I can relate to I give thumbs up. Yes, I can be bitting, but I need to be bitten first.
I have come to the conclusion, it's best not to get in bitting distance. But I had to bring that comment to the forefront. I think it's sobering...
I see the insult kings Read and WT have shown up to sully this forum with their mindless drivel.
What a shameful and yet shameless party. I could never vote for a Democrat for any reason. Thank God for Donald Trump. I'd previously given up all hope in ever seeing a decent federal government.
Todd wonderful point... However, it is a bit deep for most liberals.
Yet you are silent on the real criminal kids are actually breaking the law (Hunter didn't) with using their nepotistic positions under Trump to rake in millions from foreign entities including China while daddy is stumbling though negotiations with them.
Typical of mindless Trump followers.Esoteric....Are you calling every single Trump supporter, mindless? That sounds like Hate Speech to me.
As for Trump's so-called "criminal kids," what laws have they broken? Name them for me, please, because I am not aware of any. In fact, the Trump children have worked very hard. Do you really think their father, who works constantly, would allow his kids to to be a bunch of lazy losers?
As for Hunter, it is well known that:
He was discharged from the Navy because of his cocaine use.
He had an account (which was hacked) on Ashley Madison, a website that connects married people who want to have affairs.
Most Importantly.... Hunter Biden joined the board of the gas company (Burisma) owned by a Ukrainian government minister working to rebuild their image but who was facing a money-laundering investigation. The corruption was so rampant that one of Hunter Biden's investment firm partners ended his business relationship with Biden.
Hunter Biden had zero experience in that field, not could he speak the language.
You might also need to know that Hunter Biden's wife, Kathleen filed a motion on Feb. 23, 2017, " seeking to freeze Hunter Biden's assets. She claimed in a motion that was leaked to the New York Post that her husband had put the family on the brink of financial ruin by spending massive amounts of money on drugs, alcohol and prostitutes. Kathleen also dropped the bombshell that Hunter was Dating Hallie, his late brother Beau's widow."
The list goes on.
If you want to criticize the president, have at it, but his children are legitimately clean and successful..... unlike Hunter Biden, who spends his unearned money on hook-ups, alcohol and drugs, according to ABC news and other mainstream media.
Unlike the Trump children....who work their "butts" off.It is Hunter Biden who is clean and successful. Trump's kids are making money hand-over-fist from China (while daddy is the middle of trade negotiations) and many other foreign countries, most hostile to a civil world) because of Trump's nepotism. Happily, we should see them all in jail sometime in 2021, if not sooner.
MINDLESS - In the beginning no, only about 1/2 of them (studies showed). But now yes, for the most part anyway. There are a few stupid conservatives who think things are good and Trump is good so long as the economy is good. When it starts to go South, they will dump Trump in a heartbeat leaving only those who will follow any demagogue like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hussein, etc.
As to Hunter Biden - you might find this interesting. He has had a sad life. I personally understand his alcohol problem.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 … s-campaignEsoteric.....I read the article. It is basically the story of nepotism. All of Hunters jobs happened because his father's friends called in favors. That is pretty much the gist of the article. But I do give The New Yorker credit for admitting to his drug addiction and problems with women and alcohol.
They also reported that Hunter Biden stated he only attended Board meetings once or twice a year, even though he was paid 50 to 83K per month for doing nothing. Furthermore, the article described his unsavory China business dealings.
Hunter is a rather weak, pathetic man, and I do sincerely feel sorry about his addiction. But I do not have any sympathy for his addiction to strip joints, betraying his wife, and lying about his cocaine use to police, as well as the military. And now he is newly married, after having known his pretty South African wife for less than one week. I wonder how long that one will last?
But enough said about Hunter. Whether he had stayed on the board or not, I doubt that it would have made any difference in his father's campaign. I do not see Biden having the nomination, even in the best of circumstances. But time will tell.You neglected to address the nepotism in the WH, SD. Was that simply an oversight?
Nepotism - "Practice of appointing relatives and friends in one's organization to positions for which outsiders might be better qualified."
Now tell me where in that article (or anywhere else) did Joe Biden give Hunter Biden a job in the federal government?
On the other hand, Trump made is two inexperienced kids his senior advisors.
As to " All of Hunters jobs happened because his father's friends called in favors." - CAN YOU please point out the passages in that article which substantiates that claim? I never came away with that impression.
You should be giving Hunter credit for " admitting to his drug addiction and problems with women and alcohol.". The New Yorker simply reported what he told them about his life.
You say "They also reported that Hunter Biden stated he only attended Board meetings once or twice a year, even though he was paid 50 to 83K per month for doing nothing. " - AND I say, so what? That happens a lot in American corporations where members of their boards get paid tons for doing nothing because they are there for the prestige of their name. In any case, I think the article also said he gave them legal deliverables.
What was the unsavory part of the business dealings, I missed that.
I'm sorry, does attending one strip joint constitute an addition?? I think that is all he admitted to in the article. I had been to dozens of strip joints in my day when I was his age. Am I addicted?
He actually pled guilty to cocaine in the military, pleading guilty isn't lying.
I do agree his character leaves a lot to be desired, to put it mildly, but then mine did as well when I was an active alcoholic (didn't do hard drugs though). What I didn't see, and I searched elsewhere as well, is that he is a recovering alcoholic - sad.
So you think I am, in your words, a "stupid conservative"?
Deleted
First there is the nepotism..
Second there is profiting off the nepotism
https://www.newsweek.com/has-ivanka-tru … use-750515
Then there are the things that the NY Attorney General is investigating
Probably many real estate crimes
Many financial crimes.Fascinating. An apparent total inability to distinguish between the simple terms "claimed" and "convicted" (or even "investigate" and "convicted")...but it is those that disagree with your conclusions that are called "mindless".
You all need to remember that Wilderness is one of those who doesn't believe Hitler is guilty of genocide because he wasn't indicted let alone "convicted". He doesn't believe in spite of all of the evidence pointing to his guilt. But in Wilderness' eyes Hitler will be forever innocent.
The evidence of Trump's crimes is insurmountable and any person with the ability to reason knows he is guilty of them just like Hitler is guilty of the Holocaust."You all need to remember that " making every attempt to initiate groupthink to spread an untrue statement.
This comment is inappropriate and clearly meant to invoke hostie feelings towards another person that posts here on this forum. I have not located any indication that Wilderness has expressed his disbelief in the holocaust. This leaves me to believe this comment is not only untrue but a clear attempt to smear Wilderness just because the keyboard afforded him the opportunity to do so.
Wilderness put it best ---"Fascinating. An apparent total inability to distinguish between the simple terms".Let it go, Sharlee. For some, when their opinions are shown unsupportable they will respond with insults and lies. But there is no reason to take such rhetoric seriously enough to respond to such trolling - it just encourages more of the same.
I have reached my point of no return with this kind of comment. Blatantly insulting another with out and out lies.
The problem, Shar, is we haven't lied about Trump or his kids.
And you quote Fox Opinion and Limbaugh, enough said.
At least CNN and MSNBC report the news, Fox Opinion makes it up. Also, I report the quotes that CNN and MSNBC (which I actually don't watch because it is too much like Fox) quote.
Give me one lie about Trump I have given you that is equivalent to his "my father was born in Germany" lie.
Then you aren't reading very carefully, Shar. Wilderness has said many, many times that he doesn't believe in Trump or his kids guilt because they have not been convicted (or indicted
All I am doing (and I know you know this because it is clear you are intelligent) is drawing the logical analogy and conclusion. It goes like this:
SINCE Wilderness does not believe in Trump's guilt regardless of the mountain of convincing evidence supporting it
AND Hitler was never indicted or was convicted of the Holocaust (even though there is a mountain of convincing evidence to support such a conclusion
THEN it is reasonable to conclude that Wilderness would not believe in Hitler's guilt because he was never indicted or convicted.
To have another outcome makes Wilderness a huge hypocrite and I am sure he isn't that.
ALSO, the "You all need ..." has nothing to do with your made-up "group-think" It is simply what it says "a reminder to everyone of a certain reality in case they 1) didn't know or 2) have forgottenJack: The answer is simple. We don't trust Trump, his associates, his family, and Fox News' opinions. Just look at the mess they have all gotten us into for not only this country, but other countries as well. So you just keep focusing on his mythical performance.
All your explanations will not defend your comment in regard to accusing IWilderness of a holocaust denier.
If one feels they must attack other users with a statement like "You all need to know" you are trolling for groupthink, support for your insult.
Once again Trump or any of his children have not been indited for any form of crime. The Dems are trying 24/7 to pin anything they can on him and his family. One would think after three years they could have come up with something.And that would mean you don't buy into normal logic. You may not the conclusion, but it follows precisely - unless of course you are calling Wilderness a hypocrite where his belief in needing an indictment or conviction is situational. Meaning his reasoning doesn't apply to everything just the things he wants it to apply to.
Also, the Dems don't really have to try very hard do they with Trump and his kids handing it to them on a silver platter.As I said over, and over, and over... No one was arrested, indited or proven that Trump or his children have done anything. I am I to understand you feel that his children are above the law, and just could not be arrested for anything, for instance, the crimes you have insinuated they have committed?
Your logic escapes me... Normal logic tells one if someone is known to have committed a crime, they would be arrested and indicted and have their day in court. Wilderness deduction in regards to lawbreakers is precisely spot on. As I said the Dems would love to collar anyone with the name of Trump, and if anyone of them broke any law to include spitting in the street they would be charged with that very crime.
You live in a world of conspiracies, if comes, perhaps they will do. Seems you would at some point realize Trump or his children have not broken any laws.'You live in a world of conspiracies, if comes, perhaps they will do. Seems you would at some point realize Trump or his children have not broken any laws.'
I'm going to look forward to quoting this, often.
Trump literally broke the law when his administration decided to try and host the G7 at Doral. It might help to actually know the law before saying Trump hasn't broken any laws.Let's explore this statement "As I said over, and over, and over... No one was arrested, indited or proven that Trump or his children have done anything."
First, it should read "As I said over, and over, and over... No one was arrested, indited or proven that Trump or his children have done anything. - YET"
And in Trump's case, he doesn't have to have committed any crime to be impeached - he just needs to have abused is oath of office - which he has done many times over.
Also, are you suggesting the House should simply impeach Trump with no investigation whatsoever?
Are you suggesting that thinking people don't have the ability (or right) to evaluate publicly available information and draw a conclusion as to probable guilt? Hell, I, and most of the nation, thinks O.J. Simpson got away with murder even the jury came back with not guilty (which is not innocent)
It is evident to most of Americans that 1) Trump has abused his office, 2) committed actual crimes for which DOJ says he cannot be arrested, 3) his kids have illegally profited off of their nepotism, 4) Trump broke ethics laws with his nepotism, 5) those involved with the inauguration broke laws by accepting foreign money, 6) that those involved with the hush money payments to Trump's mistresses, (besides Cohen) including Trump, LLC and its leadership (the kids), and 7) probable state and federal tax fraud for cooking Trump LLC's books.
And those are just what I can remember off the top of my head this go-around.
Now, since you are a Trump sycophant, I would expect you don't believe any of those are crimes or deserving of impeachment. Fortunately, you are in the vast minority. Hell, even 30% (almost) of GOP think Trump should at least be impeached. Over 50% think he has done wrong, they just don't care.
Not ONE of those is a conspiracy - ALL are being investigated by state, federal, and congressional entities - unlike the conspiracy-laden world Trump and his supporters live in."First, it should read "As I said over, and over, and over... No one was arrested, indited or proven that Trump or his children have done anything. - YET"
YEY ---Am I to believe it is now acceptable to claim someone committed a crime, and then try to find eveident of tht crime. This would mean we could pretty much accuse anyone of anything...
"Let's explore this statement "As I said over, and over, and over... No one was arrested, indited or proven that Trump or his children have done anything."
Again, yes I am aware Trump is protected at this point from being indited. he is not protected from being impeached due to committing a crime. His children have no protection in that regard. If they break a law they can be arrested. That's just a fact. The Dem's have been accusing Trump of vague crimes for over three years. They are only doing this impeachment injury as a political ploy. It will come to nothing, and they realize that. the Senate will not vote to impeach.
"And in Trump's case, he doesn't have to have committed any crime to be impeached - he just needs to have abused is oath of office - which he has done many times over."
This is simply not true, not worth defending. It's. media BS.
In regards to believing crimes of impeachment...
I am still waiting. LOL I predict no impeachment and Trump will get four more years."Am I to believe it is now acceptable to claim someone committed a crime, and then try to find eveident of tht crime.: - OF Course not - BUT THEN that is not what is happening here is it? There is plenty of evidence of everything I and others have mentioned. You are just mentally blind to it.
"This is simply not true," - Again, you need to go back an look at previous impeachments and read the Constitution while your at it. Trump is going to be charged with most of the articles of impeachment which Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were plus some. Just to refresh your memory, they were:
JOHNSON:
1. "unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office and of the requirements of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, " For dismissing the Secretary of War in violation of the law at the time
2. "...unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” For illegally appointing an interim Sec War
3. " did commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this: That without authority of law, " - Sort of piling on to Article 2
4. "unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with " - More piling on to Article 2
5. Same as Artlcles 2, 3, and 4 each with a different specific violation
6."unmindful of the duties of his high office and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take and possess the property of the United Sates at the War Department, " - Lorenzo was the person talked about in the previous 4 Articles.
7. More conspiracy with Lorenzo
8. More conspiracy with Lorenzo
9. The gist of this very long Article is that Johnson ordered a military office to perform an unconstitutional action. - (Sound familiar)
10. Contempt of Congress
11. Contempt of Congress of a different sort and similar to Trump saying the impeachment hearings are illegal
Through political maneuvering the Senate ended up voting on only 3 of the 11 Articles voting 35 to 19 on each. A clear majority of Senators voted to convict, but it nevertheless fell one vote short of the 2/3 needed on each article voted on.
NIXON (on a bi-partisan vote):
1. Obstruction of Justice
2. Abuse of Power
3. Contempt of Congress
Nixon resigned when it became clear to him he would be convicted in the Senate.
CLINTON:
1. Lying to a grand jury
2. Obstruction of Justice
Clinton was tried in the Senate and was not convicted by a wide margin. On Article 1 that vote was 45 to 55 and on Article 2 it was 50 to 50 in a 55 to 45 Republican Senate.
The Articles I see coming for Trump are:
1. Obstruction of Justice
2. Obstruction of Congress
3. Violation of Emoluments Clause
4. Abuse of Power
5. and hopefully Treason.Om My...
--"You are just mentally blind to it."
No, I am waiting to see a provable crime that he or his children are actually charged with. I just don't buy into if comes or maybes, and media crazy...
---"This is simply not true, - Again, you need to go back an look at previous impeachments and read the Constitution while your at it. Trump is going to be charged with most of the articles of impeachment which Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were plus some. Just to refresh your memory, they were:"
Did Trump have sex in the WH? LOL I must have forgotten... Don't hold your breath. Do you ever even think you could be wrong about all of your accusations? where do you hide if you're wrong?
To address your "book on impeachment". This is very easy. Trump is not guilty of anything you have listed. Not one... Again not sure why you have talked yourself into believing Trump has committed anything that will result in impeachment?
---"you need to go back an look at previous impeachments and read the Constitution while your at it"
I will leave that up to Cheif Justice Roberts. I trust he is well versed in the Constitution. Perhaps you did not realize if the Dem's proceed with their impeachment, he will preside over the proceedings. Maybe that's one reason they won't take a vote and proceed.Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex in the White House. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
It well appears that ESOTERIC feels that not only the president breaks our laws, but his children do too. Yet, none ever are indited for ny form of crime? I have to give my view on this subject... A very common-sense view. The Dem's have been trying to pin a crime on Trump from before he ever stepped into the WH. And you can bet they would love to pin any form of crime on his children... I think it deplorable for anyone to make such personal insults just because they can. Mindless...
This kind of untrue rhetoric is too often spread by the mindless.Didn't stop you (or Trump) from accusing Hunter when he actually did nothing wrong.
As to the children, the indictments are coming. And nepotism is a given.
I bet you think O.J. Simpson didn't commit murder since he was never found guilty
I bet you think Hitler never committed genocide since he wasn't indicted
I bet you think Saddam Hussein never murdered anybody either since he wasn't indicted.
Don't you see how silly your "Yet, none ever are indited for ny form of crime?"
Just like with the examples above, it is in plain sight that those people are guilty of the crimes that were either not found guilty of or were never indicted and it is just as clear that Trump and his kids have committed all sorts of crimes.
You just don't want to see it in order to keep these crooks on a pedestal in your eyes."Didn't stop you (or Trump) from accusing Hunter when he actually did nothing wrong.
Do you ever read what you post? This statement is so biating and off the wall. I have not and do not intend to accuse Biden, his son or anyone with the name Biden of any crime. As of now, I have not seen any indictments handed down indicating ny Bidens broke the law. I do realize due to reading the transcript of Trump's phone call he asked the Ukrainian president to look into possible wrongdoing on Hunter's employment on the board of a company in Ukraine. I did read the new prosecutor is investigating the request.
Do you really think you have the right to post such a statement? Such unrealistic accusations of a mere stranger? I suggest you save your accusations and insults for someone else. I consider this kind of behavior nt only unacceptable but odd...
My Esotericposted 18 minutes ago ---"As to the children, the indictments are coming. And nepotism is a given.
I bet you think O.J. Simpson didn't commit murder since he was never found guilty
I bet you think Hitler never committed genocide since he wasn't indicted
I bet you think Saddam Hussein never murdered anybody either since he wasn't indicted.
Don't you see how silly your "Yet, none ever are indited for ny form of crime?"
Just like with the examples above, it is in plain sight that those people are guilty of the crimes that were either not found guilty of or were never indicted and it is just as clear that Trump and his kids have committed all sorts of crimes.
"As to the children, the indictments are coming. And nepotism is a given.
I bet you think O.J. Simpson didn't commit murder since he was never found guilty
I bet you think Hitler never committed genocide since he wasn't indicted
I bet you think Saddam Hussein never murdered anybody either since he wasn't indicted.
Don't you see how silly your "Yet, none ever are indited for ny form of crime?"
Just like with the examples above, it is in plain sight that those people are guilty of the crimes that were either not found guilty of or were never indicted and it is just as clear that Trump and his kids have committed all sorts of crimes.
You just don't want to see it in order to keep these crooks on a pedestal in your eyes."
You certainly assume a lot in regards to a mere stranger? Do you really feel you have the right to do so, and if yes why? So very odd...Right the same applies to your side...how blind you are to your own bias and hate. The scripture says..
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”No Jack, my side thinks Hitler, Hussein, Trump, and any others I mentioned are guilty even though they weren't indicted - the evidence is clear and convincing.
You should pay attention and follow your own scripture, Jack. It is much more applicable to your side than those of us in the middle.
So should your hero Trump even though he spits in God's eye.You’ve gotta be kidding... you in the middle?
You are so far left there is no further room to go.
Atheists often bring up God to justify their position except too bad they don’t believe in a higher power.1. I am absolutely in the middle - you are so far right that even Eisenhower probably looks like a Commie to you; maybe even Nixon. I am a social liberal meaning I believe in that each individual has the right to do anything they want so long as it does not hurt another living being or the environment. I am a fiscal conservative meaning we manage our money sensibly and not just throw money at problems. Hell, I used to be a Republican until your side destroyed it.
2. I am not atheist because I believe in God - just not your version of God.Trump and Tax Fraud - another crime front
Newly uncovered tax documents show Trump kept 'two sets of books' and may have committed financial fraud
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme … ame=iossmfTo a hammer, everything else looks like a nail.
Ignore it if you like, Jack. What are you going to say when he and his kids land in jail in New York?
"Most Importantly.... Hunter Biden joined the board of the gas company (Burisma) owned by a Ukrainian government minister working to rebuild their image but who was facing a money-laundering investigation. " - ACTUALLY you are referring to debunked right-wing conspiracy theories (about facing investigations)
"Hunter Biden had zero experience in that field," - Ivanka and Jared fall in that category as well but you don't seem to mind - WHY? AND they aren't making $50K a month, they are making millions because of their position with Trump - but that is OK to.It's okay. I realize (now) that you prefer to deflect and disregard questions from conservatives. It's fine. I won't push.
I looked over your site. I see you have many questions pertaining to the universe. I see your obsession with Trump. I see your obsession with many matters.
I wish you well. I really do.As any good American should, I obsess about Donald Trump because he represents a clear and present danger to the American way of life and American values. I have seen nothing like it in my 73 years of life and 63 years of following politics and all of the American history I have read.
The only think more dangerous to our existence as a nation than Trump in my memory was the 13 days of the Cuban Missile Crisis where I had my doubts, sitting behind a brick wall in our school nuke drill, that there was going to be a tomorrow.
(Which now brings to mind the disaster that is befalling earth from climate change that YOU and YOUR president is helping to happen.)
If there is another thing more worthwhile to obsess about, I don't know what it is.Esoteric....The "Clear and Present Danger" you speak of is all in your head. Clinton lost the election. You need to "get over it." Trump will be re-elected.
The following are only some of President Trump's accomplishments. He has made many more, despite the do-nothing Democrats. You should be thankful:
Approximately 4 million jobs created since election.
More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
Created 400,000 manufacturing jobs and growing.
Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
New unemployment claims at a 49-year low.
Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
African American unemployment has achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
Women’s unemployment at lowest rate in 65 years.
Youth unemployment at lowest rate in nearly half a century.
Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
Veterans’ unemployment at its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.
Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps.
The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans in vocational jobs.
95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—the highest ever.
Retail sales are surging. Consumer confidence is high.
Signed biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back into the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
Small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
Record number of regulations eliminated.
Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.
Obamacare individual mandate penalty removed.
FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. More companies are reversing planned price increases.
Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA tele-health services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
On the other hand, Socialism kills. Read your history. And by the way, Denmark and Scandinavia are not Socialist countries. Denmark has asked Bernie Sanders to stop making that claim. They apparently disagree with his policies rather vehemently.This past 12 months of job growth (1.782 million) will be the lowest since prior to Obama taking office.
Hate Crimes rising.
Deficits Rising.
National Debt Rising.
Trade Deficit Rising.
Agricultural Industry Decimated.
Environmental Protections Gutted.
Homelessness Increased Each Year in Trump's presidency after having dropped in each year under Obama.
GDP was 2.0 last quarter, not 4.2 as you claimed, which really makes you wonder about what else you just stated being close to accurate. (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product)Current-dollar GDP increased 4.7 percent, or $241.5 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $21.34 trillion. In the first quarter, current-dollar GDP increased 3.9 percent, or $201.0 billion.
Current-dollar GDP is an obscure metric used by foreign currency traders. It is a meaningless number in the real world.
Valeant is correct. The actual GDP grew 2.0% in the third quarter and is forecast to grow 1.8% in the current quarter.
http://www.investorguide.com/definition … r-gdp.html
https://www.bea.gov/news/2019/gross-dom … arter-2019
https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx
Hardly the 6% that Trump promised.Here is the problem, Savvy. Because you are talking about money across time periods, you have to do your calculations in "constant dollars" (the BEA uses 2012). If you don't your results are distorted by the difference in inflation between Q1 and Q2 (about 1.2% in this case).
It gets even worse when you annualize it because you are also annulaizing the error term. That is why you get such a disparity between the 4.7% and the actual growth of 2% between those two quarters.
To summarize: While you can compute 4.7% from the data, it is meaningless because of the time value of money. It only gains meaning when you take into account inflation.
How do i know this? I did it for 20 years as a career in the Air Force.
As I said you are mentally blind to it AND you rely on alternative facts or distortions or incomplete comparisons. For example;
"Approximately 4 million jobs created since election." - Obama did much better and he did as well as he did because of the great economy Obama left Trump
"Created 400,000 manufacturing jobs and growing." - It is actually 481,000 and it has been FLAT since Jan 2019 (think trade war as the reason)
"Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent." - FALSE, it is 2% for Q2. Trump has NEVER had 4.2%, the best he has done is 3.5% in Q4/17 and Q2/18. Obama, however, had 4.9% in Q3/14, 5.1% in Q2/14, 4.6% in Q4/11 - So Much For Trump's Greatness.
Unemployment Figures - Thank you President Obama for setting the stage for CONTINUED declines.
"The Pledge to America’s Workers " - Finally, something good that Trump can take sole credit for.
"Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps." - It is actually 6.6 million but the rolls have been growing in June and July.. Trump's rate of decline is about the same as Obama's.
"95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—the highest ever." - THAT was a 2018 number. Today the Manufacturing Index is in Contraction
"Retail sales are surging. Consumer confidence is high." - WRONG, the Michigan Consumer Index has been growing under Obama and is flat to a slight decrease under Trump. The Consumer Board Confidence Index grew under Obama and the first 2 years of Trump - it is FLAT now.
RETAIL SALES SURGING? - NO. Since Trump took office, month-over-month retail sales Increased in 21 months, Decreased in 6 months, and were Flat in 3 months. In comparing with Obama, retail sales growth is about the same.
"Small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years." - THAT may be true, but the PRICE is record Deficits and an ever increasing National Debt.
"Signed biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. " - WELL at least you are not lying like Trump and claiming it is the biggest ever. But it is not second either, it actually ranks 4th. It IS however the biggest Corporate tax cut in our history. As a result, however, it is driving record deficits and debt.
"Record number of regulations eliminated." - YES, and our environment is getting noticeably worse because of it.
"Obamacare individual mandate penalty removed." - TRUE - and you insurance got more expensive because of it.
"FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history." - TRUE and good
"More companies are reversing planned price increases." - NOT TRUE - any decreases have been reversed in now price increases
"Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act," - OBAMA signed the original Act - Trump extended and reformed it. The GAO doubts the reforms can be implemented.
"Socialism kills. " - In real life, Socialism does not kill. Tyranny kills Communism, as practiced, isn't socialism, it is a tyranny disguised as socialism. Many European countries went the real socialist route after WW II, but changed over to a capitalism-driven welfare state when it turned out socialism didn't work all that well.
I'll follow up with all the bad things Trump is doing to America.Esoteric.....How is it that you blame Trump for homelessness? As for your assertions regarding Obama, your claims failed to provide context. Thus, they have no credibility. Anyone can construe history to fit a specific narrative.
Again, the history of socialism is the history of death, starvation and destruction. I will never vote for a socialist.Yeah, that social security is so destructive. Be sure to forgo your social security checks. Your taxes go to firemen and police, be sure not to use those services either. Clearly destructive socialist programs that you're railing against.
Where did I blame Trump for homelessness?? I don't think I have ever mentioned it - and I don't, BTW.
Neither do your claims, but I have lots of data to back mine up - you don't. See https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Presi … he-Numbers
Supply me some facts about your claim regarding socialism. Remember, don't bring up communism, Venezuela or such instances - those are perversions of socialism. Use countries like England in the 1960s.
I won't vote for a socialist either, btw.
* Contempt of Congress - If he is not convicted of this impeachable offence, then NO president will EVER need to comply with congressionally issued subpoenas thereby neutering the intent of our founders to have three co-equal branches of government. (In other words - the Republican inquisition of Clinton would not have happened)
* Because Trump pulled out of Syria and abandoned our ally to be slaughtered by the Turks in a continuation of their genocide against the Kurds, no nation or group will every join America again in conflict because they will NEVER trust America not to elect another Demagogue like Trump
(I keep losing these so I will offer them in parts, there are a lot of them)The U.S. economy remains on an upward trend due to solid growth in consumption. That is the bottom line.
As a reminder, My Esoteric....
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
~Winston Churchill
In short, the Socialist and "Progressive" Democrats have nothing to offer except corruption and misery.
Trump may not be a polished orator, like your beloved Obama, but he is exposing corruption. The problem America is facing is that Democrats either do not know or disregard the fact that 90% of the media (at least) is heavily biased toward the Left. This fact has been proven by liberal professors, oddly enough.
One of the most damaging decisions the media makes daily is to Leave Out Information they know would easily change a readers opinion altogether. Not to mention, the media consistently fails to investigate/ research information on more than a superficial level. Mainstream media has an obligation to investigate and report the truth. Reporting "selected" facts and offering their "opinion" is not journalism.
I blame much of this "modern" corruption within the mainstream media upon Obama, who bailed out the failing newspapers, knowing full well they were beholden to him forevermore. That is only one of the insidious decisions Obama made---to use the media for his benefit. And by the way, I can provide you with a long laundry list of his corrupt practices---those recognized by the law, in fact.
There is a reason why Barack was a "parishioner of Reverend Wrights' church for 20+ years. His pastor hated America. Things have never been the same since his presidency. The former president reversed race relations by 25+ years. Before him, people were getting along much better and progress had been made in that area, without a doubt. But he, Barack, changed all of that.
Maybe it is time for so-called progressives to think about these facts, instead of blaming others for the problems their Party created."The U.S. economy remains on an upward trend due to solid growth in consumption." ??? How do you keep fooling yourself so badly, Savvy.
Manufacturing is in contraction, most economists are predicting a recession in 2020 or 2021, everybody but you and Trump are saying his Trade War is killing the economy and it is has clearly killed agriculture.
You do realize it was the Progressives that got you the vote, don't you? Of course many conservative women opposed women getting the vote - strange. In any case, socialism is a mute point, a scare tactic by conservatives to fear monger with. It will never happen in America - or anywhere else anymore for that matter.
Trump is worse than an unpolished orator, he is incoherent to the point it is hard to make sense of what he says. The way he speaks is indicative of the type of troubled mind psychiatrists and psychologists see in their patients. You ought to read Dr. Bandy Lee's book The Dangerous Mind of Donald Trump - IF YOU DARE.
"One of the most damaging decisions the media makes daily is to Leave Out Information they know would easily change a readers opinion altogether. " - WHEN has mainstream media ever done such a thing? Do you have any examples to back up your FALSE statement?
When did Obama ever "bail out" newspapers? Car companies yes, to save America, but newspapers? Another FALSE statement
"I can provide you with a long laundry list of his corrupt practices---those recognized by the law, in fact." - ACTUALLY, you can't - not real ones anyway.
"Things have never been the same since his presidency. " - YOU are right about that, with the election of black president, the racists of America have woken up and are resisting violently.
And of course as a rabid Trump supporter you forget to mention (sort of like what you accuse the media of doing) the fact that Obama criticized Wright on many occasions. TELL ME, why didn't you bring that up unless you were trying to twist the facts?
Maybe it is time for Conservatives to think about why they have spent 200+ years trying to hold America's civil rights back.Progressives destroyed our economy by instituting socialism policies. Capitalism brought us back to prosperity. Conservatives believe in limited government and free enterprise system. It has lead to the most successful and most powerful nation the world has ever known. It has generated the most wealth and brought more people out of poverty. That is an indisputable fact.
My dear Esoteric.....CNN should hire you. Your claims are "incredible"
as in "inconceivable." Nevertheless, despite the distortions you claim as truth, I sense that your false assertions are not based upon malice, unlike some here, who believe as you do... but who have no recognizable ideals or values... I give you credit for that.On Trump thinking he is being "lynched" by the Constitution. There is what Billie Holiday had to say about it in 1939 when whites were actually lynching blacks. (That's right 1939!!)
Southern trees bear a strange fruit
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees
That is what your so-called president was referring to. SICK. Worse, Sen Linsey Graham of South Carolina, where many blacks were lynched, defended him!! SICKER.Your Party is guilty of that crime, not mine. Furthermore, you needn't become hysterical. Obviously, the president was referring to the fact that he is not being given due process. He is presumed guilty without a trial by Democrats in Congress. That is against the law.
Adam Schiff, a liar, knows this better than anyone, yet he is holding secret hearings, leaking information without the benefit of context and making a mockery of the Constitution. Half of America is falling for it. This is beyond sad. It isn't even American. People should be more upset about that.- Trump will have his trial in the Senate, SD. You have no clue about the impeachment process, just what Fox tells you to think about it.
Your rant about Schiff proves it.... I am sure that the stable genius, Donald Trump, and his crack team of constitution-defending lawyers are seeking legal remedy through the courts to the Democrat-led lack of "due process" (aka "lynching") that is clearly a violation of the constitution.
Yes?Looking back in our history to the time of the witch hunts, we find that not too many were actually put to death; more common was to strip them of any land or other belongings and ban them from the town. It was a very convenient, lucrative and interesting method of gaining the land, animals, etc. of a neighbor that refused to give it up quietly; simply accuse them of witchcraft and after their removal from society what they had was up for grabs.
Perhaps a better term than "lynching" would have been "witch hunt" - the obvious intent is to grab political power, and hopefully the presidency itself.
(While another reason for the witch hunts was to allow the village/church elders to strip and carefully examine the bodies of women for "witch marks", it seems unlikely that even the Democrats behind it all are wishing to do that to Trump. This is unlikely to be their goal.
)Lol, okay, but if the Dems are conducting the impeachment proceedings in an unconstitutional manner, as several here have stated, then I'm sure the infinitely wise defender of the constitution, Donald Trump, is seeking remedy through the courts. Yes?
5,000 blacks and their supporters were lynched by conservatives in the years leading from 1882 to 1969. How many more were lynched prior to that is unknown and how many during that period went unreported is unknown as well.
Let's cut out the B.S. Here is the link to Bill Taylor's opening statement to the congressional committee. If you don't already know, he is/was the top U.S. diplomat in the Ukraine.
It is 16 pages long and to me it was completely fascinating and telling. He states, there were two channels of communications: The regular channel which he was in charge of and the irregular channel that Guilani and Trump's henchmen's were in charge of. If you don't want to read the entire testimony, start at page 11. You can't make this stuff up. It is a very detailed account.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vUI__s … sp=sharingI'll take this opportunity to go over the Charge d'Affaires to Ukraine's opening statement. Now I do know many of the pro-Trump acolytes think Taylor is a partisan hack, even though he is a Trump appointee; but the rest of know he is not.
1. "I said on Sep 9, in a message to ... Sondland that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with domestic political campaign in the United States would by "crazy". I believed that then. and I still believe that now."
2. "To restore Ukraine's independence , Russia must leave Ukraine. This has been and should continue to be bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goal."
3. "I worried about the role of Rudolph Giuliani, who had made several high-profile statements regarding Ukraine and the U.S. policy towards the country". And if the policy was changing, he didn't want the job Pompeo was offering.
4. "There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular." He goes on to say that Pompeo was the regular channel while [u]Giuliani, Sondland, Perry, and Volker;/u] were the highly irregular channel. Taylor also says that Sen. Ron Johnson was part of the channel.
5. "In late June, one of the goals of both channels was to facilitate a visit by President Zelenskyy to the White House to meet President Trump ... the Ukrainians were clearly eager for the meeting to happen."
6. "But during subsequent communications with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, they relayed to me that the President 'wanted to hear from Zolenskyy' before scheduling a meeting at the Oval office. I was not clear to me what this meant" (the sure thing is beginning to unravel)
7. On June 27, Ambassador Sondland told me during a phone conversation that President Zelenskyy needed to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelenskyy, was not standing in the way of the 'investigations'." (the meeting has now apparently become 'conditional' on something where the "investigations" is the "quo" part of the "quid pro quo". The meeting was the "quid".)
8. "By mid-July, it was becoming clear to me that the meeting that President Zelenskyy wanted [the quid] was conditioned on the investigations [the quo] into Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference into the 2016 U.S. election" (we are now into illegal activity here)That was an interesting read. Thanks for the link Mike.
If Mr. Taylor's opening statement/testimony can be accepted, with the weight of his apparent reputation, I think the quid pro quo argument is over - and not in Pres. Trump's favor.
GAYep, but then Mulvaney, Trump's acting Chief of Staff, had already said that at a news conference a few days ago.
Yes he did, but in the context of his, (Mulvaney), remarks I think there was enough wiggle room in his re-explanation for people that wanted to believe there was no quid pro quo to do so.
I don't think Bill Taylor's opening statement leaves any wiggle room at all.
GA
Why you even have to say 'if' is the reason we have Trump. Testimony under oath confirming Trump broke the law still has you skeptical. Come back to reality, buddy.
That is your perspective. My perspective is that I said "If" because I know nothing about Mr. Taylor that hasn't been presented to me by the media. And I have seen contradictory descriptions.
You take issue with my "if" because you chose to believe the complimentary descriptions, and thus find his testimony unassailable.
At this point, I also choose to believe the complimentary descriptions and believe his statement to be credible. But, that was a choice and it is a belief. My "if" qualified that understanding.
So no, Valeant, I do not agree that my choice to say "if" has anything to do with the reason we have Trump for president. I think it has everything to do with me not thinking that anything I believe is automatically true or a fact. That's my reality bud.
GAWhat "And I have seen contradictory descriptions.", is that GA? (I assume you are talking about Taylor)
Yes, that "contradictory descriptions" did apply to Bill Taylor. And those contradictory descriptions painted him as less than the patriotic diplomat that the complimentary descriptions did.
I don't know anything about Mr. Taylor but I chose to believe the complimentary descriptions because they sounded more truthful and credible.
It was a choice and a belief, hence the "if". If you go back to my response to PrettyPanther that included the montage of "smart people" declaring the fact that Trump would not be the president video I think you can see why I such qualifications when I am saying something based on what I hear from others.
I think others could benefit from adopting such an approach.
GABesides Trump - what ARE those "contradictory descriptions" As far as I have seen, they do not exist. Please elucidate.
"elucidate'? Is that like "tell me more"?
Okay, I did hear one CNN pundit claim Mr. Taylor's mother wore combat boots and made Bill wear dresses when he was 11 or 12. He said that gave Mr. Taylor a 'Lillian' complex that drove him to, well, I don't want to repeat what the CNN pundit said it drove him to, but it wasn't healthy.
Then I heard an MSNBC pundit claim Taylor was deeply involved in the drive to standardize bowling ten-pins at 3# 6oz. https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1984- … story.html
GAHow many martinis have you had this Friday evening? Your googler is off. ;-)
No martinis, but I could barely type over the clanging of my BS detector.
GA
Trump is creating a constitutional crisis by not cooperating with the investigation and ordering key witnesses to not appear before congress. Even Nixon had to turn over the tapes, because he knew he had to abide by the law. Trump is in every sense of the word is and did obstruct justice. There are the 10 instances outlined in the Mueller report.
Trump is violating the balance of power that was set forth by the framers. They intended for the separation of powers and checks and balances of the three branches of government. It was and is supposed to be based on the rule of law and respect for the constitution. If the president does not respect the constitution, what is the recourse?
If Trump is not impeached, and is elected for another term, at that point he will be governing as a dictator because he did not comply with the constitution.
That's how Hitler came into power. It was by not abiding with the laws of the land at that time. That's how dictators gain power. They simply do not play by the rules and the norms set forth by the rule of law. It is actually a form of overthrowing the government.
Trump has admitted that he thinks the emolument clause is phony. The president's oath of office says that he will defend the Constitution of the United States. Trump and his lawyers claim as president, the constitution gives him the right to do whatever he wants including shooting someone and not be prosecuted because it would interfere with his daily duties as president.Oh hey there, fella! It's the guy who, despite there being NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that taking guns from citizens would lower incidences of violent crimes (criminals would be armed, non criminal citizens would not be armed, what could possibly go wrong?) wants all of our guns taken away.
How you doin? How does it feel knowing there is ZERO CHANCE a Democrat will win in 2020? Your dreams of destroying my nation are smashed. How do you feel?
It's another day over here in north Texas. I've not got a gun, I've got a gun cabinet. I wake up in the morning and I thank God above for Donald J. Trump.Yes Todd, I thank God for one more day that I can feel the country is in capable hands... I could not imagine going back to the BS we were being fed for many years. 2020 should put th Dem's as I like to say, out of business.
Wesman: What has any of that got to do with Trump thinking as president he had the right to be above the law? Do you realize, if he is allowed to do that, that all presidents from this day forward will also be above the law?
I guess you think that having a gun cabinet full of guns makes you a patriot. I'm guessing you never served in the military, just like you thank God for Donald J. Trump having bone spurs, but yet he golfs every chance he gets on our tax payers money.
Stop with the Hitler comparison. You are making yourself too extreme and deranged. Trump is defending himself against unfair attacks and endless investigations...there is no Constitutional crisis. The crisis is in the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi. She is not conducting business like she is suppose to and legislate...the partisanship has to stop.
If Trump had nothing to hide he would cooperate with the investigation without reservation. If he had nothing to hide he would have shown his tax returns long ago.
That is ridiculous. Mueller spent two years looking and found nothing.
The IRS had his taxes under audit for a long time...if there was a problem they would have found it long ago...You avoided the question once more, Jack. If Trump is so innocent, then why is he fighting releasing his taxes? Your answer is the ridiculous one as the IRS dude in charge--appointed by Donnie-refused to follow the law and turn his taxes over to the House Ways and Means committee as required by law.
More obstruction of justice and another nail in little Donnie's coffin.You are right, Jack, it is ridiculous. Mueller spent two years looking and found a lot.
1. He found enough to indict dozens and get convictions on many Trump associates.
2. He found that Russia DID interfere in our elections ON HIS behalf. (yet, in an alternate universe, Trump and you are convinced the Ukrainians did it)
3. He found that the Trump campaign DID INVITE Russia to help them, just not to the level of PROVABLE beyond a reasonable doubt Conspiracy
4. He found and provided evidence of 10 cases of obstruction of justice for which HE WAS NOT ALLOWED to indict Trump on (meaning he would have if he could have). Instead, he gave his evidence to Congress to act on, which they are. Experts think 5 of those cases are slam-dunks in any court of law and that possibly 2 more are as well.
Whistleblowers have suggested (which in now being investigated) that those audits are being politically interfered with by Trump.See how Jack is silent when presented with irrefutable facts?
I just heard the reporting about Trump claiming that Russia, among others, helped America find Baghdadi. One problem, Russia denies it and questions whether the action even took place.
He even gave credit to the Turks and Syria and then, as an afterthought, added in the Kurds.
Personally, since Trump lies so much, I need to hear it from our military that the operation even happened and, if it did, went down the way Trump claims it did.
Why should anybody stop with the Hitler comparisons when they are relevant? Is it hitting too close to home, Jack?
What is "unfair" about the questions being raised about his conduct. It seems to me that you think:
1. It is OK that Politicians can gain financially based on their gov't position?
2. It is OK that a President of the United States (including Obama) is free to ask and even pressure foreign gov'ts to help them win the next election?
3. It is OK for any president (including Obama) to declare war on Congress and refuse to submit to ANY subpoena?
4. It is OK to abandon our ally, the Kurds, to certain death by their enemy the Turks.
5. It is OK for a President of the United States to repeated side with our enemies over our own intelligence institutions?
6. It is OK for a President of the United States to trash every ally we have?
7. It is OK to make the United States forever untrustworthy by unilaterally breaking our promises with other nations?
Donald Trump has done each and every one of those despicable things and you think it is just fine. WHY?
BTW - you are admitting you are blinded by your brainwashing when you say "She is not conducting business like she is suppose to". That is a flat out lie as you can see at
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/What- … h-Congress
and my source
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ … tives/5947
The thing is, Jack, Pelosi has passed A LOT of meaningful legislation. It is your Do-Nothing Republicans on the Senate side who is bottling it up. Why aren't you angry at them for not doing THEIR job? I agree, the Republican partisanship needs to stop.Jack: History has shown that dictators come into power by not following their countries laws. Do you deny that Trump thinks as president he is above the law? He states it by saying he can shoot somebody and not be prosecuted. Do we take him at his word or just shine it on, like or that is just locker room talk?
As far as Pelosi goes, she is not doing anything wrong, no more than Trey Gowdy and the GOP did with secure meetings trying to implicate Hillary for Benghazi for three years. It is not a matter of conducting business as you say, they are taking depositions from key witness as a result of Trump's unconstitutional actions.
Further, there are no rules for the house to as to how to conduct depositions. Just like their are no rules for the senate. They are allowed to make them up as they see fit.
Have you ever heard of the Biden rule that allowed McConnell to wait to appoint a supreme court justice until Obama left office? He made it up and the senate abiding by it. That is how another conservative became a supreme court justice.
That is why it is so important for congress to be mindful of the precedents they set as they can be used against them. That is why it is so important that trump not be allowed to be above the law as it set a precedent for future presidents.
Please don't give me labels as extreme or deranged just because you don't agree with me."He states it by saying he can shoot somebody and not be prosecuted. Do we take him at his word or just shine it on, like or that is just locker room talk? "
Well, if we have TDS we take him at his word, assume that he knows it to be true because he has shot someone in the middle of the street and start a 2 year investigation looking for the body. When we can't find one we ask all his enemies if they saw anything and assume they are telling the truth when they answer "Yes", even though there is no body, no gun and no missing persons. We absolutely refuse to consider that it might have been hyperbole, exaggeration or example to make a point.Wilderness: Is it still hyperbole when a federal court judge asks Trump's attorney about whether he believes Trump could shoot someone and not be prosecuted until he left office?
You see that is the problem with Trump. It is difficult to separate his hyperbole from fact. You interpret it as hyperbole. I interpret it as fact. That is why he shouldn't use tweets to make policy.
He said he is building a wall that blocks the border between New Mexico and Colorado to a group in Pennsylvania. After it was pointed out to him that Colorado is not on the southern border, then he says he was just joking.
I don't think he really looked at a map before opening his mouth. Hyperbole or fact? . Too many incidents like this indicate he is not the smartest pencil in the box. Even the Governor of Colorado said Trump needs a third grade geography lesson.
Trump calls his exaggerations and lies "truthful hyperbole." by his own admission. How can it be both truthful and hyperbole at the same time?You'll get no argument from me. I've seen Trump defenders,both here and elsewhere, including friends of mine, say Trump is the most honest and transparent president we've ever had. They truly believe that.
Go figure.Fun Facts from Gallup:
I will leave out the Ds responses since we know where they stand and just compare Rs with Independents.
1. Is Trump a decisive leader? Rs - 88%; Is - 51% (I would have said yes even though he does change his mind a lot)
2. Can bring about changes this country needs? Rs - 89%; Is - 41%
3. Keeps his promises? Rs - 82%; Is - 43% (I would argue it is hard to tell because his promises change daily)
4. Can manage the gov't effectively? Rs - 82%; Is - 38%
5. Cares about the needs of people like you? Rs - 86%; Is - 34%
6. Shares your values? Rs - 81%; Is - 32%
7. Is Honest and Trustworthy? Rs - 75%; Is - 27%
What does this tell me? That Republicans live in a fantasy world. But even so, fully 1/4 of Republicans think Trump is Dishonest and Untrustworthy.
Why is that??
"Wilderness: Is it still hyperbole when a federal court judge asks Trump's attorney about whether he believes Trump could shoot someone and not be prosecuted until he left office? "
What a judge asks anyone else has exactly zero to do with whether it was hyperbole...unless one is actively searching to find anything showing it was not. This is a good example of my point; no indication of context, no indication of what that judge was looking for, no indication of any answer...just that a "authority" asked a question and the implied assumption that the "authority" believes the answer is "yes".
In fact, it rather sounds like the judge was asking for a legal opinion on whether the law could convict a sitting president of such a crime, but of course that has zero to do with the implication that Trump thinks he could do it whether president or pauper so any context must be omitted from the comment.
" You interpret it as hyperbole. I interpret it as fact. "
That's exactly what I mean. Only an idiot (literal) would think Trump believes he can walk into the street in view of everyone and everything, and shoot down a random passerby without repercussions. An idiot or someone with TDS, desperate to show the evil they find inherent in Trump and more than happy to set reason aside as long it will further that search.
Of course, the end result is that no one (but another TDS sufferer) will pay any attention, but that's a minor problem easily overlooked in the distressingly difficult attempts to remove the President from his lawfully elected position.
Example: do you really believe that the Governor of Colorado thinks Trump needs a third grade geography lesson? Do they teach third graders that Colorado is not on the southern border (although what that has to do with a wall between Colorado and New Mexico escapes me)? Does the governor think third graders know more geography than Trump?
Of was it hyperbole to make a point? Hyperbole that is accepted as such when it is spun into factual truth when Trump does the same thing?Where does Conway's "alternative facts" fit in, Dan?
Did you even read the article? If so, I am puzzled that you found no context there.
What article? There was no link in what I replied to.
Wilderness: You replied to my post which had pretty panther's link in it. Maybe you just didn't see it. Then I posted the entire text from the article to you and you didn't reply. So here is the link again.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 073405002/So this is long after Trump made his statement (was that after the election or before?). While Trump may have been speaking about the same thing (which would make his statement quite true and not hyperbole at all, whether he was right or wrong in his assumption that his lawyers were correct), I doubt it.
But either way, it is NOT reasonable that the assumption, that Trump thinks he can kill indiscriminately without any repercussions, remains false on the face of it.His statement was more a commentary about the blind devotion of his supporters than about the law. However, that does not change the fact that his lawyers are arguing he could commit murder and not be criminally charged while in office.
Trump knows his base. That's one subject he can legitimately claim to be an expert in. If he claimed to know more about his base than anyone in the history of the world, I would believe him.The argument Trump's lawyer was making was so long as Trump is in office, he is totally immune from prosecution or even being investigated. His lawyer claims that while in office he is effectively a King and is therefore above any law.
What's more, most of his sycophants believe the same thing; you may be an exception.
I actually heard that ridiculous claim in a news report. They need to disbar that lawyer for being an idiot, lol.
I agree it does sound like a ridiculous claim My Esoteric, but . . . isn't that the same logic that was used to explain why Mueller didn't charge the president with obstruction of justice - because a sitting president couldn't be indicted for a crime?
GANo, not quite, GA. If I am not mistaken, this is about a state investigating the president's taxes. The question came up in a federal appeals court hearing after Barr took the president's side that he is immune from basically everything.
In Mueller's case, the DOJLC opined that a sitting president can't be indicted on federal charges - it has yet to be adjudicated. That is why Mueller threw it to Congress for possible impeachment.
Mueller did say that he was not prevented from investigating the president.
Trump's lawyer responded to several questions that said, in essence, the state may not even investigate a crime by the president that falls within their jurisdiction, let alone indict and prosecute so long as the president is still in office.Well, I wasn't being so bold as to address all of the lawyers' comments, (since I did know that Mueller had investigated the president's actions), but I thought I had a handle on the part about indicting a sitting president. I guess I will have to wait and see if I did.
GATrue. The question at hand is "can untested DOJ guidance apply to states?" My position would be that since it is not actual law, then no, there isn't even a real issue.
Hmm . . . My first thought is that the states could not indict a president either, but that is just an uninformed thought. If Federal law is supreme then I don't see how state law can ignore it.
I don't think your point about it not being actual law matters. It would be framed as a Constitutional issue.
Either way it seems almost certain to be a question for the Supreme Court.
GAIt is an interesting question that could be worth a state trying it to send it to the Supreme Court for a ruling. DOJ opinion is not the Supreme Court, so it would be interesting to hear their take on it since there are clearly some state crimes in play here (the Trump Foundation and Trump Organization fraud cases specifically).
Wouldn't "If Federal law is supreme then I don't see how state law can ignore it." imply that States have no rights at all then?
Also, to be a Constitutional issue (and I agree, it needs to go to the Supreme Court) wouldn't there have to be something in the Constitution that says the President is above the law while in office? If it doesn't do that, how could a court, any court, find that it does.
Also, let's suppose that the President breaks a State law, but not a federal one which has nothing to do with the oath of office. Could he or she be impeached for that crime? If not, then doesn't that make the president King while in office beholden only to - well nobody but themselves?
Somehow I think the founders would find that abhorrent and play into their greatest fears of having a demagogue such as Trump as president.You might be right Scott. But relative to the Constitutional issue part, it seems that was the reasoning of the original DOJ opinion. It was their thought that the power of a state or legislature to indict a sitting president would amount to an erosion of the Constitution's mandate of separation of powers.
But all that is well beyond my understanding.
GAI have to disagree there, GA. The DOJLC opinion was originally created in 1973 during the Nixon impeachment. It was reaffirmed in 2000. What has happened since is:
1. United States v. Nixon determined that a president’s desire for confidentiality does not outweigh a criminal subpoena for information
2. Nixon v. Fitzgerald determined a president cannot be tried for civil damages arising from official conduct
3. Importantly to this discussion - Clinton v. Jones determined certain civil proceedings unrelated to the presidential office can be taken up against a sitting president.
4. The Supreme Court has yet to determine whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted
5. The Constitution, for its part, does not address the possibility of criminal charges against a sitting president.
6. But some lawyers have argued that the nation’s founders could have included a provision in the Constitution shielding the president from prosecution, but did not do so, suggesting an indictment would be permissible. According to this view, immunity for the president violates the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law.Here is the latest opening statement from tomorrow's witness, a decorated military veteran who was on the call with Trump and Zolenskyy. He thinks Trump's ask of investigations on political opponents hurt the national security. (and thereby abused his power, an impeachable offense.)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/28/politics … index.htmlThe House is voting on the impeachment of Donald Trump.
I say, bring it on. If they want to investigate Trump, then they should apply the same standard to all Democrats...
I want all the information out there in the public domain. Trump should declassify all documents relating to Mueller investigation, the current whistleblower on Ukraine and all other corruption charges including Clintons and Bidens... Our system of justice demand equal protection and equal justice."The House is voting on the impeachment of Donald Trump." - YOU STILL need to get your facts right, Jack. The House is NOT voting on impeaching Trump, they are voting on the procedures to follow once the investigation phase is over (you know, the right that the Constitution gives them).
Just to educate you, the process goes like this:
1. The President appears to have committed an impeachable offense (in civil life, the DA thinks somebody committed a crime)
2. The House investigates those charges, normally behind closed doors (in civil life, the DA conducts secret investigations of the suspect, sometimes going to a secret grand jury)
3. The House, based on the investigation, decides if articles of impeachment are called for or not. (no equivalent in civil life)
4. The House holds public hearings to bring the facts out into the open (no equivalent in civil life)
5. If warranted, the House recommends articles of impeachment (in civil life the DA formally charges the suspect)
6. The charges are sent to the Senate for adjudication at trial.
Now, sometimes a special counsel, or the like, takes the place of the House doing the investigation, but there is NO Constitutional requirement to do so. Now you can believe in the Constitution or not and based on your comments so far, it doesn't look like you do.I do agree that Trump should stop obstructing justice and declassify all of Mueller's documents.
As to the Clinton's and Biden's, the Republicans looked at them many times over (especially Clinton, what was it, 8 times?) and in Clinton's case found her innocent and in the Biden's case, didn't find anything there.The Clintons have never been investigated with regard to the Clinton foundation. This charity only spent 10% of its donation on helping others...
The people investigating them are the very corrupt people in our government like Comey...So tell us what happened with the Trump Foundation, Jack. Make it good....
Sharlee:
"I have a question --- I noticed many here bring up the fact "True he is president, but the minority voted for him to be so:" Would you be satisfied to do away with the electoral college, and confirm a president on Majority vote?
I would think it dangerous to have a couple of largly populated states choose our president."
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Trump won the election by getting over 270 Electoral College (EC) Votes, not from the big states, but from the small states where he campaigned the most. While Hillary didn't get those EC votes because she campaigned the most in the big states.
Trump knows that. That is why he only holds rallies in the states where he can get the most EC votes. The problem is it is a winner take all EC votes.
If in a given state, the majority of the votes are with one candidate, they get the remaining EC votes for that candidate. Some states even have rouge EC voters that are not faithful to their party. That's how Trump was able to get over 270 votes to win the election. That's why he campaigns heavily in those small states that can give him over 270 EC votes. In that regard, he is no dummy.
Why do you come on here and so blatantly lie? It has been investigated and the figure is closer to the high 80's, with the rest going to administrative expenses. What are your right-wing sources for such a claim?
Like others of Jack's ilk, very few queries are addressed by them, preferring instead to blame everything on Obama and the Clintons.
That is not what I am saying. Don’t put words in my mouth. What I am saying is all of you needs to be consistent in your views about politicians in general. What you apply to Trump must be in line with what you say about past politicians like Obama and Clinton. You cannot apply two different set of standards just because you like one and hate the other.
This is exactly what has been happening with our media for the past 30 years and getting worse.
If Trump did something wrong, bring it on. Make sure if others did something similar, they should be held accountable, equally, no more no less.
This impeachment so far is a farce. If more information comes to light, I would reconsider. Right now, it is just partisan politics trying to take down a president - IMHO.We do Jack, we do apply the same standards. It is just than nobody even comes close to being as crooked and despicable as TraitorTrump is.
Obama didn't snuggle up dictators and murderers, neither did either Clinton.
Obama didn't ask foreign leaders to dig up dirt on their political opponents as Trump is doing. Neither did the Clinton's.
Obama didn't use his position to make money from his businesses, neither did either of the Clinton's or for that matter ANY OTHER PRESIDENT.
Obama didn't throw are ally's under the bus left them to die like Trump just did.
Neither Obama nor the Clinton's obstructed justice like Trump is doing
Neither Obama nor the Clinton's obstructed Congress like Trump IS doing.
Now they had noting to be accountable for, did they?
I can go on and on.
I take it you think the Clinton impeachments was a farce as well since it was based on something much less serious than the crimes Trump has committed.Jack, tell me - why are rabid Trump supporters so disgusting? Now we have Trump and his Republican surrogates trashing national military heroes like Charge d'Affairs Taylor and Lt. Col Vindmam or even Senator McCain. Even Fox Opinion got into the mud calling Vindman a traitor, for god's sake!!!
"On Fox News, John Yoo (yes, that John Yoo, the former government lawyer who came up with George W. Bush's "enhanced interrogation" torture policy) opined that perhaps Lt. Col. Vindman was a traitor engaged in "espionage" on behalf of Ukraine."
Aren't you ashamed at your fellow Republicans Jack?Aren't you ashamed as well as Republicans are making death threats against the whistleblower as a result of Trump's hate speech?? I would be.
And speaking of that, I need to add another article of impeachment that should be filed - Witness Intimidation against the whistleblower.You're absolutely right - Trump should be impeached because Fox News aired someone that insinuated Vindman was a traitor.
And while we're at it, you should be jailed because your neighbor is cooking meth in his basement.I am sorry Wilderness, you seem to be confused. The comment you replied to referred to are Republican's (and Fox Opinion) despicable death threats (and other disparaging words) against the wistleblower.
The article of impeachment refers to Trump's public threats to the whistleblower. Do you have any doubt in your mind that Trump's speech about the wistleblower wasn't intimidating?
"This charity only spent 10% of its donation on helping others..." - Actually, that is a lie, Jack.
Why didn't a state district attorney file charges like they did with a real crooked foundation, the Trump Foundation. Because the Clinton Foundation did nothing wrong.
Why, if the Trump Foundation was so bad as you say that they garnered a 4-star rating from Charity Navigator. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index. … rgid=16680
It seems that unlike many other charities, the Clinton Foundation does its own charity work - therefore of course they spent only 10% on OTHER charities. Yet knee-jerk Republicans don't bother to look at the facts, do they.
Here is a question for you Jack, although you haven't answered the others. Why isn't Trump complaining about his own children's illegal behavior at the same time he is going after Hunter Biden?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/28/opinions … index.htmlBecause they did nothing wrong. Trump’s children earn their keep working for their dad...in the Trump organization building hotels and golf courses and luxury condos...
Oh, so Ivanka isn't getting Chinese trademarks based on her association with her father and her position in his cabinet. - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/06/ivanka- … marks.html
"For two years starting in 2010, the aspiring entrepreneur and her brother Donald Trump Jr. were under investigation in a felony real estate fraud case involving Trump SoHo, a luxury hotel and condominium project in New York City that they were developing for their father’s Trump Organization, according to a new story by the New Yorker." - https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/ … t-in-2012/
Or how about these little bits of trivia regarding "the kids". Lot's of potential crimes - https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/08/al … als-trump/
And Now we find out that Trump Lied about those ellipses (...) in the summary transcript he had produced. He claimed that those were simply, lol, "pauses". Nobody believed him of course, but the decorated, purple heart Lt. Col. Videman (who Fox Opinion and other Republicans suggest is a traitor) says were actually impeachable references to the Bidens.
Are you finally convinced Trump abused his power yet or are you one of those Conservatives who think extorting a foreign gov't to help you get elected is just another day in the office?And this feeds into the Treason Article of Impeachment -
"Anderson's testimony will also reveal that the Trump administration blocked a statement condemning Russian aggression towards Ukraine -- which was drafted by the State Department -- in November 2018. It came after Russia had seized Ukrainian military vessels in the Sea of Azov."
Isn't that aiding and abetting an enemy? If Trump were working for American interests rather than Russian, why would he block such a condemnation of what amounts to an act of war by the Russians?
Hell, he has said the whole Constitution is stupid and should be thrown away.
GA: If what I said makes it crystal clear to you, then yes that is my elucidation. If not, then I have failed as an "elucidator."
OK, sorry, I see you were being subtly sarcastic again, lol. Good one.
Damn! Time after time my sarcasm fails, and yet I continue to try. There must be a name for that.
GA;-)Wilderness and others who didn't read the article. Here is the text and the context of why Trump and his attorneys think Trump is immune to criminal acts as a sitting president.
"One of President Donald Trump's private attorneys told a federal appeals court panel Wednesday that Trump could not be investigated or prosecuted if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
The assertion from William Consovoy, who is trying to block a New York City prosecutor from examining Trump's tax returns in a criminal investigation, came in response to a hypothetical question about a president's immunity.
"What's your view on the Fifth Avenue example?" Judge Denny Chin asked. "Local authorities couldn't investigate? They couldn't do anything about it?"
Consovoy said Trump no longer would be immune once he leaves office. "This is not a permanent immunity," he said.
Chin persisted, asking what would happen to a sitting president.
"Nothing could be done? That is your position?" he asked.
"That is correct. That is correct," Consovoy responded.
The nearly hour-long oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, based in Manhattan, came two weeks after federal District Court Judge Victor Marrero rejected Trump's claim of absolute presidential immunity from criminal investigations.
The three appeals court judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, appeared likely to uphold Marrero's ruling that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance can subpoena Trump's tax returns. Vance is probing alleged hush-money payments to two women who allege they had affairs with Trump before he won the White House, allegations that Trump denies.
Chief Judge Robert Katzmann said state and federal tax authorities already have some of the tax records, so disclosing them to Vance and his grand jury might not be that harmful. Judge Christopher Droney noted subpoenas were permitted during the Watergate investigation of President Richard Nixon.
Chin said the subpoenas for tax returns apply to Trump's private accountants. "The president doesn't have to do anything to comply," he said.
Consovoy was adamant in response. “We view the entire subpoena as an inappropriate fishing expedition," he said. When organizations are targeted for a president's personal information, they should be immune as well, he said.
But Carey Dunne, general counsel for the Manhattan district attorney's office, accused the president's lawyers of "making this up."More Trump lies:
TRUMP SAYS:
Trump claimed he had been prescient about the danger posed by bin Laden, having called for the death of the al Qaeda leader in a "very successful" book he published in the year before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Trump said that he knew the threat from bin Laden at a time when "nobody" had "ever heard of" bin Laden.
"About a year -- you'll have to check it, a year, year and a half before the World Trade Center came down, the book came out. I was talking about Osama bin Laden. I said, 'You have to kill him. You have to take him out.' Nobody listened to me," he said.
"Let's put it this way: if they would have listened to me, a lot of things would have been different," he said.
"To this day, I get people coming up to me," he said. "They said, 'You know what one of the most amazing things I've ever seen about you is that you predicted that Osama bin Laden had to be killed before he knocked down the World Trade Center.' It's true. Now, most of the press doesn't want to write that, but, you know -- but it's true. If you go back, look at my book."
FACTS FIRST:
Trump's January 2000 book, "The America We Deserve," mentioned bin Laden once, but it did not call for bin Laden to be killed or warn that he would perpetrate a major attack if he were not killed.
In a separate section, the book said the US was in danger of a major terrorist attack that would make the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center look minor in comparison -- but it did not predict that bin Laden or al Qaeda would be the perpetrator of this attack.
There is also no basis for Trump's claim that bin Laden was unknown to everyone else at the time. Bin Laden was a well-known figure in 2000, though he had not achieved the prominence he would gain with the attacks of 2001; the FBI had added him to its Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list in 1999.
Here's the one mention of bin Laden in Trump's book: "Instead of one looming crisis hanging over us, we face a bewildering series of smaller crises, flash points, standoffs, and hot spots. We're not playing the chess game to end all chess games anymore. We're playing tournament chess -- one master against many rivals. One day we're all assured that Iraq is under control, the UN inspectors have done their work, everything's fine, not to worry. The next day the bombing begins. One day we're told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jet fighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it's on to a new enemy and new crisis."
Tell me, Shar, if Trump can so easily lie about something that is so easily checked and proven to be a lie, how can you believe anything he says? How can you think he is an honest and trustworthy man? Remember Trump also lied about where his father was born - twice, not just once. Not that long ago he said he was born in Germany and in his book he said New Jersey.
How can such a liar be president?August 20,1998 : President.Clinton launches cruise missiles against Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, approximately 70 cruise missiles hit three alleged bin Laden training camps. An estimated 24 people were killed. But if they wanted to kill bin Laden, they failed. Bin Laden was not at the camps when the bombs hit. In the Sudan, approximately 13 cruise missiles hit a pharmaceutical plant.
I hate to burst your bubble... I never claimed or even implied I thought Trump was an honest man. I have never addressed his honesty. I have certainly condemned many of his mistruths. I have mentioned I appreciate his job performance and like his agenda. So far, I am satisfied with his job performance. I think he is accomplishing much of what he promised, naturally not all of what he promised.
Sorry, you had to compose such a lengthy comment in regard to Trump's lack of honesty. As I see it at times he tells lies, and sometimes he seems to not have all the facts he speaks of. And sometimes his words are taken out of context.Shar, you mention many times that you "appreciate his job performance and like his agenda" So the question is, what has he actually accomplished that is GOOD for America?
Also, I question the idea that his has kept his promises. Even assuming he has kept 100% if his promises, the real question is were they promises worth keeping. Would those promises help or hurt America.
I would argue that ALL of his promises regarding immigration have, in practice, been extremely harmful to America.
His top 7 promises, he failed on 4 and the other two were harmful to America.
1. Build a wall to keep out drug dealers, sex traffickers, and illegal immigrants - Not Kept
2. Mexico will pay for the wall - Not Kept
3. Real Obamacare - Not Kept
4. Cut taxes for everyone - Not Kept (only cut taxes in a meaningful way for the rich)
5. Cut corporate taxes - Kept, but along with the cutting taxes for the rich, he is driving record deficits and debt which is bad for America
6. Suspend immigration from terror-prone nations - Kept, but a the cost of America's image around the world and for no particular purpose.
7. Reduce or eliminate trade deficits - Not Kept (they are larger than when he took office and also proves how dumb he is as trade deficits are neither good nor bad (except in rare circumstances), they just are)
What other major promises has he made?
If you mention ISIS, he just completed what Obama started.
If you mention unemployment, he just completed what Obama started
If you mention stock market, in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, the market is within the channel established by Obama
If you mention GDP, he is doing no better or worse than Obama.I have no intention of arguing about the accomplishment of President Trump. After reading your comment it's very clear our thought process is very different. Most of what you listed rings as very untrue to me.
As I said I appreciate Trump's job performance. The way I see it In three years Trump has solved many problems and works daily even under ridiculous circumstances.Then it should be no hardship for you mention a few problems he has solved, Shar. And golfing wasn't supposed to be working as he promised...
Not sure he has been on a golfing trip in a very long time? Maybe he has mended his ways.LOL
I have previously listed the long list of Trump's accomplishments, only to have each and every one disparaged or Obama is given credit for some.
It would seem futile to beat a dead horse. Once agian it's my opinion that Trump has a good job performance.
How about I start a new list of Trump's accomplishments from today on?
I think it a great accomplishment that Trump bagged the leader of ISIS. As Obama did by bagging Bin laden. Although it was Trump that annihilated;
ISIS.
One of his biggest accomplishments, this president is the president of the people. Unlike any other before him. Each day one only needs to check his schedule on facebook to l realize he honors Americans for what they have accomplished. He makes time to meet , and hear the people. He does not fly under the radar. He is transparent, and available to the people like no other president. Today he is in Chicago, to speak at the annual gathering of the International Association of Chiefs.
And no I can't say that the wall is built. But I can say it is being built. It's been reported that one mile a day is being built, and it is expected hat is to be constructed will be done by the end of 2020. I give this president so much credit, he is like the turtle that ultimately wins the race.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent … agon-says/True he is president, but the minority voted for him to be so. And yes, he is transparent. Anyone with half sense can see right through his lies and arrogance. Mental giant my foot.....
The land to build the new wall hasn't been acquired yet, so I suppose you're referencing wall repairs or on already obtained land. I assume you agree with Trump taking congressional approved money from other projects simply to try and keep his BS promise to his base?I have a question --- I noticed many here bring up the fact "True he is president, but the minority voted for him to be so:" Would you be satisfied to do away with the electoral college, and confirm a president on Majority vote?
I would think it dangerous to have a couple of largly populated states choose our president.I am actually on your side on this. If they do away with gerrymandering (which Congress can do) then I think going to a popular vote is a bad idea. The founders chose the electoral college as the lesser of three bad choices, the popular vote being one. But I wonder if they would have gone that route had they known the corrosive impact of gerrymandering.
Of note, the NC courts have invalidated the Republican map so now maybe the people in NC can get a fair election."I would think it dangerous to have a couple of largly populated states choose our president."
Hi Sharlee, that is a point I have frequently made in the past in my comments defending the need for the EC, (Electoral College). If I remember right, the 13* or 14* most populous states could determine who the president would be in every election if the selection was by popular vote. We can then just []i]'forgedabout'[/i] those other 36 or 37 states.
*might not be the exact numbers, but the point is right.
GACalifornia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, N. Caroline, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and New Jersey = 270 EC votes. Enough to ensure control. 11 states.
But in practice, California, Texas, Florida and New York = 151 votes which will surely swing any election if they vote the same.So my memory wasn't failing me. Thanks Wilderness.
GANotice that this isn't what you said; it is EC votes. In other words, we already have a system where a few states can control the presidential election.
Oops? Doesn't Pres. Trump's election negate that thought? I would say they have heavy influence, but not control. With a popular vote election, they would have control.
GA
GA, Yes, I find it odd that any American citizen would be satisfied with doing away with the electoral college? It seems some just "go with the follow" and don't really consider the consequences of what doing away with our tried and true election process. It really makes me wonder, where is this county headed? It makes me think many have lost the ability to use common sense... 2+2 still adds up to 4.
People are keeping track of Trump's golf outings - it is a lot.
https://trumpgolfcount.com/I will give Trump credit for giving the go-ahead for the raid that took out Baghdadi. I will also give him credit for what followed when he gave up intel secrets or spoke like someone who wallows in the gore and violence of the raid which was totally unbecoming a leader of America and was flat out embarrassing.
I am sorry, but Obama had already started taking apart the Islamic state, Trump almost completed the job until he cut and ran out of northern Syria. One thing this article gives Trump credit for is arming the Syrian Kurds.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/opinions … index.html
As to his wall, the facts say nothing new has been built, certainly not a mile a day. In fact, Before Trump became president, 654 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. Mexico border had primary barriers. As of today (Aug 2019). that hasn’t increased.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … ally-been/
Having said that, I found another article that is contemporaneous with your military times piece that says:
"This 5-mile section of fencing is where President Donald Trump’s most salient campaign promise – to build a wall along the entire southern border – is taking shape. The president and his administration said this week that they plan on building between 450 and 500 miles of fencing along the nearly 2,000-mile border by the end of 2020, an ambitious undertaking funded by billions of defense dollars that had been earmarked for things like military base schools, target ranges and maintenance facilities." (stolen from the military with a fake national emergency order because Congress told him they don't want his useless wall)
But again, Shar, what is there to appreciate? I am guessing very little if you can't articulate it. What problems has he solved? I know of none; he hasn't only created problems.
It's very clear that some here on this forum have come to realize Trump's accomplishments where others do not. His accomplishments have been listed here at nauseam. I am not here to recruit with lists. I have given my opinion on the subject, that's all she wrote...
We are almost to November now.
One year to go before the 2020 election.
Do you think they will actually get around to voting on Impeachment before then?
How much political capital will be expended to actually do so?
Do you believe this is some sort of twisted plot to help make Trump more popular and more re-electable?Oh, yes, I believe it's a twisted plot to make Trump more popular than ever! And it's definitely working!
Well, I'm just saying that's what is happening, and it seems to correlate to the efforts and actions of the Democratic politicians.
This was the story in 2018:
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi … 12624.html
And here we are in 2019 and he is more poplar than ever:
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/ … esistance/
It just seems to me, the Democrats couldn't be doing much more to shift people into Trump's camp if they wanted to... so is it by design or what?I don't believe you are correct about Trump's popularity, but even if you were, it wouldn't change my view that this president's actions warrant impeachment proceedings.
OK, Ken, give me a break. Please provide real analysis - two polls a year apart which show the same approval rating does not show an upward trend. In fact, on the approval side, there is no trend at all
The average for the first 1/2 of 2017 approval was about 43
The average for the first 1/2 of 2018 approval was about 43
The average for the first 1/2 of 2019 approval was about 43
The average for the first 1/2 of 2017 disapproval was about 53
The average for the first 1/2 of 2018 disapproval was about 53
The average for the first 1/2 of 2019 disapproval was about 53
You can easily there is no trend. Only 43% of American's think Trump is doing a good job - the same 43% that elected him.Also, I suspect the same 43%, who don't care their pick is the worst thing to happen to America save for the Civil War, will vote for him again, if it gets that far,
My wife and I have often wondered how otherwise intelligent Americans can support such a despicable human being who has only HIS OWN welfare in mind. It simply does not compute for us.
My employees in my Florida office wonder the same thing. Another remote employee who voted for Trump can no longer believe she did so.More popular than ever...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/politics … index.html
And if the Democrats keep chugging along with their Impeachment efforts combined with their campaign promises of open borders and free healthcare and confiscating all guns he is going to win with the largest total of electoral votes in the history of the country.
Unless we are in a major recession. This is the reality whether you like to read it or not.Why do you believe in and keep regurgitating those lies Ken?? But, since you insist on propagating lies, I will tell the truth.
The great majority of Democrats do not believe in so-called open border
The great majority of Democrats do not believe in so-called free healthcare
The great majority of Democrats do not believe in confiscating guns, they do believe in saving lives, something your side doesn't care about obviously.
Tell me, if Trump is going to win by such a margin, why is so upside down in approval in enough states to give the Ds a 381 to 186 EC win???It's hard to believe these claims.
"The great majority of Democrats do not believe in so-called open border" This while we watch the growth of cities and even states that protect the people that crossed illegally from the laws denying an open border. As we watch states forbid efforts to close the border.
"The great majority of Democrats do not believe in so-called free healthcare" This one as we struggle with the ACA and efforts to give medicare to everyone. While we watch the expansion of medicaid. It's called "free" healthcare even though it isn't "free" at all.
"The great majority of Democrats do not believe in confiscating guns, they do believe in saving lives...". If this were even partially true we wouldn't see a never ending attack on guns, we wouldn't see large cities banning guns. Instead we would see attempts to address the problem of violence in our country rather than prohibiting the preferred tool of killers. But we don't - only efforts to get those tools (one after the other) away from the populace.Wilderness: When you say "we would see and we wouldn't see", what you really mean is "I would see and I wouldn't see" It is only your opinion unless you can back up your claims with facts. I have to give you kudos. It's a very clever way of trying to win an argument by using collective pronouns.
It's only hard for you because you get brainwashed to think that the entirety of the Democratic party are those voicing policy at the extremes. It's why some on here claim a majority of conservatives to be racist, or at least in support of a clearly racist man in Donald Trump, in retort.
Most Democrats are in favor of humane enforcement of our immigration laws. And a majority of Americans (60%) also agree that gun laws should be tougher. In states with tougher gun laws, there are is a significant drop in mortality rates. Just search 'tougher gun laws' to see some of the data. When you can propose solutions that drop that mortality rate that don't include guns, let us know. Until then, the data is against you.
As for healthcare, is war free? I'd much rather my taxes went to provide care for underprivileged or vulnerable Americans in this country than some foreign conflict. I'm America first in this regard. Saying our taxes cannot be used for healthcare by calling it free is a ridiculous argument.Democrats are for open borders. That is why they call for the abandonment of ICE.
They also think stronger gun restrictions will reduce shootings. They won’t.
Finally, you cannot choose between money for war or money for healthcare. We need both...but just not the way Democrats want it.
We have a strong military to avoid confrontations. Peace thru strength. We also want people to have good healthcare provided by the private sector. That is what drives the cost down and also brings innovation.Maybe a few Ds want to abolish ICE and replace it with something more humane. The rest just want to fix it and turn it away from the storm-troopers Trump has turned them into.
Stronger gun regulations DO reduce death by gun. That is a provable fact. I have written a whole series of articles proving it. Bottom line as someone just said - states which have better gun regulations have, as a rule, lower rates of death by gun.
Deleted
Thank you for your opening remark, it cements the brainwashed comment I made. When you say 'they' call the abandonment of ICE, it that all Democrats? You've got data to back up how many of us want that? Of course you don't, you got a few fringe voices that you believe to be the majority because you're on the far extreme of your party as well.
As for mortality rates and stricter gun laws, the data just doesn't support you: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
We can't have military and healthcare? Peace through strength, huh? We have the greatest nuclear arsenal on the planet. One could argue because of that we don't need so many troops, bases, or equipment and could spend more to take care of our citizens instead of spending three times more than the next country.
That was my point. We spend more on funding the military so that we would not engage in useless wars.
That was the Reagan model, which was abandoned by Obama which lead to the decline of our military...
When the US is weak, bad things happen around the world.Amazing how you skipped right over Dubya/Cheney, the war mongers who lied to the American public to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Obama played the hand he was dealt when Republicans passed sequestration that trimmed the overall resources. I notice you fail to mention that in your blame game.
So you think it was Republicans who made Obama weak on defense?
The sequestration was necessary to cut spending...which was out of control under Obama. He ran up the debt from 10 to 20 trillion in his 8 years, while cutting spending on national defense. He was the president and elections have consequences...We must remember, Jack wanted a Great Depression rather than a big recession. That can be the only explanation as to why he doesn't like Obama saving us from it by spending money ON TOP OF the billions Bush cost with the recession in the first place.
How was it "abandoned by Obama"?? You are lying again Jack.
I keep forgetting Wilderness, your solution to people who can't afford healthcare is to let them die. We sure can't give them free healthcare can we. But that is OK, once they're dead, no worries.
You see, you are lying again - there is no Democratic never ending attack on guns. The attack is stopping people who shouldn't have them, getting them. Something you clearly oppose since you want to do absolutely nothing to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. You would rather see all of these mass shootings continue (some of which would have been prevented had we had reasonable background check laws)Not one gun control laws have been shown to prevent mass shootings. All the law does is limit and restrict people from getting guns. The crimes are committed by criminals and mentally insane who does not abide the laws.
It is as if you believe we can stop all murder if we outlaw it. We have laws on the book against murder and manslaughter but people are killed everyday. The same goes with car accidents. We have laws against drunk driving...yet people are killed everyday. Would you propose a law to confiscate all cars? Of course not. Cars do not kill, irresponsible drivers kill. By the same token, guns do not kill, people who are disturbed kills. Let’s deal with those people and not the tools they may choose to use."Not one gun control laws have been shown to prevent mass shootings. " - Another lie, Jack. For example, laws like banning of bump stocks and the creation of extreme risk protection orders – could potentially have played a role curtailing more than six (our of 17) of the shootings. Also, if Texas had better laws (which they just loosened even further) the West Texas Massacre might of been prevented.
"We have laws against drunk driving ... yet people are killed every day". Your solution then sounds like we should repeal all laws against drunk driving since they clearly do not save 100% of the lives. Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds, Jack?
You say "By the same token, guns do not kill, people who are disturbed kills." - So your solution is to let the disturbed keep killing since you won't even try to stop them by keeping guns out of their hands. You would rather them have guns, it seems.
If that is so, why are the front runners in your party pushing these big socialist ideas? Something is amiss. If most Democrats are as reasonable as you claim, they would all vote for Trump and not Warren or Sanders or Biden...
The front-runners aren't pushing these so-called "big socialist ideas" - certainly the main front runner, Biden. Where is Warren wanting to take over the means of production and distribution of all of our industries and services?? You know, real socialism. I haven't heard of any such thing. Do you have examples where they want that to happen?
Nobody who really loves America will vote for Trump.
First, how can I be lying when I am just repeating what the Democratic Candidates have been promising during their debates?
Second, every moderately unbiased evaluation of the coming election says the same thing... if we aren't in a major recession come November 2020, Trump will be re-elected.
Get a grip.Ken, you are lying by claiming "the Democratic Candidates have been promising during their debates?" - they simply have not said what you want them to say.
They argued heatedly over whether to have "Medicare-for-All" or an enhanced ACA - NEITHER of which if free healthcare.
They argued heated over whether to make it a crime to cross the border to claim asylum. One side said some law should be repealed because other laws already make it a crime to cross the border illegally, especially to deal drugs or sex. The other side the law in question doesn't have any real impact on non-drug dealers and sex traffickers. NEITHER were arguing for so-called "open borders"
None of the candidates have asked to confiscate all guns. Only one candidate suggested a forced buy-back of military-style weapons (which I as well as the other candidates oppose)
So where do you come off suggesting something that didn't really happen??
As to the 2020 election, if Trump is in it, you go ahead and live in your fantasy land if it makes you feel better. Reality is much, much different.
Because you live in a different universe. To most Americans like me, we like what Trump is doing to help us normal Americans...
If he is as horrible as you claim, how come things are pretty good around the country? Who is being hurt by Trump in 2019?Our integrity is being sullied by Trump, and the Kurds may disagree with you on no one being hurt by his actions.
Got to love it when the most delusional Trump supporter on here says that you live in a different universe. You aren't part of most Americans, you're in a group of about 40% of them.
Who is being hurt by Trump in 2019?
-The Kurds
-Jamal Kashoogi
-Minorities, as hate crimes are on the rise
-Immigrant children as the death toll in the border centers has risen as tougher policy changes were done with no regard to the costs to provide humane conditions for them
-The deficits are clearly going to hurt the country
-Farmers as Trump has clearly crushed their foreign markets with his stupid trade war with China
-Anyone who voices opposition to him, as his hateful rhetoric has inspired mass killings in New Zealand and in Texas, as well as one of his supporters to mail pipe bombs to Trump's political foes
-The intelligence services of this country as Trump continues to bow to foreign dictators and publicly takes their word over America's experts.
-The rule of law as Trump breaks our laws by ignoring subpoenas, openly violates the Emoluments Clause and Campaign Finance Laws of the country
-Attacked the ACA, raising premiums
-Instilled tariffs on foreign goods which make products about $2,000 more expensive per American families per year
-Forced a shutdown of the government when he had no way to actually achieve policy goals
These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure others can chime in to show how blind you are to the plethora of other ways Trump is hurting America.Yes, most Americans like you, Jack, but you are a minority - you are part of the 43%.
"Who is being hurt by Trump in 2019?" - EXACTLY how brainwashed are you Jack?
* How about all of the farmers going bankrupt because of Trump's stupid trade war.?
* How about the hundreds or thousands of Kurds, America's ally who were responsible for almost defeating ISIS (until Trump stopped trying) Trump sentenced to death at the hands of the Trurks?
* How about all the people who have been hurt or killed resulting from Trump's hate speech which encourages others to act on it?
* How about the mental health of all of the people Trump has scared to death with his rhetoric? Psychologists and psychiatrist business has boomed since he won with what they call Post-Trump Distress Syndrome (this is well documented).
Yeah, it's definitely working. Trump has a whopping approval rating of 39%.
He also has the worst average approval rating at 40.6% of any American president since the beginning of presidential polls. No one else comes close.
Better yet, he is one of the 3 worst presidents in all of U.S. history, according to surveys of presidential historians.
Quite a track record.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/tru … eekly.aspx
Yes, before Thanksgiving. McConnell is planning on wrapping up the trial by Xmas.
It is very hard to make - the "Republicans are human scum" man, the guy who abandoned our ally to be killed by the Turks, the so-called man who uses foreign gov'ts to help him win elections - more appealing to real patriotic Americans.
Savvy, answer this for me if you dare. When detectives are looking into whether someone committed a crime, aka investigating, is the defense counsel included at that point? Or is it only after they have concluded their investigation and charges have been filed that they share their findings?
Why do you want a different standard to how the law works?Savy: There is a difference between an investigation and a trial. The impeachment process starts out in the house with an investigation to see if there is enough evidence for them to write articles of impeachment. Those articles are then submitted to the senate where the trial is held with members of both houses in attendance plus the chief justice of the supreme court. The chief justice acts as judge and the members act as the jury.
No Savvy - CONSERVATIVES are responsible for that. In those days, the Democratic Party was led by Conservatives.
What did Schiff lie about?
He is not holding secret hearings, he is holding classified hearings. I guess it makes no difference to you that there are many Republicans in the those hearings. I guess it makes no difference to you that Republicans did EXACTLY the same thing two years ago. You are being extremely hypocritical.
What information did Schiff leak?
How is Schiff making a mockery of the Constitution? That is what your Dear Leader is doing.
Why are you, a smart person, falling prey to the conservative propaganda and talking points.
How is Trump being presumed guilty while all the Democrats are doing is fact-finding about what is probably a lot of illegal and impeachable behavior.
It's to bad you don't understand the process very well. It goes like this. Trump does what appears to be very bad things.
1. The House gathers information (which is what they are doing now and you don't want them to do for some reason) - this is ALWAYS done behind closed doors whether we are talking about private or public (gov't) proceedings;
2. Then they vote to hold an impeachment inquiry, normally most of these proceeding are in public.
3. Then they prepare Articles of Impeachment, if warranted (and it is in Trump's case), and vote on them.
4. If Trump is impeached, then it goes over to the Senate for trial. The trial judge, as it were, is the Chief Justice.
5. The Democrats will present their case and call witnesses.
6. The Republicans will present their defense and call witnesses.
7. Then the Senate votes on any Articles of Impeachment that make it through the process.
Why do you oppose this Constitutional process so vehemently?????What crime are the Democrats or Independents (my party) guilty of, Savvy?? None that I can see.
Who became hysterical - it was Trump who is falsely claiming to being lynched. That is what hysteria looks like.
No, it is not obvious since he is getting the same due process as anybody suspected of criminal behavior gets during the investigative phase (or do you not like how America's legal process works?).
Today Donald Trump called some Republicans "Human Scum". Isn't it sad that there is a segment of America that think that is OK? That this is the way a leader of our country should act? It depresses me greatly that there are so many people like that who think so little of America that they applaud such statements (or at least defend Trump saying it).
Thank you, I think. But to distortions are you referring? I don't believe I have made any.
I'll take this opportunity to go over the Charge d'Affaires to Ukraine's opening statement. Now I do know many of the pro-Trump acolytes think Taylor is a partisan hack, even though he is a Trump appointee; but the rest of know he is not.
1. "I said on Sep 9, in a message to ... Sondland that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with domestic political campaign in the United States would by "crazy". I believed that then. and I still believe that now."
2. "To restore Ukraine's independence , Russia must leave Ukraine. This has been and should continue to be bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goal."
3. "I worried about the role of Rudolph Giuliani, who had made several high-profile statements regarding Ukraine and the U.S. policy towards the country". And if the policy was changing, he didn't want the job Pompeo was offering.
4. "There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular." He goes on to say that Pompeo was the regular channel while [u]Giuliani, Sondland, Perry, and Volker;/u] were the highly irregular channel. Taylor also says that Sen. Ron Johnson was part of the channel.
5. More laterWith further deflections if your past comments are any indication.
Trump is A Clear and Present Danger
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 … pt-vpx.cnnPlease consider two very important things that stand out in the interview. First, Connolly's first words are "I THINK" indicating everything he said is his opinion... This man has no idea what Bill Taylor said or what is going on behind those closed doors. Leaks have been few and far apart.
Second, it's CNN... They thrive on " I think", could be, and resources that never have names. They rehash opinion to appear as truth, facts.
"Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) says that testimony provided by Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, to three House committees is 'damning' for President Donald Trump and is evidence that
Trump should be impeached"
CNN takes liberties that are unprofessional. In this statement from your link, note how they use the word "says", leaving out true context. Connolly used the words I think... Indicating it was only his opinion. Context is important, and CNN twists context to provide false information. Food for the hungry.
Would it just not be smarter to have a wait and see attitude, instead of buying into innuendos and views that hold no factual information?It absolutely amazes me, Shar, that you actually believe there are no facts out there to base conclusions on.
Would it just not be smarter to have a wait and see attitude, instead of buying into innuendos and views that hold no factual information? This discussion is on impeaching Trump. So far I have seen no impeachable charges result from the impeachment inquiry. I have not really hard to many leaks? Which I do not respect as facts.
And I have to say again, Shar, "It absolutely amazes me, Shar, that you actually believe there are no facts out there to base conclusions on."
On Impeachment:
"Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers to make the case for ratification of that document by the states—'those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.' "
“… of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #1 (this would be Trump)
"James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election."
When coming up with grounds for impeachment it whet through a few iterations. But it gives you an idea of the Founders had in mind. It started out with:
"treason, bribery, and corruption.” Then it was suggested simply -
"treason and bribery.” But George Mason wasn't happy so he suggested adding
“maladministration.” 'He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the harm that a president might do.'
Madison, on the other hand, argued that "maladministration" was too vague and could lead to the House abusing the process and impeach the president on any pretext. He strengthened it to
"high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The Convention adopted
"treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors”
So what did that mean. Well, treason is defined in the Constitution but the others aren't. Bribery is sort of self-evident but high crimes isn't.
You see even though we don't comprehend "high crimes and misdemeanors” very well today, most of the framers knew the phrase well. They understood that it meant, based on how it was used by the only analogy they had, England, anything from "offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. "
Obviously, many of these don't apply today, but you get the gist of what they had in mind. Some were real crimes, but some were not. But clearly, the things which we already have hard evidence of that Trump has done easily fit within these parameters."Obviously, many of these don't apply today, but you get the gist of what they had in mind. Some were real crimes, but some were not. But clearly, the things which we already have hard evidence of that Trump has done easily fit within these parameters."
As I said I prefer to wait and see what crimes the president will be charged with. You appear very confident he will be charged with several crimes, I am not sure he will be charged with anything that the Congress can develop into any form of provable case.
"And I have to say again, Shar, "It absolutely amazes me, Shar, that you actually believe there are no facts out there to base conclusions on."
I m not sure how you came to your conclusion that I believe there are no facts to base conclusions on? I don't find it fair or intelligent to come to a conclusion based on innuendo. You must understand the media is guiding the narrative. As I said why not wait for the inquiry to play out and see if they come up with impeachable crimes. I am not arguing they might jut that I prefer to wait before condemning Trump of a crime. I am just not wired that way...
My comment ---Would it just not be smarter to have a wait and see attitude, instead of buying into innuendos and views that hold no factual information? This discussion is on impeaching Trump. So far I have seen no impeachable charges result from the impeachment inquiry. I have not really hard to many leaks? Which I do not respect as facts.There is a topic that is at the heart of the matter. The reasons for the impeachment, from the Democratic side, stem from the free and fair elections point of the Constitution. It is now recognized, should one believe the White House memo of the call to Ukraine and the testimony of Taylor on Tuesday, that Trump used his position to break campaign finance laws to taint the 2020 election. His extortion of Ukraine by withholding aid until the Ukrainian president publicly announced an investigation into Joe Biden is clearly criminal.
Now based upon how the GOP aims to suppress the vote and gerrymander, I'm not sure making an appeal to them that elections should be either free or fair is going to be something that sways them in regards to the Ukraine crimes.
But for many of us, leaving Trump to his criminal devices as president is akin to women allowing Bill Cosby to remain as their bartender."But for many of us, leaving Trump to his criminal devices as president is akin to women allowing Bill Cosby to remain as their bartender."
I suggest you get in touch with your Congressperson and have your voice heard. The Republicans are literally screaming for the vote to move on with the impeachment trial. The only thing holding up the vote is the Dem's Pelosi has the authority to call for that vote and has not.
I want transparency, that's my hope. And I have said this friendly. You seem to be recruiting on your "opinion". I have my own opinion, and just feel I don't have the right to condemn or assume without the full set of facts. I am not sure why you are not acceptive of other's opinions?Sharlee - I see you avoided my post in the other thread.
You point to the Nixon and Clinton impeachments where a formal vote was taken. But in both of those, there was a special/independent counsel who had been appointed to do the inquiry phase. As there is a major difference in that there is no special counsel in this impeachment inquiry, that committees are responsible for this important task in this case, using the previous impeachments as precedent does not seem valid.
Do you understand the differences in the cases and why they should be allowed to be handled differently now?"You point to the Nixon and Clinton impeachments where a formal vote was taken. But in both of those, there was a special/independent counsel who had been appointed to do the inquiry phase. "
Yes handled differently. This bunch decides to conduct this impeachment inquiry very differently. As you pointed out, no special counsel investigation that would have been the very first step to prove crimes before the accusation of crimes. This Congress has put forth Adam Schiff that has a well-known bias toward Trump to conduct this inquiry.
This inquiry could set a precedent which would be an open door for impeachments "just because we want too". This is just another disgusting Dem political grift. It's disgusting and I have faith in the end right will outdo might... And the Dem's will once again will add to their pile crooked doings.
"Do you understand the differences in the cases and why they should be allowed to be handled differently now??
Yes, I do because the Dem's have no way of winning the 2020 election, and they don't even mind getting in the mud.
I must say I don't understand why you would have even brought th subject up of the special counsel. It totally proves my point.Proves your point? You act like Schiff chairs all three committees doing this inquiry. There are Republican members on each committee, totaling 45 that have the right to ask questions of those testifying. 12 of whom had the right to sit in on testimony yesterday, but chose to join those in violating ethics policies in barging into the testimony with electronic devices.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-napoli … 37558.html
Schiff is like many Americans that know that Trump has committed many crimes, both to gain office and since being in office. Crimes, like Scott has noted, that ardent Trump defenders like you will always be blind to.
There really isn't much point in us debating. In a recent poll, 55% of those GOP members who use Fox News as their primary media source, said they'd stick with Trump no matter what. For those who used other conservative sources, that figure drops to 29%. For many of us on this forum, it's easy for us to spot those in that 55%.
Even the kids who come from conservative areas who likely don't watch Fox News can come to a sensible conclusion based upon just the facts:
https://news.yahoo.com/centrism-cancele … 12987.htmlYou write about Fox news and polls... I am not sure why you have come at me so strongly with a statement such as "Schiff is like many Americans that know that Trump has committed many crimes, both to gain office and since being in office."
To point out our difference with respect to the thought process. I have seen no proof, I have heard and read many pundit's opinions. However, I also listen and look for how opinions are phrased. Words like perhaps, If, I think, I believe, this could be. it appears, praise I use frequently to make sure anyone reading my comment will take it as only an opinion.
Again, I don't want to appear rude but I choose to wait to see the outcome of the impeachment. I consider a divisive circus. However, at some point, if a vote is taken it will become a fair trial, with Supreme Court Roberts providing care that our constitution is being respected. I still have the belief one should have a full right to defend themselves. At this point, it appears this is not happening in this inquiry. I care less about the daily antics on either side... I want justice, not a scam inquiry that is being performed as feed for hysteria. I want a vote very simple.
I don't think there is much point in debating this subject. We could not be further apart in our opinions. I have done well with keeping to the truth, facts, not jumping in to enjoy the false high that comes with hysteria.You're correct, you just don't want to understand why the Dems are running the Inquiry the way they are. You seem to ignore the rules changes the Cons changed in 2015 when they controlled the House. Get angry at them if you don't like the way it's going, Shar.
Could you supply a link to his rule change? I am not aware of it and would like to have a look at it. I am not angry at anyone that posts here on HP? I did direct some anger towards the Dems in the way they are conducting this inquiry. Not sure why you picked that up in my comment? I was very clear and added I did not want to appear rude. It seems you are taking my comment out of context. Just because I disagree with someone, and that someone can't recruit me to his-way of thinking does not mean I hold any animosity.
And you getting angry at the Democrats for running the inquiry is akin to you being angry at detectives for calling in witnesses to any other crime. One difference is that in the witness interview during the impeachment inquiry, someone from the defense would also be able to pose questions. How that makes you angry is beyond me? It's nonsensical since it gives Trump more rights than any other person suspected of crimes has.
IslandBites supplied a link that very much does prove the Congress is within their rights to hold the inquiry behind closed doors. This is what I have been talking about as facts. At this point, I am not going to question the method only that I don't feel it represents fairness. And I do hope a vote will be taken soon.
You know what's frustrating? Many posters on here have given you the same facts, which you could have easily verified on your own, yet you don't accept them until they are presented via Fox News. I will give you credit for finally conceding that no rules are being broken, though.
As I explained in my comment to IslandBites, I very rarely watch network news, this is why I requested Randy supply a link to the report. I have also left a comment correcting the situation with Val.
I suggest if you are frustrated with my comments just pass my comments by, ignore them. In fact, I would appreciate it if you would. I will do the same.
I must say I didn't appreciate your comment "yet you don't accept them until they are presented via Fox News. It makes me wonder if you read my reply to IslandBite or perhaps not comprehend it?
Perhaps you should review my comment, and you might just see your rude comment was not called for.
IslandBites, "Thank you for supplying the link, very enlightening. Now, this is what I consider a fact. And a good one to know about. I just do not watch the Media news very much. I really appreciate this..."If you don't watch the media news very much, then why chime in when you're ignorant of the facts, Shar?
The point I have constantly tried to point out is that there are actually not many facts being offered by users here. What is being offered in many cases are rehashed Media if come reports. OPINIONS.
Believe it or not, there are many news outlets that do report non-bias well-resourced news. And yes much of it still opinion, but well documented that is is just that - an unproven opinion.
You say I am " ignorant of the facts". This is correct due to not many facts being available. I am not sure why some take such offense at my lack of willingness to support the opinion network news.
As a rule, I end my comments with a let's wait and see attitude. This should be telling. If not let me clarify, I respect other's opinion but just prefer to wait for facts. I have also remarked I am not wired for groupthink. I can see this irritates many, and I will keep it in mind when choosing who to post to, and please take this as a polite gesture. It is not meant or intended to irritate anyone.
I already rarely engage you, and I will continue to respond, or not, as I desire. And, yes, I read all of your comments.
I must ask if you read my comment, why the snarky comment about Fox news? It was rude and uncalled for. Not sure why you even commented? You added nothing to the conversation but in your opinion, I watch Fox News...
Your comment
"You know what's frustrating? Many posters on here have given you the same facts, which you could have easily verified on your own, yet you don't accept them until they are presented via Fox News. I will give you credit for finally conceding that no rules are being broken, though."
I must ask for you to provide the comment or comments that you mentioned in your comment, that lead you to the conclusion others here have made mention of the 2015 rule change in regard to holding an inquiry behind closed doors.
The first it was mentioned was by Randy page 36. I replied that and requested he offers a link to the information. Which IslandBites was polite enough to do.
Page 36 Randy's comment
"You're correct, you just don't want to understand why the Dems are running the Inquiry the way they are. You seem to ignore the rules changes the Cons changed in 2015 when they controlled the House. Get angry at them if you don't like the way it's going, Shar."
Your comment was uncalled for. Sorry to have to point it out. However, I see no reason to jump into a conversation and just to add a rude comment, and untrue information.
You are always welcome to respond, as I am to ignore.You take this stuff way too personality. I didn't accuse you of watching Fox News. My point was that there are tons of current news articles on major news sites that debunk the right's repeated claims that the Dems are violating the constitution and/or the rules for impeachment proceedings. I find it frustrating that you do not know this readily available and widely disseminated information while participating in a lengthy discussion on that very subject.
You are not the only one who does it, but it was exceptionally evident in this thread that you were not keeping up with the facts on the subject you were attempting to discuss.Let me point out I was not aware of the rule change in regard to the legalities of holding an impeachment inquiry. And actually IslendBites and Randy appeared to be the only ones to point that fact out. And actually no there are not many available articles that speak of the rule change. In fact, one of the few was posted at the very news network that you seem to hold such a fascination with, accusing many here of being disciples of Fox news.
I would be interested to see if you can offer a few more sites that have written about the rule change.
I can see it's important for you to have the last word on this subject. You're welcome to it.
Maybe he'll have better luck.
Fox & Friends and Napolitano about Impeachment (including the rules)
https://youtu.be/TFjqzGyo8PY?t=1461Thank you for supplying the link.very enlightening. Now, this is what I consider a fact. And a good one to know about. I just do not watch the Media news very much. I really appreciate this...
.
Yes Shar - "Yes handled differently. This bunch decides to conduct this impeachment inquiry very differently. " show your bias against the process. "This Bunch" is following exactly what the Constitution calls for.
Please point out the section in the Constitution Article 1 (or any other Article for that matter) that says the House MUST hold a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry [b]before[/b} investigating the alleged impeachable conduct whose results will be used to decide whether they should hold the vote to start an impeachment inquiry in the first place. (I am getting dizzy with your logic.)
Unless you can find such words in the Constitution, your whole position falls apart and is simply wishful thinking and a repetition of conservative propaganda.
How does a special council conducting an investigation instead of the House doing one (like what the Republicans did investigating Clinton behind closed doors) prove your point? Are you trying to tell me the Constitution does not allow the House to conduct investigations?
I will list them again:
1. Obstruction of Justice based on the evidence developed by Mueller.
2. Obstruction of Congress based on ... well obstructing Congress
3. Abuse of Power based on the already overwhelming evidence of using his office and taxpayer money to push a foreign gov't into helping him win the 2020 election
4. They might try an Article for extortion related to 3. above.
5. Something related to the misuse of appropriated funds regarding the congressional appropriated funds he withheld from Ukraine
6. I think they ought to add an Article for Treason.
That is just for starters and what can be proved.
If I were a Trump supporter I would definitely take a wait and see attitude. But as a thinking American, I cannot. I need to evaluate the evidence and facts so far presented (and there have been lots) and form educated conclusions based on that.
I just heard Trump say that he is now building his big, beautiful wall in - wait for it now - Colorado, LOL.
"Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy," Mulvaney said---Sit back and take it America. No, I doubt it, lol. How can Trump supporters still say there's no evidence of quid pro quo..I'm not sure I even want to know that one.
Some still buy into the already debunked Hunter Biden story. But then, the conspiracy opinion heads at Fox want them to. Now Hannity and Limbaugh keep saying any day now the IG report will prove the Deep State is alive and well. People on the Right eat this stuff up.
I think we should just go back to talking about Obama's birth certificate, Hillary's emails and Benghazi. Would that be more acceptable? Trump was all over these issues, yet I just read someone here (wilderness) state that was a fringe right thing. Hmmm...the fringe is in the Oval Office I guess.
Wouldn't it be a relief to go back to those issues? The most unsettling thing about where we are right now is the simple fact that we knew. We knew what he was. And we knew it would end like this. Remember when his reluctant voters asked how much damage can he do? You are finding out.
Oh, I definitely remember the how much damage is possible sentiment. Trump was the to hell with it all candidate because, apparently, America was so bad that is what we needed. I also remember Trump telling his people not to vote for Hillary because we would have nothing but scandals for four years.
Fortunately, most of the reluctant voters won't vote for him again. He is just left with two groups: 1) the group who think he is actually good for the economy and all they care about is money and 2) those type of people who would follow Hitler and he won.
At least with what is being revealed in this impeachment investigation, no Trump supported can start a sentence with "But what about . . . " because no one has gone this far before. And we all knew he would.
- The Minstrelposted 5 years ago
0Okay. The impeachment thing will fizzle out because it is all a lie. The IG report will come out and someone will go to jail. It will be a long shot for Hillary or any of the higher ups to serve any time, but they will need a sacrificial lamb to pin all their corruption on. I believe it will be either Comey or McCabe. Trump will win a second term after a lot of crap from the MSM gets flung on the American public. Face it. The left has no vision, no credibility, and basically no leadership. That is why CNN and Hillary are coming against a centrist like Tulsi Gabbard. She threatens their sick dystopian world view. I don't agree with my fellow Hawaiian on many points, but I think she is a bad ass and she threatens them. She is a true liberal and not a flaming leftist like the rest of the sorry wanna-be presidential candidates. Why am I talking about her? I guess she is the only real leader in the pool of Democrats running for office.
For those who are not up-to-date on Hillary's latest. She actually believes a true liberal, Gabbard, is "a favorite of the Russians."
Lordy! Just when I thought she couldn't get any crazier. Now I know better....
https://www.salon.com/2019/10/18/hillar … party-run/That was an interesting article. Did you read the whole thing?
It is interesting. Which deep state is real..American or Russian? It seems what Trump supporters refer to as the "Deep State" is simply the American government, made up of um...us. Are some Americans siding with Russians over Americans? Why are so many Trump supporters willing to accept most any conspiracy theory against our own government but so quick to dismiss stories of Russian influence and corruption?
To answer your question, psychologically, they are unable to acknowledge they chose a Russian asset for president because it would be too traumatic to admit they screwed up in such a horrific fashion. They will accept all kinds of fabrications that implicate their fellow Americans while dismissing as lies the evidence of Russian interference and Trump's continued encouragement of it. They believe Trump and Putin over our esteemed intelligence and military professionals. It is the saddest thing I have ever witnessed as an American, because it has led us to this point. A corrupt, incompetent, mentally ill president wrecking our country, our creibility, our honor. And making incredibly stupid and irresponsible decisions that result in great harm and death to innocent people.
The answer is simple. We don’t trust the media.
Unfortunately, while I understand this is true, I don't think it's that simple at all. I don't "trust" the media altogether either, and I never have. It's good to have a healthy dose of skepticism. Also, you do trust some in the media...certain news outlets are the favorites of Trump supporters for a reason. These are the ones that paint the narrative the way you want them to. Of course, I acknowledge this happens no matter your political leanings.
Furthermore, you can listen to the words out of politician's mouths and make your own conclusions. The media is powerful, but not to no end...unless you give them that power, which it seems what is going on.
Also, by implication, your response is stating that you do trust Russia. It really is a shame.Does that mean you don't trust Brietbart, Fox Opinion, Limbaugh, and other Conservative outlets? They all call themselves the "media".
Obviously, I mean the main stream media...
They all tow the line and repeat the same stuff...Jack, they (including Fox News, not Opinion) repeat the same stuff because they don't make it up - they simply report the facts.
So, if Trump illegally picks Doral to hold the G7 summit, they ALL report that he picked Doral and that it is illegal to do so (it violates the Constitution in case you were wondering).
So, if they ALL report that Trump gave Turkey to go and kill Kurds in Syria and that everybody, generals included, say that was a terrible thing to do to our allies, that is because it was all they could report. Did you want mainstream media to say that Trump DIDN'T give Turkey the green light and lie like Fox Opinion did?
If mainstream media is reporting the truth, then it makes sense that they ALL report the same truth. Are you suggesting they report a different truth just so they can be different?
On the other hand, Fox Opinion, Brietbart, Limbaugh and their ilk alter facts to fit the pro-Trump narrative they want to spin.
I find the whole article surprising and disconcerting, especially given that Hillary is the source.
The most troublesome line I found was "“And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset,” Clinton said. “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally...." THAT STATEMENT alone just dropped Clinton down in my estimation by many rungs - it is Trump-like and without foundation.
THE Next part, however, is very credible given the Russian's help in Trump's victory - "They (the Russians) know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”
That said, I haven't liked Gabbard from the get-go, but I have never, and still don't, question her patriotism - she is no Trump. (Nor did I question Stein's patriotism either, just her policies) I can see, however, where Clinton might be coming from when you read that Gabbard:
"has defended Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for apparent war crimes, has frequently appeared on Fox News, and has received support from online Russian bots and the Russian news media, has caused consternation among establishment Democrats. The New York Times recently wondered, “What, exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard up to?”
I hope this NYT article wasn't Clinton's proof of her accusations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/p … bbard.htmlYes. Your point? Salon has an extreme Left bias; nevertheless, according to the article, Democrats have had it out for Gabbard since she first criticized Wasserman.
Gabbard is not part of the establishment. Apparently, she doesn't know how to be polite and keep her mouth shut.
The story is interesting, but superficial. However it provides information for readers to research further to get at all the truth regarding Gabbard's foreign policy statements.
At any rate, I would not vote for her. Too liberal.
I provided the story simply to give context to Minstrels earlier comment about Hillary's latest accusation.Just wondering if you read the whole thing, that's all. I wasn't able to discern that from the gist of your comments.
So, did you do your own research on the facts of the article?No. Ken Burgess has researched Gabbard. (He thinks she should be VP with Warren as president) I recall that I did not agree with his conclusions. I know there was a big hullabaloo when she stated that Assad is the legitimate president of Syria. I might be interested to know more about the context of her statement. I prefer not to rush to judgement.
But in reality, I may not research her at all. I am not particularly interested in her, but I do admire her or anyone's ability to speak up and buck the system. However, in doing so, she is dead to Democrats and too Liberal for Republicans.
The article stated that she has had many appearances on Fox. That may or may not be true. But won't bother to check that out. Don't care and so what if she has?
My earlier point is that those who are actually interested in Gabbbard can perhaps use the article to research further.
Personally I find her claim disconcerting, but until I know more, I will withhold judgement (and I know a lot more about Trump).
There are three paths here:
1. What Clinton says is true about Gabbard, which I find incredulous.
2. Clinton is correct as to the motivation of the Russians and Gabbard is an unwitting participant - which I can find very credible given all of the help they gave Trump
3. Clinton has become Trump throwing out false accusations left and right - which I would find very sad and disturbing because I respect Clinton. I would hate to lose that respect.
Since Clinton didn't mention Gabbard by name, there is a little wiggle room; but since none of the other female candidates even come close to fitting the description, there is little doubt.
Agree 100%. Someone on this forum who gets it.
Trump, in a nutshell...
◦ The “billionaire” who hides his tax returns.
◦ The “genius” who hides his college grades.
◦ The “businessman” who bankrupted 3 casinos and lost over $1B in 10 years.
◦ The “playboy” who pays for sex.
◦ The “Christian” who doesn’t go to church.
◦ The “philanthropist” who defrauds charity.
◦ The “patriot” who dodged the draft.
◦ The “innocent man” who refuses to testify.
◦ Trump Translator:
◦ "Many People have told me" = Voices in my head and fictional people have complimented me
◦ "A lot of people don't know" = I just learned something most people already knew
◦ "Believe me" = I just lied
◦ "In Fact" = I'm about to lie
◦ "He's a great guy" = I will deny ever knowing this person after they begin to tell the truth about me
◦ "MAGA" = Making my pockets fatter off the American tax payers
◦ "Nobody knew" = Everyone knew except me
◦ "Huge" = Moderate to below average in size
◦ "Loser" = Someone who makes me feel inferior due to their talent or accomplishments
◦ "Policy Briefing" = Turning on Fox News
◦ "Liar" = Someone telling the truth about me
◦ "Fake News" = Real newsKudos Valeant. You need one more in the Trump in a nut shell category. The "least racist person" who has a long history of racism.
In that category, essentially what you have presented is Trump's resume. It would be interesting to compare it to Obama's resume.
This is very powerful because Trump voters wanted somebody different as president, but they never bothered to look at his resume or they ignored it. Now that they have him, they have to support him, because they can't allow themselves to think they voted for the wrong person.
This just in:
HILLARY CLINTON CLEARED OF MISHANDLING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AFTER 3-YEAR PRIVATE EMAIL PROBE, TRUMP SO FAR SILENT
https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinto … be-1466426I'm sure wilderness, sharlee, savvydating, and livetolearn will be along shortly to declare her innocence. Innocent, unless indicted and convicted, has been their mantra with Trump, so I know they will now counter any further assertions of Hillary's guilt.
You are WRONG Valeant! Facts Matter - it was 5 Casinos (two were casino holding companies) as well as a Manhattan hotel. LOL. Our business genius has filed 6 Chapter 11s.
Otherwise, they look about right other than he has met all of the elements of proof to charged with treason :-)
There is plenty of evidence of everything I and others have mentioned. You are just mentally blind to it.
+1Yes, plenty of drummed up evidence none of which is true. Just no proof. I know this must be very hard to realize due to the media doing you so very wrong. Look beyond what you hear from talk jocks. There is lots of info online that just simply keeps to the facts, which so far there are very few.
I get my evidence from court cases. Your ridiculous claims to where you think this evidence originates just makes you look like a fool.
Guess I will wait till they put on the handcuffs... Must be had to keep all that crazy rhetoric in your head, I would think you at some point would ask... Hey when will Trump and his children be arrested? Three years, they have zip...
Again, your lack of understanding of the law exposes your foolish comments. The President must first be impeached before being indicted. That process is underway.
I guess I am not an attorney --- Like yourself? Ys, common sense tells me a president must be impeached first. Just makes me wonder after three years why this has not happened, did I miss something? I realize the Dem's have been coming up with plenty of accusations in regard to crimes, and doing their best to try after the fact to fine facts. However, zero proof? I guess they can come up with something new if the Ukrain thing doesn't stick. they are good at coming up with crimes, just not to good at proving them.
As I said, I will wait until they put the cuffs on. Jut don't buy into talk jock innuendo fueled by the Dem's. So far that has kept me egg-free... LOLYou just don't seem to understand, Shar. He cannot be indicted while in office. You've been told this many times....
I fully understand that a president can't be indited as I have reminded you of that fact several times. Although his children can be arrested at any point a crime would have or would be discovered. And as I stated numerous timesTrump can be impeached for wrongdoing. Not sure after three years the Congress has not acted on all they have accused him... Sorry, this is just a very good common sense. You are being fed a bunch of BS. Just consider how badly the Dem's want to impeach him, form the very first day he walked into the WH. Time to wake up and realize he did not do anything to be impeached or arrested for or this bunch of foolish Dem's would have done it... Come on time realize the facts don't support that Trump committed any form of impeachable act.
Zero proof?
Standing on the White House lawn, he goes on camera and asks Ukraine and China to investigate a political rival. Asking a foreign government for assistance in an election is illegal.
The guy literally decides to host the G7 at one of his businesses, announces it, which is a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
That's two examples of public proof that, again, you are mentally unable to process.A president has the authority to ask another country to aid in an investigation if the crime occurred in that said country. The WH stated Trump's request represented the investigation into election corruption in the 2016 election and to prevent corruption in the 2020 election.
Biden is a candidate, and it would be well within the president's right to investigate his past. As the Obama administration did with Trump. The president's phone call seemed very clear, and I would assume if he sought to commit a crime he would not have had 12 others on the call? It just does not make sense. I have read the transcripts from the phone call and the WB transcript. The WB's recollection of the call is somewhat different than what the president said? I think with the ongoing impeachment investigation we should hopefully come to a conclusion in regard to the call.
Your assumption in regards to Doral is very shakey, and up until now, the Emoluments Clause has not had to be dealt with.
I am not sure if using the president's Doral property would constitute an Emolument problem? He claimed he was not going to financially profit.
He would profit due to the property being showcased around the world. However, the Emoluments Clause if very vague. Actually, it appears there is no legal precedent to follow except the recent case the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia filed against Trump feeling his Washington hotel was being used by the president to profit financially and presented an emoluments problem.
I found this interesting article---
Federal Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Emoluments Case
"WASHINGTON — In a legal victory for President Trump, a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming that he had violated the Constitution by collecting profits from government guests at his hotel in the nation’s capital."
"The judges described the emoluments clauses as broad prohibitions intended to guarantee a president’s independence and restrict the president’s ability to accept financial benefits from foreign or state officials seeking influence."
"A similar case, filed by congressional Democrats, is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and legal experts say the question could well wind up before the Supreme Court".
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/p … ution.html
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11086.pdf
I think the Supreme Court would be the last word on any emoluments problems, and I think that's where all of this will end up if the Dem's use the Emoluments Clause in their impeachment charges.
To be honest I would have preferred not to pay as much for the G7. It's pretty fabulous, and the dignitaries would have had a memorable time.That's just my opinion.So you'd be okay with Trump making money off the G7? Even though you know it's illegal you still believe it would be okay, Of course, you're apparently unable to distinguish what's legal or not if you cannot see this for what it is. Keep supporting the criminal....you guys need each other.
Trump claimed he was not going to financially profit? And actually, it appears there is now legal precedent with the case Trump just won. In Maryland, to confirm it would not be illegal for Trump to use Doral if he does not profit from the G7 being held there.
Hopefully, you will read this message more closely, I m not going to repeat it to you
.I found this interesting article---
Federal Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Emoluments Case In regards to his hotel in Washington.
"WASHINGTON — In a legal victory for President Trump, a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming that he had violated the Constitution by collecting profits from government guests at his hotel in the nation’s capital."
"The judges described the emoluments clauses as broad prohibitions intended to guarantee a president’s independence and restrict the president’s ability to accept financial benefits from foreign or state officials seeking influence."
"A similar case, filed by congressional Democrats, is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and legal experts say the question could well wind up before the Supreme Court".
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/p … ution.html
And as in my previous message, I will repeat ---
To be honest I would have preferred not to pay as much for the G7. It's pretty fabulous, and the dignitaries would have had a memorable time. That's just my opinion.
It is very obvious If the dems chooses to impeach Trump using an Emoluments Case, it will end up in the Supreme Court. Because the constitution has given a clear description of it, and it will not fit the bill to impeach Trump. You might want to do some real research subject of what is written in regard to the EC instead of taking talk jocks opinions on the subject.Time to update your information....
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/1 … and-047507Thank you for updating me on the plaintiff's appeal to the full court. It was mentioned in the article I provided that they most likely would. It will be interesting to hear the outcome. I think eventually the matter will end up in the supreme court, and really should. The emoluments clause is somewhat unclear and needs to be clarified.
As I mentioned earlier, Shar, the FULL appeals court reversed that decision and reinstated the suit.
I must correct you. The case hs not been reversed, it is being revisited. There have been no decisions as of yet. The case will be heard on Dec 12th, 2019.
"The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va., announced Tuesday that the full bench of the court would hear arguments Dec. 12 on Trump’s effort to stymie the litigation filed in a federal court in Maryland in 2017 and focused largely on patronage of his luxury Trump International Hotel in the nation’s capital."
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/1 … and-047507I am not sure I understand the difference in the case between "revived" and "reversed". In other words, the partial court killed the suit. The full court "reversed" that decision and decided to look at it again - thereby "reviving" it. "Reversed", "Revived" a distinction without a difference is the way I see it.
I understand the word to mean breathe new life into.
"The announcement of the “en banc” rehearing effectively sets aside a ruling that a three-judge panel of the same appeals court had issued in July. Those judges ordered the case dismissed as fatally flawed, contending the states had no legal right to enforce the emoluments clauses in the Constitution.
The same court will rehear the case on Dec 12th.
What part of "he was not going to financially profit" did you not understand? Are you "mentally unable to process" simple statements (your terminology)?
"A president has the authority to ask another country to aid in an investigation if the crime occurred in that said country. " - THAT WOULD be true IF Trump had asked that a crime be investigated.
BUT that is NOT what Trump did, is it?. You know as well as I Trump was asking China and Ukraine to produce dirt on his political opponent and his son Biden. It is well known that all claims that Hunter acted illegally have been solidly Debunked months to years earlier. Consequently, there was no crime to investigate, now was there?
BTW - how do you convert "China should start an investigation into the Bidens," [Trump] into your "Trump's request represented the investigation into election corruption in the 2016 election ".
"Biden is a candidate, and it would be well within the president's right to investigate his past." - YES and NO! Trump can use his own or campaign money to hire a domestic organization to dig up dirt on anybody.
BUT what Trump did was illegal! He used taxpayer dollars and the power and prestige of his office to pressure a foreign government into digging up dirt to help him win the 2020 election. So, WHY doesn't that bother you????
It doesn't make "sense" to Trump because he is so amoral that he doesn't think what he did was wrong. Everybody else, on the other hand, who has any moral compass at all knows it is illegal. You and he are probably very surprised that it is wrong to abuse his power to get a foreign gov't to help him win his next election.
SHAR - you missed this:
"A federal appeals court in New York on Friday ruled that a lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Emoluments Clause can proceed after a lower court had thrown out the case."
But you are right, the SC will probably decide it in terms of a crime. More than likely it will be one of the Articles of Impeachment which won't need a courts interpretation.
Also, here is what your hero thinks of our Constitution - ""I don't think you people, with this phony Emoluments Clause." - he just called the Constitution phony.
Other things Trump has said about our Constitution:
Speaking to Fox about the Constitutions checks and balances, Trump says "It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” - DO you agree Shar?
Further, your patriotic hero says “I’ve seen a lot of bad deals in my life, but this Constitution is a total mess,” he said. “We need to tear it up and start over.” - Should we do what Trump says and tear it up, Shar? That is how little he thinks of America and you are in his camp still.
SAD"You know as well as I Trump was asking China and Ukraine to produce dirt on his political opponent and his son Biden."
Absolutely. Everyone knows that...if they are willing to say anything to harm the presidency of the US.
"Speaking to Fox about the Constitutions checks and balances, Trump says "It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” - DO you agree Shar?"
Can't speak for Shar, but when those checks and balances become nothing more than political posturing and attempts at gaining political power, the answer is "yes". It is a bad thing for the country. Do you disagree? Is it good for the country when political power means more than the Constitution?Here is the oath of office that Trump took.
"The Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
How is Trump protecting and defending the Constitution when he is violating his oath of office? He has 10 instances of obstructing justice pending as soon as he gets our of office.
He wanted to violate the emolument clause by holding the G7 meeting at his resort. He abused his power as president to appeal to the Ukraine and China to find dirt on his election opponent. With China, he did it by public announcement.
The articles of impeachment are being drafted by the house and when they are ready, they will submit them to the senate. McConnell has already said that he will hold a trial if the house impeaches Trump.
Trump tries to obstruct justice every chance he gets. He did as a civilian with his cadre of attorneys and he is doing it again in the White House with most of the same attorneys that he used as a civilian. If you are not loyal to him or cross him, he will fire your ass. Those are Mafia tactics. Ideally, he would like to run the government by himself with his attorneys, Ivanka, Jarred, Eric, and Don Jr.
"Without justice, there can be no peace". , General Wesley Clark.This is what TraitorTrump THOUGHT he said: ""TRUMP's Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully do what ever I want as President of the United States, because Article II says I can, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend ME since the Constitution of the United States is a terrible document"
Trump is guilty of Treason and that should be one of the Articles of Impeachment. - HERE IS WHY - https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Case- … ps-Treason
So, WIlderness, do you agree it is OK for the president of the United States to use taxpayer money and the power and prestige to pressure a foreign gov't or entity to help him with his personal 2020 election?
YES or NO, it is a simple question.
So you are agreeing with Trump that the Constitution is worthless and should be redone to allow him to become dictator, which is his plan. Now we know where your allegiance is, and it isn't to the Constitution, it is to Trump.
Yes, I see the case has been reopened Val provided a link to the information on the case, a few comments back. As I said we will have to wait for the outcome of the case before placing what is and what is not an Emolument problem for Trump. I am not about to predict how the case will end or condemn Trump of committing any form of Emoulent crime, I will leave that up to the courts.
I appreciate your need for the Constitution needs to be torn up? But, I very much doubt there are many in Americans who would agree with your sentiment.Please read carefully Shar. It is TRUMP (and I presume you as a result) who wants to tear up the Constitution. AGAIN in HIS OWN words "Trump says "It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”
ALSO, the number of Americans who want TraitorTrump impeached and convicted is GROWING https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics … index.html
Even more Conservatives are coming on board when you read the details.I read your comment, I gave my opinion on the tearing up of the Constitution. I did not address what you claim Trump stated. I have no proof Trump actually said that or would it matter in my opinion on the subject in regards to the Constitution. It seems odd Trump would have those feelings about the very Constitution that will ultimately exonerate him.
Are you telling me you no longer believe Fox News (that is where they have the tape that recorded it)? Amazing, there may be hope yet.
By the way, you must not believe the sun will come up tomorrow since you have no "proof" that it will.One word PROBABILITY ... Science tells us there is a probability that the sun will rise in the east each morning if our planet continues to spin... Statements are randomly made by humane beings. Unless one hears with their own ears or reads a statement that is a direct quote, no one has an assurance that it is factual it remains hearsay.
I have researched your claim that Trump badmouthed the Constitution, and I found several videos where he did just that. Please keep in mind I never said he did not. I said was not aware of the comment.
Peoplepower was kind enough to supply a link to an article on the subject. I appreciate his effort to back up his view.
BTW - It wasn't a "comment". It was a statement of verifiable fact. Just look it up, you'll even find it on Fox.
And now we have Trump whining that he is being treated like whites treat blacks and being "lynched" by the Democrats as they pursue the truth.Sharlee:
Seeing is believing.
https://youtu.be/d-qKnvioXHc"or would it matter in my opinion on the subject in regards to the Constitution. "
I missed his comment, I very rarely watch the network talk jocks. Thank you for directing me to the info. I naturally can't keep up with all his statementsSharlee: Most people can't keep up with most of his statements. That's the idea. He wants to overwhelm everybody with his constant barrage of statements and distractions, so that you become so confused, you just give up. And for him it is business as usual. Here is more for your edification.
https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/ … stitution/Not to cause hard feelings but it appears you are making attempts to "recruit" . It is clear Trump is the first president that is out there daily giving his opinion, and that it is unfiltered, unlike previous presidents. I agree with some of his sentiments some do not support or condone. I try to keep an open mind.
Sharlee:
Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist and author of Why good people are divided by politics and religion. In his book, he states, "We reason to find the best possible reasons why somebody else ought to join us in our judgment."
I appreciate the link. It certainly helped clarify the facts that Trump has on a couple of occations gave an opinion that he felt the Constitution was archaic.
"A president has the authority to ask another country to aid in an investigation if the crime occurred in that said country. " - THAT WOULD be true IF[/b} Trump had asked that a crime be investigated.
[b]BUT that is NOT what Trump did, is it?. You know as well as I Trump was asking China and Ukraine to produce dirt on his political opponent and his son Biden. It is well known that all claims that Hunter acted illegally have been solidly Debunked months to years earlier. Consequently, there was no crime to investigate, now was there?
BTW - how do you convert "China should start an investigation into the Bidens," [Trump] into your "Trump's request represented the investigation into election corruption in the 2016 election ". Only a Trump sycophant can do that with a clear conscience.
"Biden is a candidate, and it would be well within the president's right to investigate his past." - YES and NO! Trump can use his own or campaign money to hire a domestic organization to dig up dirt on anybody.
BUT what Trump did was illegal! He used taxpayer dollars and the power and prestige of his office to pressure a foreign government into digging up dirt to help him win the 2020 election. So, WHY doesn't that bother you????
It doesn't make "sense" to Trump because he is so amoral that he doesn't think what he did was wrong when to everybody else who has any moral founding knows is illegal. He is probably very surprised (as you appear to be) that it is wrong to abuse his power to get a foreign gov't to help him win his next election.
SHAR - you missed this:
"A federal appeals court in New York on Friday ruled that a lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Emoluments Clause can proceed after a lower court had thrown out the case."
But you are right, the SC will probably decide it in terms of a crime. More than likely it will be one of the Articles of Impeachment which won't need a courts interpretation.
Also, here is what your hero thinks of our Constitution - ""I don't think you people, with this phony Emoluments Clause." - he just called the Constitution phony.
Other things Trump has said about our Constitution:
Speaking to Fox about the Constitutions checks and balances, Trump says "It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” - DO you agree Shar?
Further, your patriotic hero says “I’ve seen a lot of bad deals in my life, but this Constitution is a total mess,” he said. “We need to tear it up and start over.” - Should we do what Trump says and tear it up, Shar? That is how little he thinks of America and you are in his camp still.
SAD
I suspect Trump will be impeached but not convicted because the GOP doesn't have the balls to do it. He will lose by a landslide and when out of office on Jan 21st or when ever it is, proceedings will start to arrest, try, and convict Trump.
In the meantime, it is very possible that the State of New York will arrest and indict Ivanka, Jared, and Don Jr. before Trump leaves office. Since they had enough to take Cohen to trial on the hush money part, they probably have enough to take the officers of Trump Organization, LLC to court as well (and Trump when he leaves office)Predictions can be very risky as a rule. Trump will win in 2020. Not able to comment on your comment about Trump's children, that is all kind of crazy.
I must ask, what are the consequences when you're wrong? Seems odd one would constantly make accusations against mere strangers with nothing but air to back it up. I realize the Dem's keep their bases heads spinning, but at some point, after three years it seems some would become dizzy?
Donald Trump has been like a gift from God, for all his imperfections, he is many many times superior to what he defeated, and the horrific 16 previous years.
The Clinton family is one of the most evil families in the history of American politics. The Trump family? So far, maybe the single most peaceful and beneficial to the American public.
Obama was the worst in our history, the only thing comparable was W. Bush who, interestingly enough, the people who worshipped Obama hated. And they had the exact same policies.
Obama was a man who would drop 26K bombs on little brown people in one year, and then have the nerve to lecture us about our 'carbon footprint.'
Like all Democrats, it was a horror joke.
But then Trump is already rated the worst president (#42 and #44 out of 44) in America's history and he hasn't even finished his first term. Obama is rated between #8 and #18.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_States
I bet Wes probably thinks Hitler was unjustly accused.Yep, Toddy is completely fooled by Trump as are others on this thread.
Randy, you have fallen off the rails, just like the rest of the Obamainites...
The Clinton family is one of the most evil families in the history of American politics.
I must agree... Just this past week Hillary accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset. I should have known with Halloween just around the corner she would be dug up and stuck out on a stage to insult any and all Dem candidates that the party does not want to have a fair chance. You know sort of as they did with poor Bernie... So obvious.
I ask myself frequently could the Dem's look more foolish, and they never disappoint.
I guess Tulsi should thank Hillary, many more will now have a second look t her agenda. Which actually is pretty good. LOL
If this is true, all roads keep leading to Putin.
Putin, Hungarian leader pushed Trump on Ukraine corruption narrative
Days before a key meeting with White House advisers about Ukraine, foreign leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reportedly urged President Trump to take a hostile view of Kiev.
Trump met with Orban on May 13, 10 days before the meeting with several top presidential advisers, including now-outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry, former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, The New York Times reports.
Former national security adviser John Bolton and Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council’s senior director for Eurasian and Russian affairs, opposed the Trump-Orban White House meeting, but acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney ultimately overruled them, the Post reports.
During the May 23 meeting, several top Trump advisers reportedly reassured the president that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky deserved support from the U.S., but Trump called the Ukrainians “terrible people” who “tried to take me down” in 2016.
The Orban visit came up during closed-door testimony last week from George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of State, according to the Post, Kent was the fourth witness in the impeachment investigation.More Bad Things -
* Contempt of Congress - If he is not convicted of this impeachable offence, then NO president will EVER need to comply with congressionally issued subpoenas thereby neutering the intent of our founders to have three co-equal branches of government. (In other words - the Republican inquisition of Clinton would not have happened). This will be irreparable if allowed to stand.
* Because Trump pulled out of Syria and abandoned our ally to be slaughtered by the Turks in a continuation of their genocide against the Kurds, no nation or group will every join America again in conflict because they will NEVER trust America not to elect another Demagogue like Trump. This is irreparable.
* Because Trump broke America's promises and unilaterally pulled out of the Paris Peace Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and several treaties, no nation will EVER trust America again to keep its word because they will never TRUST Americans not to elect another Demagogue like Trump. This is irreparable.
* Because Trump is ignorant about economics, his Trade War has produced very long-term damage to America's agricultural industry since buyers of our products have found other sources who will fight hard to keep their business.
No wonder these people voted for Trump. They cannot understand the basics of the legal system. How could they decide between right and wrong when they went to vote? Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
It's just so dang funny, man. I laugh, and laugh, and then I do some more laughing. You people are comedy gold. Please never change.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the House impeachment of President Trump is “an open and shut case” because he “has committed crimes in public.”
“We know that he has committed a crime. The question is, how many other people are implicated in this? The question is, how often did he do it? Did he do it in other circumstances? How big does this get?” the liberal congresswoman told MSNBC on Thursday.
“The president has committed crimes in public. This is something that we know. This is something that all people know.”
She cited Trump’s suggestion from earlier this month that China investigate his political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Trump made the comment while speaking to reporters at the White House. They came in the wake of House Democrats launching impeachment hearings that center on the president’s July conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump made a similar request.
“It’s a very open and shut case,” she said.
“He has committed impeachable crimes. It’s just a question of how many and how many people were involved and who knew."
.@AOC: Trump’s impeachment an “open and shut case.”
“He has committed impeachable crimes. It’s just a question of how many and how many people were involved and who knew."
All that jive, not one crime even named!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAOne only has to listen to AOC vission for the country to see how anti-American she is. It sickens me to hear this kind of rhetoric. One only has to watch this video to see how crazy she is. It is very apparent that she is mimicking Evita ... and rehashing the Peron agenda. LOL Wonder if she ever looked into the Peron rise and fall of Juan Peron and his all for one government? She is in for a rude awakening, Red lipstick and flailing arms can't sell her kind of crazy to Americans.
But Trump's type of crazy is completely acceptable to you guys!
Randy, some of his "crazy" is totally unacceptable to me. However, his agenda and job performance are very acceptable to me. It is very apparent he is not a politician and does not follow the playbook. This is the main reason I voted for him. I desired change, not a bunch of undoable promises. Trump is providing the change I had hoped for.
Have you ever listened to AOC and the agenda she is promoting? I hope you will listen to the speech she gave at Bernies Rally in New York in full. Please note her agenda, and some of the words she uses to promote her agenda. Then let me know your opinion of in regard to the agenda she is putting forth. In my view, her crazy put Trump's crazy to shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAnUfrGfr2U
You at one point asked where I get my news from, one place is Youtube. One can get facts first hand when it comes to speeches, rallies, and yes media talk shows. One can put the context in order when one has an entire interview or statement, etcetera.You can find a lot of BS on YouTube, especially if you're looking for it, Shar. Cortez isn't running for POTUS so I'm not concerned with her agenda. Trump however is, and his followers don't seem to understand the proper procedure the House is following, or don't won't to because it's giving results.
You lack of watching and listening to many points of view shows in your comments. This isn't an insult, rather a suggestion to view even those venues you disagree with.I agree youtube does have lots of BS. I use it as I said to view full interviews, speeches, etc.
I prefer to glean out an opinion that is my own. It would be hard for me to watch nightly media. I find these shows frustrating, and hyperbolic and bias. Hard to form an opinion from those kinds of forums. I naturally read several viewpoints online. I think the Media shows clutter subjects with too many opinions, not enough facts. However, I think they have their place because they do offer fodder for thought. Which can be a good thing - gets one thinking... Randy, I appreciate the way you replied, gave your view without prejudging
How is AOC's vision anti-American??
I find that Trump's actions to be exactly that and his words being totally antithetical to America values - at least the ones I swore an oath to when I joined the military.
Bottom line is that Trump represents everything America doesn't stand for and he maligns everything that America does stand for. It is a shame you cannot see that.
I think many third graders do know more about geography than Trump does.
That may be true. Remember Trump said his father was born in Germany. In his book, he wrote daddy was born in New Jersey (a bit closer to the truth). In reality, papa Trump was born in NY, the Bronx, I think.
Forgoing a $400,000 salary per year so that you can brainwash people that siphoning off $16.1 million is acceptable. Most of us recognize that this violates the Constitution. People like Jack just don't care that it does apparently.
https://www.propublica.org/article/poli … -1-millionHarumpft! Well, I disagree with your disagreement.
For starters, relative to your listed court cases, and relative to the 2000 DOJ OLC opinion that reaffirmed the 1973 DOJ OLC opinion, the cases didn't happen since the 2000 opinion - they happened prior to that opinion.
And, the 2000 opinion specifically considered and spoke, (in what seemed to me to be an exhaustive forensic evaluation), to those cases. There is even a conclusive statement that the consideration of those cases did not undermine the 2000 OLC opinion of affirmation that the 1973 opinion was correct. It doesn't go quite so far as to say those cases bolstered their contention, but they did say they didn't harm their opinion.
Here is the citation:
Also, you will find reference to the Constitutional issue of a 'separation of powers' as a Constitutional consideration and supporting validation throughout the 2000 OLC opinion. By my reading, it seemed almost every avenue searched for support for the 1973 opinion ended up at the doorstep of the separation of powers rationale.
You can find those citations here, here, here, and here.
But you did get the parts about the Supreme Court and the Constitution right.*
*There are several instances in the 2000 OLC opinion that cited Notes of the Constitutional Convention, and Hamilton's comments in multiple Federalist Papers** that did speak to the Framers' mindset that to indict a sitting president was seen as so obviously impossible that it wasn't deemed to be needed to be specifically delineated in the Constitution.
** The OLC opinion cites the relative Federalist papers. here, here, and here.
I found this information in a DOJ source that confirmed my original mention, which came from a different source. (I thought I should get the correct information straight from the horse's mouth)
Now, since you made me do the work of finding and reading a secondary source to confirm my first source, I will let you do the work of finding those citations I pretended to offer. ;-) You can find all them in this DOJ offering: A Sitting Presidents Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
GA
Okay, Maybe that citation thing was a little mean, so here is the first one as a freebie;
"We believe that these precedents, United States v. Nixon, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, and Clinton v. Jones, are consistent with the Department’s analysis and conclusion in 1973. The cases embrace the methodology, applied in the OLC memorandum, of constitutional balancing. That is, they balance the constitutional interests underlying a claim of presidential immunity against the governmental interests in rejecting that immunity. And, notwithstanding Clinton's conclusion that civil litigation regarding the President’s unofficial conduct would not unduly interfere with his ability to perform his constitutionally assigned functions, we believe that Clinton and the other cases do not undermine our earlier conclusion that the burdens of criminal litigation would be so intrusive as to violate the separation of powers.OK, now I will have to read the damn thing. More later.
Don't forget the footnotes. ;-) They contained as much source validation as the memorandum text itself.
ps. I had to enlarge the text to more easily read those footnotes. The pdf wasn't made for easy reading.
GAWell the State question is answered relative to the OLC opinion - They didn't consider it.
The Department’s previous analysis also focused exclusively on federal rather than state prosecution of a sitting
President. We proceed on this assumption as well, and thus we do not consider any additional constitutional concerns
that may be implicated by state cnminal prosecution of a sitting President. See Clinton v Jones, 520 U S 681,
691 (1997) (noting that a state cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would raise “ federalism and comity”
concerns rather than separation of powers concerns)Nancy Pelosi is operating on a very simple premise. The framers of the constitution intended for this country to be a republic, not a monarchy. If a president can operate above the law, then he is operating as a monarch, pure and simple.
The framers also intended for there to be three coequal branches of government and separation of powers to provide checks and balances. Trump is not defending the constitution as he so solemnly has sworn in his oath, because he has no regard for the constitution.
According to the Mueller report, he has obstructed justice 10 times. He has violated the emolument clause and tried to use his power as president to influence a foreign power to provide dirt on his opponent for re-election. In those regards, he is operating above the law as a monarch, not a president.GA, I wonder why the original memo went further than this finding
"The memorandum concluded that the plain terms of the Clause do not impose such a general bar to indictment or criminal trial prior to impeachment and therefore do not, by themselves, preclude the criminal prosecution of a sitting President."
They state flat out that the Constitution does not bar indicting or prosecuting a sitting president. WHY did they go further?
I will be interested in reading their rational.Could it be because of a beyond-times interpretation or determination being required? The great thing, (in my opinion), about our Constitution is that it did not try to be an all-inclusive manual but more of a set of ground rules that could be applied to varied situations.
I am surprised you don't see this in line with the separation of church and state argument. The Constitution did not use that terminology or spell out that 'rule', yet our Court, (and Constitutional scholars), have all agreed that was a legitimate interpretation of their intentions.
Just because the Constitution does not bar or assert a thing does not mean the thing was not encompassed in the intent of the Framers.
GAThe thing is they decided that the Constitution did not bar "prior to Senate conviction" indictments for all other federal officials. My initial thought is that if the president was a unique case in the framers' minds, why didn't they specify it - it's pretty important, after all.
I think the 2000 OLC opinion spoke in-depth to that point. Their rationale was the unigenes of the president's office and duties required barring indictment. Otherwise, the nation would essentially be without an executive during the judicial process because his, (her), time would be devoted exclusively to their defense.
I can see the logic in that determination. As for the Framers' lack of addressing this issue, I would fall back to their rationalization that they thought it so obvious as to not needing to be spelled out. But that is just a thought, not a surety. *shrug
GA
Do you not think that any state charges would bump heads with the Federal determination and thus be headed to the courts for a decision?
Which I think would surely end up as a Scotus determination. So we are right back where we started; it will be a Constitutional question decided by the Court. Until then, my original thought seems to hold - the OLC opinion relied on a Constitutional application to determine that a sitting president could not be indicted, and a state-level charge would have to, (because of a challenge), follow the same path to the court with the opposing opinions asserting it is a constitutional issue. Whether it involves state or federal charges.
My bet is still on the violation of the separation of powers rationale.
GAYes, I do think that as the lawyers suggested with "state criminal prosecution of a sitting President would raise “ federalism and comity”
concerns rather than separation of powers concerns"
My point was, counter to what someone said, the OLC was silent on whether it violated the Constitution.
I have read a little further and found that while the OLC agreed the text of the Constitution does not bar indicting the president OR any other official subject to impeachment. However, they found this lack of a bar to absolute for ALL officials EXCEPT the president.
Then they are spending the rest of their analysis trying to justify this exception to the general Constitutional rule. At my point in the reading, they seem to be hanging their opinion on what the world "nevertheless" means in the Impeachment Judgement Clause. I am at the point where they are saying this word applies to indicting the president AFTER the Senate convicts him. They haven't gotten to the reasoning about what can happen BEFORE conviction for the president only.
I have read a few of the Federalist Papers' quotes a few times and don't see where they support their view. I'll have to read the original text.That is essentially how I read it too Scott. And I also wonder what the process would be to impeach, convict, and then indict for an obvious crime like murder.
Maybe there might be some 25th Amendment application?
GAWell, once convicted by the Senate, the person is no longer president and would be subject to criminal indictment by somebody.
Let's say Trump murders someone on a federal reservation (just to make it a federal and not a state crime). It was cold-blooded, in front of lots of witnesses with lots of forensic evidence pointing to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, once the deed was done and Trump goes back to his job as president and his sycophants in the cabinet don't care. In that case, I don't think the 25th amendment applies because they won't agree to kick him out.
And since the untested OLC opinion rules, he, and only he, cannot be indicted for the murder. (any other gov't official could be indicted before impeachment) We would be forced to wait for an impeachment and conviction before justice can prevail.
That is why I think that if the opinion is ever tested, the Supreme Court won't go along with it, especially if it is tested under such extreme circumstances as I just outlined.Given my level of Constitutional scholarly knowledge, (as in none), I think the OLC makes sense in general criminal application, but I also can't see the SCOTUS finding that ruling acceptable in a situation such as you described.
My only guess is that they would find an overriding Constitutional priority to rule against the OLC opinion.
GALet me modify something I started with.
"Well, once convicted by the Senate, the person is no longer president and would be subject to criminal indictment by somebody." should have finished with "even if the Senate doesn't convict, the president can still be indicted once he leaves office so long as any statute of limitations haven't run out.
What I wonder if they will discuss is why, given the 25th Amendments ability to provide for a succession, did they decide that the ability of the president to carry out their duty is so crucial, that it puts them above the law while in office.
I simply find a lot of logical inconsistency in their decision.
To be filed in the GOP hypocrisy file from yesterday...
When being asked about the whistleblower..."It's tough to determine someone's credibility if you can't put them under oath and ask them questions," Republican Representative Jim Jordan told reporters.
You have to really love it when Trump allies go ahead and make our case for us.Do you disagree? When a court is in session, do we require the opportunity to cross examine any witnesses, or do we simply accept as gospel whatever the prosecution says without ever having the ability to assess the witness or his statements?
Yes, I disagree. And more importantly, you just advocated breaking the law. Are you a lawless human being? Apparently so.
When a tip is called into police, they investigate. If the tip was fake, they might care about the tipster. If they find a crime, they really don't need testimony from the tipster any longer.Yep. And the cop's information goes directly to the prosecutor. And that information then goes to the defense, in it's entirety. When it doesn't, which does happen, the prosecution is in deep trouble, both in the case and in their personal practice.
Does anyone in the country actually believe that the Democrats hiding behind closed doors are searching for truth or are they searching for something with which to harm the president? Does anyone at all believe that if "negative evidence", either about the phone call or about the witness, is found it will be made open knowledge to the entire House? Can anyone possibly believe that a room full of House Democrats doing their utmost to hang Trump out to dry will make any effort at all, the smallest most innocuous question, to find out if a witness testifying to misdeeds is telling the truth or even believable?
If so, I have this beautiful bridge for sale....Apparently, only Republicans are allowed to conduct their investigations behind closed doors, as was done when the GOP changed the rules in 2015 for the Benghazi hearings. Apparently, you are completely unaware that 49 GOP politicians also hide behind those closed doors, that the room is not just 'House Democrats.' Apparently, you are so uneducated about the process to know that the GOP has the ability to question witnesses about those smallest most innocuous questions.
Apparently, you are so brainwashed that facts elude you."Apparently, you are so uneducated about the process to know that the GOP has the ability to question witnesses about those smallest most innocuous questions."
How? When they are not allowed in the room and are not allowed any questions at all, how will they question witnesses?
Truly, this looks like a case where D's learned their lesson: they tried hard to impeach Trump over Russian interference, but made a grievous error when they allowed the "investigation" to proceed through a third party and didn't get the result they wanted. This time, though, they are doing the investigation themselves, making sure that they get witness answers conducive to the desired result, and with no interference from the "defense" side of the table.
To continue your analogy (not a bad one), the "prosecution" (Democratic House members in this case) are required to provide the "grand jury" (entire house in this case) with any exculpatory evidence: do you actually believe those in charge of the witness testimony will make any effort whatsoever to do that? Again, I have a nice bridge for sale....
In the long run, of course, it makes no difference for the House is neither jury nor investigator here - the Senate is. Still, a vote for impeachment will gain them considerable political points...if they can but get one. And the best way to do that is to exclude any "defense" from ever hearing testimony or asking questions. Make sure a vote of impeachment is conducted with as little "evidence" as possible given to the jury, and certainly nothing that might throw doubt on a testimony.Dan, please do some research. There are GOP members on each of the three committees that have been questioning witnesses. Any of the members of those committees are allowed into the SCIF, and members of both parties are allowed to question the witnesses.
This is what I mean, you come on here and parrot falsehoods without knowing the process. Where do you get your information?
As to your point about the impeachment being done for political points, many Americans believe in the right to free and fair elections. When the President uses the power of his office to illegally solicit foreign government assistance to help in the upcoming election, that violates the rights of the citizenry. At least it does in the eyes of the Democrats and many independents who are learning about the witness testimony being provided through the media. What it also confirms is that many conservatives like yourself have party interests over those of the country and that you're a dyed-in-the-wool Trump apologist.But it was OK to solicit foreign information about Trump/Russian collusion? That nothing at all has been done about that, that it was never even addressed, along with wire tapping, kind of says it all, doesn't it? Or the rest of us learning about the witness testimony through media...or at least the part the Democrats let out.
Once more, it is a sign of the times - it's all about political power (on either side of the room), not about truth, fairness and honesty.
That you have decided I am a "dyed-in-the-wool Trump apologist" fits in here very neatly, for I have made exactly zero effort to defend his actions: I have ONLY attacked the one sided method of the impeachment process being utilized. It's all about appearance and perception rather than about fact. What kind of political spin can be put onto a statement rather than about what the statement actually said.Again, do your research. There is nothing illegal about paying for opposition research, even from foreign citizens. Solicits from foreign governments is the illegal action. Your distraction to something your right-wing media has falsely convinced you as illegal just doesn't help you sound knowledgeable about the topic.
You parroting Trump talking points that attack the same process that was used in 2015 by the GOP to smear Clinton really leads me to believe you are actually a dyed-in-the-wool Trumper. Since you cannot defend the substance, you have to pivot to the process. And you're attacking a process created by your own party as unfair. Talk about trying to defend hypocrisy.
That's the exact strategy of the White House, which you come on here to talk about and then deny you are a Trumper. Pardon me if none of us believe you.Dan, Shar and the self-proclaimed genius Mike just cannot get their heads around this, Val. No matter how often it's explained to them, they make same silly comments as if they didn't hear us at all.
You may be wrong there Valeant - "The FEC chair: “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”"
So the question I have is this - while it wasn't illegal for the Republicans, Clinton, or the DNC to hire Fusion to dig up dirt, was it illegal for Fusion to have hired Steele?Campaign experts have noted that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”
If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.
If a campaign is paying someone for work or services, they’re being compensated. But where that doesn’t happen, and a campaign is accepting a contribution — or “thing of value” — from a foreign government, the question then is what’s in it for them?So when Fusion paid Steele to dig up dirt for political purposes, the dirt isn't "something of value" the FEC mentions and is concerned about?
How would this be different than Trump using personal money paying Steele to dig up dirt on Biden to benefit his 2020 election.
That is a real question, I am actually unsure of the answer.
Clearly, Trump can't use taxpayer money as that would be, and is, impeachable.Trump could have paid for opposition research, same with that Trump Tower meeting. He could have hired the Russian lawyer to do his campaign opposition research and that likely would have made the Tower meeting no concern for anyone.
Lawsuit "Conservative Group Files Suit to Force FEC to Rule on Whether Clinton Campaign, DNC Broke Law to Get Dossier"
https://ijr.com/fec-faces-suit-failure- … paign-dnc/Big deal, I hope it works out better for them than the "Dirty Dossier," as Hannity refers to it, has so far. As I said, pure desperation at this point, Shar.
Randy,
I see another Trump promise Trump supporter are proud of has ended in disaster. - Lots of spilled OIL
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/us/keyst … index.htmlHow fitting...the House voted to impeach President Trump on Halloween. A witch-hunt that will end in disaster for the Democrats in 2020.
You just keep your eyes closed to reality Jack, see where that gets you.
I just boggles the mind how blind to the facts you are. Either that our you think TraitorTrump is actually above the law - something no real, patriotic American thinks. But then, you never know.It is you who is blind. If Trump is really guilty of any crime, the vote would be bipartisan, don’t you think? Just like the ACA bill, it received zero Republican support.
Jack, if it's proven Trump violated his oath of office, would you care?
No, not true. It won't be bi-partisan because the Republican's have lost their spine with Trump and are too afraid of getting primaried by people like you. Also, on the Senate side, Trump is bribing them with campaign donations.
What do you think is going to happen when the public gets to hear what was said behind closed doors out in the open. You may not think Obstructing Justice, Obstructing Congress, or Abusing Power are things to be impeached for, real Americans who care about this country do.
Of course, ACA received zero GOP support, they don't believe in letting people have health care without paying through the nose for it.The ACA was a bust of a bill, that is why no GOP voted for it.
As for impeachment, once the hearing is public, most people will see how idiotic the Democrats are for even bringing this issue up.
Trump will win 2020 and the GOP will gain in the House as a result.If it was so much of a bust, then why do so many people like it today?? Why did uninsured rates plummet (I know, I know, all those people should have remained uninsured according to conservative morals)??
So you do agree it is quite alright for a president to use his office for personal gain.
So you do agree it is quite alright for a president to extort a foreign president by withholding taxpayer-funded, vital military aid in order to FORCE him to dig up dirt on a political opponent. Why aren't you living in a third-world country where they do that all of the time, Jack? It seems those morals would be more to your liking.
Here is how far your hero has fallen in even his supporters eyes. Looking at just the states who love him the most, compare has job approval on Jan 2017 and then on Sep 2019 - How do you explain the drop?
Wyoming - 40 to 16
West Virginia - 37 to 20
Alabama - 36 to 22
Oklahoma - 34 to 11
Tennessee - 34 to 13
Kentucky - 34 to 15
Mississippi - 34 to 21
These states have actually FLIPPED for the moment.
Florida
Ohio
Arizona
Utah
Montana
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Wisconsin
Nebraska
AMAZINGThe only poll that matters is the one on election day. These polls have been tainted by the biased pollsters...
Jack: Please read this article. It is an opinion piece, but it is a truthful account of how the GOP congress has created a cult to support Trump.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAJFhKU?m=en-us&a … InAppShareYou are correct on one point...it is an opinion piece...
That article is nothing more than a insult piece towards republicans...
Nothing kills valid points faster than insult opinions...regardless of Republican or Democrat...Double Scorpion: Do you deny what that article says? If so then please give a detailed account of what you deny and what is not truthful about the article.
This was one paragraph that I felt probably hit a little too close to home for Scorpion:
Maybe this is how Republican lawmakers survive the strain of the Trump era. They represent family values but defend Trump through “Access Hollywood” and Stormy Daniels scandals. They represent military hawkishness but acquiesce to his Syria pullout and subservience to Moscow. They represent free markets and fiscal discipline but justify his trade wars and trillion-dollar deficit. They represent law and order but excuse his obstructions of justice.Thanks for making an assumption about me...Interesting...
But, I was only speaking to the insult part of it...the rest...I don't care one way or the other...
It seems that if anyone wants to see fair play...then they must be a Trump supporter...
If someone doesn't agree with a certain point of view, they must be a far right or far left...
I tend to think for myself, so it is very rare that anything "hits close to home" for me...mostly because I don't live inside box...
But...I must say...I do have an issue with hypocrites...and I don't care what political side they are on...I am not perfect, but I don't fault others for things I am guilty of myself...And there is a lot of that going on from both sides of the political fence...
The whole US government needs a complete makeover...parties gone...and people get elected based on their platforms and work performance only...don't do what you say...don't get re-elected...but that will never happen...There won't be much of a Republican party left after Trump's reign of terror is over, DS. I don't go by the philosophy of either of the parties being right all of the time, but in this case, I blame the Right for defending a thug when they don't have to.
If they are so easily taken in by such a con man, then they deserve their fate.Scorpion: How about presidential candidates submit their resumes to the public, instead of making campaign promises they can't keep? If that were the case, Trump would have never been elected. If you apply for a professional job, they want to see your resume. Trump's resume as a presidential candidate wouldn't even cut it.
Although Trump tries to keep his campaign promises to a fault, e.g, Mexico pays for the wall, imposing tariffs on China that we pay the import taxes on, and pulling troops out of Syria, so that Russia and Turkey can release ISIS prisoners, and decimate the Kurds who were our allies.
By the way, what was so insulting about that article? It pointed out the hypocrisy of the GOP congress in my estimation and that they have been become cult like. If you have examples of the Dems and hypocrisy and cults, bring it on.
That about sums it up, doesn't it. It spells HYPOCRISY
I didn't say it was truthful or not truthful...
It is insult based, if you are wanting to post truthful information in an opinion piece...then leave out the insult...no reason for them...
And that applies for Democrat or Republican hit pieces...
Where did they insult the Republicans (who richly deserve it based on their actions) by lying about something??
So, if a republican is successful in office, and attract a following...it is considered a cult. If a Democrat like Obama is elected, the people who adored him are just sane people...
Not so fast.
https://www.americanthinker.com/article … _cult.htmlIt's not having a following that makes this a cult. It's having a following that believes in only the far-fetched reality of the leader that makes this a cult.
What far fetched reality? More jobs, better trade, lower taxes, and border security...
Jobs are a continuation of Obama, Worse trade, lower taxes for the Rich; he jails little kids and tears the apart from their families - yeah, great border security.
What you really have is a very sick man who is SO narcissistic that he thinks he god. He is the kind of man who throws our ally to the Turkish wolves to die - yet you love him for it - you think that is sanity and reality.
It is those who believe in that kind of sick man that makes it a cult.Actually, the average job growth is down since Trump took over. We're at record trade deficits and the tariffs have decimated farmers. Lower taxes, but tariffs have increased the cost to the middle class by about $2,000/year while the cost of those tax cuts has substantially increased the yearly deficits. Border security might be better, but it's at a cost of a loss of humanity as the rate of child deaths has significantly increased.
I don't call any of the stuff you see as a success, a success.That is the difference between you and me. You are inconsistent since the Obama years was much worst and you thought it was great.
At least, under Trump, our economy is finally moving in the right direction, with a level competition lower taxes and more manufacturing jobs...and better energy policies. The market is reaching all time high and life is good.
What is good for the American people is good for America. You put the rights of undocumented aliens above that of citizens. That is not my values.Jack: So you assert that the Obama years were bad in comparison to the Trump years. How is this for openers?
The day Obama took office, the Dow closed at 7,949 points. Eight years later, the Dow had almost tripled.
General Motors and Chrysler were on the brink of bankruptcy, with Ford not far behind, and their failure, along with their supply chains, would have meant the loss of millions of jobs. Obama pushed through a controversial, $8o billion bailout to save the car industry. The U.S. car industry survived, started making money again, and the entire $80 billion was paid back, with interest.
While we remain vulnerable to lone-wolf attacks, no foreign terrorist organization had successfully executed a mass attack here since 9/11.
Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.
He drew down the number of troops from 180,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan to just 15,000, and increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
He launched a program called Opening Doors which, since 2010, has led to a 47 percent decline in the number of homeless veterans.
He set a record 73 straight months of private-sector job growth that Trump inherited the day he took office.
Due to Obama’s regulatory policies, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 12%, production of renewable energy more than doubled, and our dependence on foreign oil was cut in half.
He signed The Lilly Ledbetter Act, making it easier for women to sue employers for unequal pay.
His Omnibus Public Lands Management Act designated more than 2 million acres as wilderness, creating thousands of miles of trails and protecting over 1,000 miles of rivers.
He reduced the federal deficit from 9.8 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.2 percent in 2016.
For all the inadequacies of the Affordable Care Act, we seem to have forgotten that, before the ACA, you could be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition and kids could not stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26.
Obama approved a $14.5 billion system to rebuild the levees in New Orleans.
All this, even as our own Mitch McConnell famously asserted that his singular mission would be to block anything President Obama tried to do.
While Obama failed on his campaign pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, that prison’s population decreased from 242 to around 50.
He expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research, supporting groundbreaking advancement in areas like spinal injury treatment and cancer.
Credit card companies can no longer charge hidden fees or raise interest rates without advance notice.
Most years, Obama threw a 4th of July party for military families. He held babies, played games with children, served barbecue, and led the singing of “Happy Birthday” to his daughter Malia, who was born on July 4.
Welfare spending was down: for every 100 poor families, just 24 received cash assistance, compared with 64 in 1996.
Obama comforted families and communities following more than a dozen mass shootings. After Sandy Hook, he said, “The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.”
Yet, he never took away anyone’s guns.
He sang Amazing Grace, spontaneously, at the altar.
He was the first president since Eisenhower to serve two terms without personal or political scandal.
He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obama was not perfect, as no man and no president is, and you can certainly disagree with his political ideologies. But to say we suffered? If that’s the argument, if this is how we suffered for 8 years under Barack Obama, I have one wish: may we be so fortunate as to suffer 8 more.
Trump can't hold a candle to Obama in terms of morality, respect for the constitution, lack of scandals, being inclusive of his fellow man, and uniting a country instead of dividing it.
Sure he lied about "if you like your doctor, you get to keep him." But he never lied and miss-informed over 10,000 times in a two year period.Yes, and that is why Hillary was rejected by American claiming to be the 3rd Obama term. A continuation of his progressive agenda that bankrupt out nation and a monstrosity of the ACA that is failing before our eyes.,.
Luckily, we were smart enough to change course with Trump...
Ended the Paris Accord and the Iran nuclear deal and NAFTA trade deals...America wanted Hillary according to the popular vote. It was the Russians who wanted Trump and they got it by convincing enough voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to either not vote for Clinton or to vote for Trump.
Strange for a so-called conservative like you to snub NAFTA since that was a true conservative's dream deal.
It is unbecoming to continue to lie about ACA failing or that Trump changed course. It has succeeded in spite of the conservatives best effort to return health care to the bad old days. All the conservatives did was raise the stress level of poor people and the cost of their insurance.
Now that Trump stupidly withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal, Iran is back to building the bomb which it had stopped because of the deal. Trump made the world a much more dangerous place. He probably even supports giving the Turks and Saudi's the bomb.Wow, what a delusion...
The ACA was a massive failed experiment. Even democrats are distancing themselves from the Obamacare disaster.
The Iran deal was one of the worst made by John Kerry. It gave them billion of cash with little to show in results.
The Russian collusion was actually The DNC and Russia not Trump.
After 2 years of investigation and witch hunt, even the biased Democrats under Mueller could not come up with any evidence.
The NAFTA deal was what caused such inequities with our workers and Trump has tried to fix it with USMCA which is held up by your party for 1 year...
You see, despite all your efforts to deceive, you are just as clueless as to why Trump won and Hillary and Obama lost big time.
If he was so successful as you claim, Hillary would be sitting in the White House today.
It is interesting to note a few things on your list.
1. Actually, Obama didn't lie about the doctors, etc. At the time, that was part of the bill. Not being able to came out later.
2. The deficit that Obama drove down as a percent of GDP was in such terrible shape to start with because of the conservative Great Recession of 2008.
3. Conservatives vehemently opposed bailing out the auto industry (strange for conservatives who supposedly support big business) and thought it much better to drive America into a depression.
4. Conservatives oppose reducing greenhouse gases because it cost too much and they think there is no evidence of global warming despite mountains of it. In fact, they applaud Trump's efforts to increase greenhouse gases.
5. While Obama held Fourth of July parties for military families, Trump wanted a very costly parade for himself. He finally got it later
6. The so-called pro-life Conservatives oppose saving lives via stem cell research.
Jack, in what universe to you get your information?? It certainly isn't BEA data. The REAL data clearly shows that Trump is doing no better or worse than Obama during the last two years of his presidency. I would argue he is doing worse than Obama after the recovery began since Obama had several quarters above 4% and Trump has had NONE.
Not that it makes any difference, but since Trump uses it as a false measuring stick, Trump's trade deficit is worse than Obama's.
Manufacturing jobs were increasing under Obama and they kept increasing under Trump - until Feb 2019 where they turned flat. Why did they turn flat, Jack (couldn't help myself)
Even his vaunted stock market is false when you do PROPER analysis and use REAL (constant) dollars. In that analysis, Trump is simply following the channel set by Obama. It is only when you use non-inflation adjusted dollars does it falsely appear that Trump is doing better.
Face it Jack, the man you chose to follow and believe all of his lies is a fraud and con man.Yes, and you know best...? What a delusion of grandeur? Talk about Trump having a big ego...you are worst.
Jack: With all due respect. It's either you are the worst or you are worse, not you are worst. Worst means the ultimate so you need the word "the" in there. Worse by itself is used as a comparison to something else, like "You are more worse than Trump."
I just use the facts, Jack - that is what knows best, and you don't. How does using facts give me a delusion of grandeur. You don't need to have a big ego when the facts back me up all of the time.
It is Trump and you who need that ego to get around all of the lies you perpetuate.
Interesting, I talk about non-inflation adjusted dollars and you turn that into an inflated ego - how does that work??Trump exaggerates and lies about stupid things...
While you engage in lies by data manipulation.
Your past analysis has always stand behind big government and spending and never address the damage of waste and abuse of our tax dollars.
Enough is enough. You numbers are bogus.
Anyone can turn any stats into good or bad.
The bottom line is how the American people fair under both Obama and Trump. On that score, there is no comparison.
Trump will be reelected in 2020 by a huge margin. Mark my words, we will see in Nov. of next year, who is right and who is dead wrong.I know you don't believe in data that disagrees with Jack, but the data is the data.
Trump lies - I don't, I just report what the data says.
My past analysis presents the results that the data demands. If it "stands behind big government" then so be it. You present nothing but wishful thinking and conservative talking points which are often wrong.
Prove my numbers are bogus, just don't say so. Go to BEA and find different numbers.
You are right, the American people have fared much better under Obama, especially in the pride and feeling good about what one's country stands for. Trump has trashed America more than any other president in history.
What are you going to do when he gets trounced, blame the Russians for not doing enough?I don’t have conservative talking points like you. I just have common sense and a respect for the Constitution of limited government and individual freedom... the Obama years was a disaster for America and it was his choice to take America down a few notches...
Jack: Do you believe that Trump respects and defends the constitution like you do? If he has nothing to hide, why is he constantly trying to defy subpoenas for not only himself, but for others associated with him?
Let's look at Trump track record so far.
Thirty two billion in tariffs have been imposed on China. He says China is going to pay for it. He is lying. The way tariffs work is the importer pays for the tariffs. We the tax payers are paying the 32 billion in not only tariffs, but also in subsidies that he has given to farmers by putting them out of work. China is going to other countries for their agriculture and they may never come back
He has been in office for two years and he still hasn't built his wall that Mexico was going to pay for. However he has made a mess out of how to deal with immigrants by splitting up families so they may never be together again. ICE has deported many people to countries they have never lived in.
He gave away Syria to the Russian, Turkey, and ISIS. He doesn't care anything about the Kurds who are our allies and will be slaughtered by opposing forces.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy is at 64% of labor force participation rate. That means that out of the entire labor force that could be working only 64% are actually working.
He approved the Keystone pipeline where Obama rejected it. There is now a spill of 350,000 gallons of oil spilled in South Dakota wet lands.
He wants to turn the clock back and bring back fossil fuel energy because he is beholden to the oil companies. He doesn't care about pollution and global warming. He has removed and is still removing environmental standards on fossil fuel processes.
He wants to make friends with the Saudis who are Sunni, the same as ISIS.
He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and now Iran is free to do as they choose with no oversight.
He sides with Israel on cruelty to the Palestinians.
He and the GOP have not been able to come up with a health care plan that is better than the ACA, no matter how hard they try.
The national debt is at almost 30 trillion and counting. Thanks to his tax breaks for the super wealthy. So much for trickle down economics. When Trump took office, the national debt was at 22 trillion.
Whether you want to believe it or not, he has divided this country into an us and them mentality for the purpose of manipulating his agenda. He only holds rallies in states where he is popular and uses a sick need for admiration while using insults, lies, and exaggeration to put down those who oppose him.
By the way, Hillary won the popular vote. Trump won the electoral college votes. That does not make him the most popular candidate. It makes him the candidate who knows how to campaign in those states that can yield the most electoral college votes.Yes, Obama was so great a leader that Trump cannot hold a candle...? Talk about delusion... Trump is a better businessman and a deal maker. He is getting thing done despite the do nothing Congress trying to impeach him. Good luck with that...
"Yes, Obama was so great a leader that Trump cannot hold a candle" - You said it, I didn't. (Yes, I know you put a ? after it).
Trump is a bully, amoral, and unethical in his so-called "deals". He has failed to make ANY good deals for America so far and has embarrassed terribly with his supplication to Un, Putin, and Erdogan.
As to being a good businessman, why has he gone bankrupt SIX times. Let me say it again - SIX TIMES. Also, most of his real estate (not licensing) ventures are not doing very well now either. Yeah, great businessman - boy has he got you fooled.
I am sorry that you don't think what Trump has done, is doing is criminal and/or impeachable - that doesn't say much for either your common sense or your morals.Many successful businessmen failed in the past and came back stronger and better. That is something about our capitalistic system you failed to appreciate.
“In the real world, very smart people fail and mediocre people rise. Part of what makes people fail or succeed are skills that have nothing to do with IQ. Also, the idea that intelligence can be gauged by an IQ test is erroneous.” — Camille PagliaYes, some businessmen fail once, maybe twice - BUT SIX TIMES??? And he hasn't come back as a success, Jack, with the exception of selling his name. Most of his current real estate projects are struggling or failing, in spite of all the extra business they get from foreign nationals trying to buy favor from Trump.
Why are you quoting a not-so-well known homophobe. She has no credibility because of her racist and bigoted views.
Also, you do know, don't you, that using this quote tells me you think Trump's IQ isn't what he says it is.And then we have Don Jr. picking up where is father left off - LYING ALL OF THE TIME. This lie says Trump Organization has pulled out of all international business - LOLOLOLOL
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/03/politics … index.html
And remember, it was the Russians who put him in office and we all know it. (although Clinton did help a lot by putting on an ineffective campaign).
You think I have conservative talking points??? WOW!! But, that said, if you don't have conservative talking points, why do you keep using them, and using them, and using them?
The Constitution is not "of limited government" it is the Constitution of a representative government and the people, through their representatives determine what the gov't does. And given your support of Trump, you certainly don't support the Constitution since he doesn't.
You can keep giving the false conservative talking point that the Obama years were a disaster all you want, but common sense AND the data says you are totally, provably wrong. And it your choice to support a man who HAS taken America into the gutter and making us look like a third world dictatorship.The Constitution has enumerated powers. Those that are listed as government functions necessary for the republic and democracy to thrive.
Among those is a stand army for self defense...
The rest were left to the States to determine what is best for each state and local government. This is called federalism.
For someone who claims to know the Constitution, do you really understand what the founders had in mind?
Certainly not the cradle to grave hand holding by our big bureaucratic state that has been created by the Democratic and progressives.
It has bankrupt our nation and created a dependence class which is reaching 40% of our populous. It was never intended to be so...Yes, the Constitution does have enumerated powers. BUT, it also has implied powers which you insist on ignoring? Why are you reading only the part of the Constitution which seems to support your so-called conservative views?
It seems like, in your comment, that you agree with the State of New York that it can get Trump's tax returns and that Bill Barr, the fake-AG, is wrong when he says a state can't even investigate a sitting president.
And yes I do have a better of idea of what they had in mind since I have read of lot of what they have said. What have you read??
I don't know what nation you live in (maybe Sweden) but America is far from "cradle-to-grave hand holding". All our progressive gov't is trying to do is insure the citizens which are the gov't have basic human rights.
How has it bankrupt our nation? I don't see where we have filed for bankruptcy like Trump does a lot. I do see wars driving up national debt. I do see conservative recessions driving up national debt. I do see stupid conservative tax cuts for the rich driving up national debt like what is happening today. And I do see Conservatives not paying for the General Welfare by taxing at the appropriate rate as driving up national debt.
It was also never intended that the rich gain so much power that they drive the rest of the nation into poverty like they do in third world countries.As a conservative, I am not against taxation to pay for needed projects. However, I am against big government spending when it encroaches on our rights and enslave us into an entitlement society like what we see with welfare families...the waste and fraud that is in our system is unconscionable. For you and progressives to push this statism is exactly why it would never work...and rejected by the voting public.
We are not just debating different policies but basic differences in our interpretation of the Constitution. You read all sorts of rights into the Constitution that does not exist. The right to healthcare is one example.
That is never mentioned or implied in the Constitution. Healthcare like many other services are not free and a choice by people who either wants to buy insurance coverage or not. It should not be mandated by government. Healthcare includes doctors and nurses and technicians who are just like you and me and they work for a wage. Those wages are to be compensated. There is no free lunch.
The only things the Constitution provides is life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...and the rights given under the Bill of Rights."The only things the Constitution provides is life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...and the rights given under the Bill of Rights."
It should be noted that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not even in the constitution.Yes, it is flexible but only with the Amendment process. Not with unelected judges making rulings that cause tremendous damage...the living document does not mean words can be re-interpreted to mean things it was never intended.
The abortion case is one prime example but there were many...
Some Supreme court decisions were mistake and had to be reverse later...Being flexible inherently means that judges must make decisions. Whether they cause "tremendous damage" or not is not always foreseeable or something we all agree upon.
Then tell me Jack, why does the Constitution provide for those "unelected judges"???? If it as you assume, there would only be two branches of gov't, maybe one (consisting of Trump)
Do you know who made those mistakes in Supreme Court decisions that had to be reversed??? Conservative judges, that is who - every time.
Is not every single action you might wish to take included in "the pursuit of happiness"? This would mean that the writers intended for government to be the sole provider of everything possible to have, and that it must give it to every single person.
Will a yacht make you happy? Uncle Sam must provide you with one. A mansion with 30 servants? The federal government must cough it up for you. Sex with your favorite movie star? Write the president and he must provide that star for you (though sex with you is not on her list of the pursuit of happiness).
Point is that you can twist the constitution to mean whatever you wish it to...if you just ignore what the intent was.My point was exactly what you confirmed. The Constitution is a flexible document.
Why have it at all if it means whatever you wish it to mean at any given time? Of what possible value could it be?
" I am against big government spending when it encroaches on our rights and enslave us into an entitlement society like what we see with welfare families...the waste and fraud that is in our system is unconscionable. "
1) How come you never rail against the massive waste and fraud in the private sector - is it OK there by you? You do know you pay for it in the price you pay just like the minimal waste and fraud in the gov't is paid out of taxpayer dollars.
"However, the amount of internal fraud experienced by governmental entities actually appears smaller than the occupational frauds happening in all industries as a whole. Government agencies suffer median losses that are only half as much as those that occur in the private sector. " - UNTIL YOU start paying attention to Private Sector Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, nobody should pay attention when you spout the conservative talking point regarding the government, should we.
https://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/ … -industry/
Damn, you did it again, Jack - you forgot why the Constitution exists in the first place. You know, the part that says -
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It seems to me you forget ALL ABOUT the " establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence promote the general Welfare" - I wonder why? Because those are your type of conservative values.
BTW, how do you not see that guaranteeing a citizen a right to health care isn't part of "general Welfare"? It would seem to me it epitomizes it. Why don't you? Does not having a healthy nation fall into the category of "general Welfare"?In order to form a “MORE perfect” union...PROMOTE the general welfare....
The key words are More and Promote.
You progressives seek a perfect union in the form of utopia which cannot exist in this world. And promote does mean PROVIDE. Your progressive policies seek to provide for everything where the preamble speak of promote which is quite different than provide...don’t you think?
If you think, for even 1 second, that the writers of our constitution felt that the federal government was responsible for:
providing health care for everyone
providing food for everyone
providing housing for everyone
providing formal education for everyone
providing any of the "human rights" list that liberals keep expanding every year
you really need to dig a little (or a lot) deeper into the philosophy of those writers. None of these so-called "human rights" that the liberal insists others must pay for were ever considered by our founders.
Instead the Declaration of Independence lists but three: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The state shall not take your life, shall not take you liberty and shall not take your pursuit of happiness. But the intent was never to guarantee that anyone have those things, for the state cannot guarantee any of them. Only that it will not take them away.
"It was also never intended that the rich gain so much power that they drive the rest of the nation into poverty like they do in third world countries."
LOL Poverty like they do in third world countries. With the poorest 20% of Americans spending more than the average of the majority of other industrialized nations. Nothing like a little exaggeration, or a little white fib, is there?Wilderness and Jack: You are forgetting one thing: The preamble to the constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It says promote the general welfare. What does that mean to you people?
I live in California where we have wildfires that are plaguing the state and its people. If it weren't for fire fighters coming from other states, we would never be able to deal with these fires. Welcome to socialism at its finest. What do you think would happen if fire departments were privatized?
Health insurance for all is the same as group insurance that is offered by employers. Everybody pays into the pool. The healthiest pay for those who need it more.
Money always flows to the top of corporations where the members of boards always demand more money, because they are profit oriented. That's what privatizing insurance is about. They will be able to rip off people by raising premiums and lowering benefits for all. It's called unfettered capitalism without any regulations to protect the people.
It really boils down to what is the role of the federal government and the states governments? Conservatives are always afraid they are getting ripped off by their money going to the poor. They have a "I got mine, you go get yours mentality."
Again, what does promote the general welfare mean to you?I have no problem paying taxes to help the poor and needy. That is not what is going on in our government today. We created a whole class of welfare families that are generational...
Just because the federal government do not provide these services does not mean it won’t be taken care of in other ways. We have many private charities and religious institutions that can provide them at less cost and with better efficiency...have you thought of that?Private charity isn't doing such a good job in providing even adequate healthcare. Government programs could be much less wasteful and better able to root out those who take advantage if we didn't have a segment of the population fighting against the need for just about every government program.
Oh, and over 40 percent of Medicare funding comes from the federal general revenue: Damn socialists, lol
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brie … financing/Hmm. Perhaps if Congress had exercised some fiduciary responsibility, and invested those billions that have been paid in for decades rather than using it as "free" money for pork barrel projects, we wouldn't be paying for medicare out of the general fund.
But they didn't, did they?You tell me..you have it all figured out. Enjoy "stealing" out of other's checks..is that the younger generation's fault that Congress did not act? You see, what is good for one set of people, is good for another. You know that also..it just makes you feel better to think you don't enjoy the benefits of a socialistic type program. Whatever it takes is what I say.
Other than these words, Jack "I have no problem paying taxes to help the poor and needy." nowhere in any of your commentary that I have read to-date have you even hinted at this believe.
Although you haven't particularly implied this either, I think you are more on Wildernesses view - if you can't afford it, you are lazy and should suffer for being lazy. There is no gray in Wilderness' world, you either have a high paying job or you are lazy, there are no other reasons. Worse, even if there were, their gov't has no responsibility toward them even though it is made of of them.Also, the reason these kinds of programs came into being because your vaunted "private charities" were NEVER up to the job, when the economy went south - Never. Add to the fact that many charities, especially back in the day, only catered to whites. They left Asians, blacks, Latinos out in the cold for the most part. Today, they are much less discriminatory fortunately.
"Health insurance for all is the same as group insurance that is offered by employers. Everybody pays into the pool. The healthiest pay for those who need it more."
This is what I find to be so frustrating about the healthcare debate. The fact that so many Americans seem not to understand this, is a great argument for bolstering our nation's ability to provide a well-rounded education.It means the welfare of the state. It does NOT indicate the welfare of specific individuals.
"What do you think would happen if fire departments were privatized? "
Some are. And there have been reports of fire departments that will refuse to render aid if you haven't aided the department in the past (by contributions of cash to keep it going). As far as your socialism at it's best, with firefighters coming from all over...how many of those firefighters have had a gun held to head, ready to pull the trigger if they don't go? Because that's what we have with our welfare state - either pay what I tell you to or lose your liberty. Constitutional, right? Right in line with that "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" that is inalienable...until you don't cough up the cash liberals think you should."It means the welfare of the state. It does NOT indicate the welfare of specific individuals." - AGAIN YOU are wrong Wilderness. "general Welfare" does not have a damn thing to do with the State. (It also doesn't specify individuals but doesn't bar individuals being helped along with the group).
The Constitution is a document between the PEOPLE and the Federal government. (Hell, there was some though given to abolishing the states because they are doing such a poor job helping their citizens). It is NOT a document between the States and the Federal government.
"general Welfare" speaks to the welfare of the population.
Does it help the population if all have the right to access healthcare? YES
Does it help the population if all have the right to access education? YES
Is it a national security issue to have a well education population? YES
Does it help the population if all have the right to access food? YES
Does it help the population if all have human rights? YESWelfare of the population. Yes. Not individuals in that population. If you believe otherwise, show where the Constitution specifically authorizes treatment of some people different than others, by taking from one to give to another.
All of the things you mention are left to the states...and to the people that live there. For instance, the constitution demands that our borders be protected - not that some people be protected from invaders while others are not. The entire land is to be protected, and all the people in it. They all get the same benefit from it.
Given that there are enough people working to keep the state alive and well, show that it helps that state to feed more than it needs. Given that we have all the "educated" people we need, show that it helps the country to have more, people that either don't work or work at far less than their capability because there is no need for them. Same for healthcare; show that the nation benefits from providing healthcare to people that add nothing to the state and that are not needed to maintain it.
Bear in mind, as you do these things, that we are not speaking of how many tears dying people will cause you, we're not speaking of how bad you feel to see hungry people and not how much it will hurt you to see people that cannot get an education. It is not an emotion issue; it is one based on fact. Now show those things.
And when you're done with that, show a list of "human rights" - one that has existed for millenia and is good for the next 5,000 years. Not one you intend to keep adding to as you find people that don't have something others have earned and decide to call it another "human right".You say " If you believe otherwise, show where the Constitution specifically authorizes treatment of some people different than others, by taking from one to give to another."
and I ask you " If you believe otherwise, show where the Constitution specifically authorizes the federal gov't to build dams by taking money from the citizen". Yet the gov't does, although I suspect you don't approve of the federal gov't doing that either.Ah. Are you now going from "required" to "possible" when it comes to paying people to get what they want but cannot afford?
The Constitution did not deny it, but it certainly did not require either our welfare programs OR the dams it has built. There is a massive difference between the two.Where and how did I "Ah. Are you now going from "required" to "possible" when it comes to paying people to get what they want but cannot afford?"
But since you bring it up, the Constitution doesn't deny helping people in need using taxpayer money to do it. Show me where in the Constitution is says the gov't can't do that.
You say " If you believe otherwise, show where the Constitution specifically authorizes treatment of some people different than others, by taking from one to give to another."
and I ask you " If you believe otherwise, show where the Constitution specifically authorizes the federal gov't to build dams by taking from money from the citizen".Does "Given that there are enough people working to keep the state alive and well, show that it helps that state to feed more than it needs. " that the state should let the rest starve to death? Sounds like it to me.
You have no concept of society, do you. Just ever person is an island and Darwinian survival rules.You made the statement it benefits the govt. to support those people that would starve without help. Now you're trying to say that if it did it would be a terrible thing, emotionally and ethically, so that means it has to be done.
The logic does not follow, which is why I made it very clear that emotional arguments have no place in a discussion of what a law, or the writers of that law, meant. Unless you care to argue that those writers had modern morality in their minds when they wrote?
If we allow ourselves to "interpret" our Constitution according to what we find moral or ethical then it quickly becomes meaningless. Even the writers of the 18th amendment didn't go that far - instead they wrote an amendment to express that concept of morality. They knew better than to simply change the meaning any time they wanted to.You say emotional, others would say humane. This is the second time you've been on here arguing against being humane. The last time, you argued that it'd be fine to collapse tunnels on immigrants.
I remember that tunnel collapsing discussion very clearly. Even children being in those tunnels made no difference. "I got mine so screw you" seems to be his overriding philosophy.
He has his Medicare Advantage and that's fine, even if it does take from others' paychecks...but nobody should use any of "his" money for anything, including feeding the poor.https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/345 … ost4103477
Are you, too, falling into the same trap? If you want something then the writers of the Constitution included it in our most sacred document...if you can but "interpret" it correctly and/or demonize anyone that denies your "interpretation"?
As usual, you're putting words and intent onto me that don't exist.
I'm not arguing that we should not help the poor. I'm arguing that the Constitution does not require it. It has become distressingly common to claim that our Constitution requires this or prohibits that...when in fact it says nothing at all about most of the claims made about it. And that's all I have said. Not that we should never help others, not that we should let them die, not that we should act in "inhuman" ways - simply that our Constitution does not require the welfare state we've become.Pretty sure you're putting your own intent out there for all to see. You clearly don't want your tax monies to go to help the less fortunate. You'd rather let them die than to see that. This is what you, and other conservatives on here, intimate all the time.
That is a lie repeatedly charged against conservatives.
It is the same over again with Republicans pushing grandma off the cliff...
Conservatives wants to help people but just not the same way as government welfare. We prefer private and religious organizations doing the helping...my money will go much further donating to the Red Cross and Catholic charities... than paying taxes to the IRS.It is no lie. Conservatives clearly do not want their taxes used on social programs. And if private charities could handle the poverty being created by stagnant wages and income inequality, then that would be fine. But there are not enough people that donate to those charities, so taking care of the citizenry so that they don't die or turn to crime actually seems like a sound strategy.
Wrong. Conservatives will pay taxes if it gets results. We just don’t want to throw money at a problem and make it worse.
A prime example is the welfare community. We now have a few generations raised on welfare and now their children and grand children are also on welfare. It started in the 1960s with the Great Society of Johnson...and look at what it got us. The poverty rate has remained approximately the same despite of $ billions poured into these welfare programs. How come?Perhaps because real wages have not matched inflation. So as costs have risen, and wages have stayed stagnant, the problem has grown. Blaming the support structure for the underlying problem of growing wealth inequality seems pretty stupid.
Untrue. In terms of hours worked to buy a product, almost everything is cheaper today than it was in the 60's. One major exception is a home, but then we're buying half again the home we did then, with far better (and more expensive) construction and amenities. From groceries to vacuums to cars to TV's it is almost all cheaper now than it was then. And better quality to boot.
There may be a growing wealth inequality, but that does not mean that those not at the top are not improving.You're joking, right? Cars, homes, rents and college are all more than 100% more expensive while wages have only grown at about 67%. Sure, milk, eggs, and postage stamps are a bit cheaper based on inflation, but those are negligible expenses.
OK. Using median wage, in 1975 we earned at the rate of $6.09 per hour. In 2015 it was $24.88
1975 2015
movie ticket 20 min. 30 min
gasoline 6 min 6 min
sugar 6.4 min 7.8 min
milk 16 min 4.3 min
coffee 11 min 12 min
eggs 8.3 min 5 min
bread 3 min 5 min
Now, I notice that someone is paying $3.49 for milk in 2015: my local cost is $1.78 as of today. I see someone is paying $2.08 for a dozen eggs; my local is well under $2 for a dozen and a half. The coffee can in my kitchen has a price tag of $4.72 for 24 ounces. Nevertheless most things are about the same or cheaper today, and that isn't looking at all the gadgets that have fallen dramatically in 50 years. TV's, stereo's, vacuums, furniture, etc. - all have seem tremendous price drops...in terms of hours worked to purchase.
When I did the comparison I used around 50 items and actual costs from WalMart for groceries in half a dozen US locations around the country - both big cities and smaller towns. Same for common household items such as vacuums and TV's. I used three different sources for costs in 1965, using a rough average of the three. I believe it far more accurate than this chart - if nothing else it is giving median incomes considerably different than anything else I've seen.
https://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php
median income 1975 was 10,154 vs 2015 at 58476. These are more in line with what I've see elsewhere as well.
I had trouble with cars and homes as both have changed so radically as to make comparison almost impossible. For instance even base model cars today have features that only high end ones did in '75 (I used '65, as mentioned). They last twice as long with half the maintenance and half again the mileage or better. (Insurance I didn't even think about trying
). They are far safer, which must be paid for (air bags, crumple zones, etc.). Basically apples to oranges, then, although I did try and figure the cost to own a car for it's entire lifespan and today was quite a bit cheaper in terms of hours worked. Similar for houses (I didn't do rent as I couldn't find sources that seemed reasonable and costs vary so widely). If you look at the price/sq ft to buy, then and now, it is cheaper now...and you get a much better constructed home with more amenities (AC, better lighting and electrical, more bathrooms, etc.) and that is much more energy efficient, which definitely affects the cost to live in it.
I WILL say that the prices are different for the bottom of the wage scale, for minimum wage has not kept up with the rest. At the same time, minimum wage used to be very common; today it is pretty rare. Even burger slingers are most often paid well above minimum wage.Your bit about "Median Wage" is interesting given the fact that in terms of real dollars, it has DECREASED over time. Why do you show it increasing?
Based on the standard 2080 hours work year, the 1975 wage was $6.09/hour, as you said. In terms of 2015 dollars, that is equivalent to $26.61/hr. It is THAT number which needs to be compared with the actual 2015 rate of $24.88/hr.
So in terms of REAL WAGES, median pay has DECREASED by 6.5%!!!!
Since most prices have increased in REAL terms from 1975 to 2015 that means the average American's lot in life has fallen as the rich have gotten much, much richer.You either aren't reading what I'm saying or choosing to ignore it. You're operating under the assumption that "real" wages have fallen and prices have risen, then stating it is so because it is so.
On the other hand, I did a good bit of research, comparing prices in terms of hours worked to purchase, between 1965 and 2018. In almost every case, the product was cheaper today, in terms of hours worked to purchase, than it was in 1965. Doesn't matter that you declare prices have gone up and wages down: the product was cheaper today than it was then.
I don't know why this is so, considering the figures for inflation and wages, but it is. Like you I've always taken inflation figures for granted as being true and factual but I begin to wonder. Certainly the numbers used to calculate SS raises are not true; perhaps the rest are being done similarly. Perhaps the total cost of living is not considered, only portions of what we buy. Perhaps they are intentionally skewed to the high side to support a desired conclusion.
I don't know, but when I look around at what we're spending on luxuries those numbers don't make sense. If it is so much more difficult to merely survive today, why do we see thousands of high dollar coffee shops everywhere? Someone is buying it, and it isn't limited to the rich. Why the proliferation of restaurants, computers, top end cell phones, video games, smart watches and all the rest of the gadgets and luxuries we take for granted today? Who is buying robot vacuums if we can't afford to feed ourselves? If we don't have the money to buy those things, how are those businesses surviving? How do we afford the masses of cars loaded with goodies that we couldn't afford back then - power windows, doors and windows, climate control, keyless operation, built in navigation, automatic transmissions, etc.? How are we affording homes half again the size if they are so much more expensive and our wages have dropped? Simply declaring that REAL WAGES have fallen, after inflation, doesn't answer these kinds of questions, and when we look at actual prices we're finding that the numbers being reported, and the conclusions drawn, are not true. It really is cheaper to get along today in very nearly all aspects.
I know what the chart says. Just as I know I have never in my life paid $3.50 for a gallon of milk or $2 for a dozen eggs. I've never paid $31,000 for a new car - haven't even considered such a purchase - yet that is being touted as the price of one today. It isn't, not even if you take away all of the bottom end offerings. Somewhere, somehow, these figures have been skewed badly and the conclusion isn't matching real life experience.
Another, and telling, statistic is that as a percentage of GDP total compensation as well as just wages and salaries are down.
Total compensation: 1975 - ~ 56% and 2015 - ~ 53%
Just wages and salaries taking out high wage earners compensation packages: 1975 - ~ 49% and 2015 - ~ 43.5%
Another measure showing regular Americans are falling behind."Falling behind". Behind what? What the very top end earns or what could be, and was, earned in the past by those in the same social strata?
One is a good point for increasing wealth inequality (which has nothing to say about costs now vs then), the other is an indication of how earnings now vs then compare.Tell me, why hasn't the rate of growth in compensation kept up with rate of growth in GDP?
Not sure postage stamps qualify. I remember paying 5 cents for a stamp, now I pay, what is it 51 cents? Maybe it is higher today.
Great chart btw
I'll give you that, Wilderness, it is probably true those at the bottom 50% are being thrown a few scraps.
LOL "Scraps" is it? When the bottom 20% of our population is spending more than the average 20% of most other industrialized nations it is "scraps"?
There you go again comparing apples and oranges - sad.
The problem you face with Conservatives is if even one example of abuse is found, that invalidates the entire system. That is why anecdotes work so well for them.
It doesn't matter that anecdotes don't prove a damn thing, only boring, hard to understand population studies do. But like any propagandist, they know people ignore hard to digest truth if an easily digestible lie (such as the poverty rate has remained approximately the same) or misrepresentation (we now have a few generations raised on welfare - which is 1980s stuff) is available.These are not just anecdotes. These are well documented abuses and fraud...that would have gotten people fired or indicted and jailed.
Only because of our federal system of unions that protected these employees from being fired. It is the system that is broken. The people there are doing what they can get away with. I don’t blame them as much as the system that allowed such rampant behavior."These are well documented abuses " - Jack, COME ON - that is the definition of anecdotes.
And ONCE AGAIN you dodge the question of MUCH GREATER FWA in the PRIVATE SECTOR (maybe if I capitalize a few words it will catch your attention)
BTW - check up on https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/busi … oeing.html
There is one anecdote to disprove everything you say (since you believe in anecdotes so much). My office used to do work for her, which she ignored - now we know why.
BTW - the Boeing executives she was involved with didn't go to jail - why?
And this is key from what Valeant wrote. "And if private charities could handle the poverty being created by stagnant wages and income inequality, then that would be fine. "
Private charities have never been able to keep up with demand. ONLY the federal gov't has that ability.False again. Private charities has always been the buffer to provide for the needy. They were doing this long before government programs. If anything, they were pushed out by the government regulations and mandates. I used to work at a place called Jawonio in Rockland county NY. They are subsidized heavily by the government programs. As such, they require monthly drills and yearly certification of its workers. A waste of money which is just additional paperwork. They were started by families of disabled children to help them achieve independent living. They do good work and provide needed services. They exist because people cared for their neighbors...not because of government mandates.
"False again. Private charities has always been the buffer to provide for the needy. " - PROVE IT, find the data that backs up your illogical statement.
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-xpm … story.html
BTW Jack and WIlderness - Why is it OK with you to put Farmers on public assistance as Trump drives them into bankruptcy? Why is it OK to give aid to Trump voters and not to non-Trump voters?? Talk about picking and choosing.Common you are smarter than that.
I cannot prove something that has already occurred. The barn door is open and you cannot count the chickens...
Once the government took over most of the welfare...where does the private sector fit?
The real prove is to cut back the government assistance over time and see if these people will fare better or worse. Do you agree?
In fact this has happened on a limited basis during the Clinton administration.
In an effort to triangulate, Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over...” do you remember. He then signed the welfare reform bill which was very contested by Democrats.
Guess what, a few years later, more people dropped off the welfare role, and some found productive work as a result."The real prove is to cut back the government assistance over time and see if these people will fare better or worse. Do you agree?" - NO I don't because we already know the answer to that, just look at the poverty rates prior to 1960. Private charities, trying as hard as they could, were failing.
Come on, you are smarter than that.
I cannot prove something that has already occurred. The barn door is open and you cannot count the chickens...
Once the government took over most of the welfare...where does the private sector fit?
The real prove is to cut back the government assistance over time and see if these people will fare better or worse. Do you agree?
In fact this has happened on a limited basis during the Clinton administration.
In an effort to triangulate, Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over...” do you remember. He then signed the welfare reform bill which was very contested by Democrats.
Guess what, a few years later, more people dropped off the welfare role, and some found productive work as a result."Why is it OK with you to put Farmers on public assistance as Trump drives them into bankruptcy? Why is it OK to give aid to Trump voters and not to non-Trump voters?? Talk about picking and choosing."
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I'm the point that I'm not going to dignify assumptions you or others make about what I think is OK with an answer. This is the only answer you will get - have you stopped beating your wife yet - until you learn to stop making insinuations you cannot back up and/or are outright lies.
And yet we have never had hordes of people dying in the streets from starvation or lack of care. It would seem that charity, whether from semi-organized charities or from individuals, DID keep up with demand.
So what has changed? Is it that we continually add to what the federal govt. is expected to supply and subtract from what individuals are expected to do for themselves? Is it that we have continually raised the bar for what is considered a "necessity"? What changed?No, they didn't despite your hyperbole. While people don't necessarily die, they do starve - many (12.5% of households) still go hungry in the wealthiest nation in the world. Why do they go hungry - because social Darwinists like you simply don't care about other human beings beyond yourself and those close to you yet we have somebody like you ineptly running the country.
"That is a lie repeatedly charged against conservatives." - THEN WHY do Conservatives keep implying it by pushing their version of help which naturally leads to people dying because Catholic (and other religeous) by their VERY NATURE are discriminatory and the Red Cross only, for the most part, handles emergencies.
Time and time again private charities have proven they are NOT UP to the task. As a result, people will die (and based on Wilderness' words, so what)So what happened with Katrina? Didn’t people also died? It is not the fault of government or private charities in a major natural disaster...
It happens everyday. Hurricanes, earthquakes tsunamis...
Your big government cannot do anything about that, and probably makes the recovery worse. 10 years after Katrina, the gulf coast is still not fully recovered.
For contrast, read up on the history of Galveston. It was devastated by a similar event back in the 1900s. There were no FEMA and government bailouts...and they recovered and rebuild via private inititives.
How come?So what happened with Katrina? Didn’t people also died? It is not the fault of government or private charities in a major natural disaster...
It happens everyday. Hurricanes, earthquakes tsunamis...
Your big government cannot do anything about that, and probably makes the recovery worse. 10 years after Katrina, the gulf coast is still not fully recovered.
For contrast, read up on the history of Galveston. It was devastated by a similar event back in the 1900s. There were no FEMA and government bailouts...and they recovered and rebuild via private initiatives.
How come?So what happened with Katrina? Didn’t people also died? It is not the fault of government or private charities in a major natural disaster...
It happens everyday. Hurricanes, earthquakes tsunamis...
Your big government cannot do anything about that, and probably makes the recovery worse. 10 years after Katrina, the gulf coast is still not fully recovered.
For contrast, read up on the history of Galveston. It was devastated by a similar event back in the 1900s. There were no FEMA and government bailouts...and they recovered and rebuild via private inititives.
How come?
"I'm arguing that the Constitution does not require it." - AND I can argue yes it does. The Constitution in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 requires the gov't to provide for the general Welfare. How it does it is up to the People through the representatives they elect to Congress. If the People want to help the poor using taxpayer dollars, then the Constitution allows because that falls within the scope of "providing for the general Welfare".
You can argue it as you wish, by claiming that the "general welfare" means specific, hand picked individual citizens.
I disagree.
At the same time you destroy your own argument with "If the People want to help the poor using taxpayer dollars, then the Constitution allows because that falls within the scope of "providing for the general Welfare". There is no "if" in requirements laid out in the Constitution. Once more, it is not denied but it is not required, either.I don't argue "" that the "general welfare" means specific, hand picked individual citizens." because no gov't program "hand picks individual citizens" - NAME ON or stop making things up.
We can begin with section 8 housing and then go on to food stamps and medicaid. It is not available to everyone; the people receiving it are hand picked by government. Even free lunch programs at schools are that way.
Sure you can qualify, Dan. Be homeless, starving, or sick. Easy peasy!
Well how about the gov't picking you over non-drivers in providing you taxpayer funded free highways? Should ALL roads be toll-roads??
How about the gov't picking you over the homeless by providing free protection from fires by taxpayer funded firemen and women. When you are helped by the fire department because you accidentally started a fire, shouldn't you have to pay the entire cost???
You oppose free lunch programs which means you are fine with starving kids. Remember what I said earlier - think it was 12.5% of the households are food insecure including 13 million kids - the ones you don't want to help feed.
Those are not mutually exclusive reasons. BTW, if you bothered to read the words of our founders, you would find they did care about morality and ethics - which do not change much over time.
Wilderness: Your "show that" statements are all loaded questions. Here I will give you one. Given that conservatives by their own admission are supposed to be compassionate. Show that you are a compassionate conservative. Here is another one. Given that you are beating your wife, show when are you going to stop beating her?
By placing the word Given in the front of each of your statements, you are setting the parameters and then asking Scott to show that you are wrong.
Scott used the population, meaning the country. You have re-framed what Scott was saying by bringing it down to the state level and then asking him to show your premise is wrong...nice try.Sorry - compassion is not a part of the Constitution; there is nothing in it saying we must act compassionately. It doesn't even designate what "compassionate" action is, but in no way would the writers have considered that it is "compassionate" to lock people to a lifetime of charity.
Nevertheless, I'll answer: IF all conservatives (or most) "admit" they should be compassionate, I have spent a lifetime helping others in need and so fit that requirement. IF I am beating my wife I will stop in the next 10 minutes.
Which "given" is incorrect? Do you think we need more people, particularly people that take but don't give to the country? That we need more college grads (though I'll concede that a few areas are shy some people, like engineering) when we can't employ what we have in their selected fields?
No, Scott most definitely means individual citizens, for some get more from government that others (many are actually negative compared to the those that get) and that's what the topic is. He is NOT suggesting that everyone get a flat $1,000 per month, for instance; only that a select few do. That is NOT "the population"; it is individual, selected citizens benefiting rather than contributing.
There you go again doing SELECTIVE reading. Where did I say "providing health care for everyone
providing food for everyone
providing housing for everyone
providing formal education for everyone
providing any of the "human rights" list that liberals keep expanding every year"?????
You are making things up again. What I DID say was the gov't, under the general Welfare provision in the preamble, the gov't has a responsibility to guarantee everybody has a right to access to healthcare. Now admit it, WIlderness, that is all I said regarding healthcare.
However, under the "general Welfare" reason we have a Constitution in the first place also comes the right of citizens to the have access to housing, food, education (there is a national security aspect to that tone as well). On the other hand, the DOI implies the gov't is responsible for ensuring every citizens shares in the same expectation of human rights.
Personally, I don't want to be like China, Russia, North Korea, Turkey, Syria, etc (all friends of Trump, btw) in the human rights department.Well, under that wording everyone already has "access" to health care. All they have to do is get to a hospital and it is available. Now, a hermit 50 miles into the woods might have a problem, but I presume that isn't of concern to this discussion. What you're concerned with is that some people cannot pay the going price and what I'm concerned with is that you would unilaterally force others to pay for what they cannot benefit from.
And the same thing goes for food and all the rest of it. It is available and everyone has access to it. It just takes some effort to acquire it.
But we come to a difference when you insist that the requires the treatment of one person differently from another. Or that the DOI even begins to imply that the federal government is responsible for every person actually getting what is available. It does not, and the people at the time would have found the idea of forcing some to provide charity to another completely and totally out of line. Instead the DOI, and the Constitution, requires that all people be treated the same by govt., and that most definitely does NOT mean that some are to receive, free of charge, what others must work and struggle for. Never forget that when written there were no provisions for the govt. even acquiring the assets and resources to do what you are saying was required by that document. It was over 100 years before the 16th amendment was ratified, and prior to that the govt. had no way to do what you think was written as a requirement.
I don't want to be another China or Russia either...but that has exactly zero to do with what the Constitution requires of govt. We have made other laws to accomplish what you demand, (I even agree with many of them, finding a "safety net" to benefit the country as a whole) but that does not mean it is written into the Constitution. Or the DOI."Well, under that wording everyone already has "access" to health care. " - YOU KNOW as well as I that before ACA, people were regularly denied insurance or kicked off of it if they got too sick.
"All they have to do is get to a hospital and it is available. " - AND YOU know as well as I that is only because the law MAKES them do it. Every since healthcare became a profit-motivated business rather than a service -oriented many would happily turn-away sick people without insurance if they could - something I am sure you support.
"And the same thing goes for food and all the rest of it." - THEN WHY are 12.3% of American households food insecure - that includes 13 million children. Many get maybe one meal a day, maybe none on some days. But then I suppose the conservatives have an answer for that - their lazy, they should just get one of those high paying jobs that are available to anyone who wants one.
"and that most definitely does NOT mean that some are to receive, free of charge, what others must work and struggle for. " - AND THAT implies that you think people need to die because, for whatever reason, they can't afford something. That is the only outcome from your philosophy. SAD
Exactly. They hated the idea of big centralized government, the creators of the USA would recognize that half of what they fought to free themselves from, and what they never wanted this new nation to become, it has become.
Freedoms and Liberty have been greatly infringed upon. If you don't think so, try growing some pot plants in your backyard for self use. Or raising a half dozen chickens for your own eggs. In more places than not, these things are illegal, and could cost you your home and your freedom. Go ahead and don't pay your taxes, and see how little freedom you have.
We aren't as bad as the King of England was then, nor as bad as the CCP now. England was happy to force people into indentured servitude if they had no use for them, and China is happy to send people to their 're-education' camps, and if the re-education doesn't take, harvest the person's organs and cremate the body.
We don't have it that bad, but it seems the nation has turned inwards, and is determined to burn the whole thing down, chasing idiotic unsustainable policies like open borders AND healthcare for all AND food for all AND homes for all... regardless of reality."They hated the idea of big centralized government," LOLOLOL - they had no idea what that is. What they knew is the King and Parliament ruled them without given them a right to participate in that process.
What they wanted as a government "limited" enough to provide for the things listed in the Preamble to the Constitution. Nothing bigger and nothing smaller.
The big government crap is just a right-wing scare tactic.The big government vs. private agencies providing services has one important distinction. In the government case, there is no accountability. A bureaucrat is hired to do a job, and if he screws up, nothing happened to him. The union protect them at every turn. Whereas, in a private industry, if a person failed to do their job, they are reprimanded or fired. That is the distinction and the motivation factor that changes human behavior.
This translates into how a society works or don’t work within its means.The accountability is to the people we served. One reason I joined the Army was to serve my country, something clearly don't understand. One reason I stayed with the civil service was to continue to serve my country (at lower wages than I could have made in the private sector) That feeling of service was common, at least among those I knew,; we all knew we had a duty to perform.
As I said, most of us in the higher ranks didn't do it for the money. After I retired, I partnered with another, and now make a lot more money than I ever did working for the government. That is what it means to us to be an American.
Of course I have a different opinion of a lot of the private sector because my job for a good part of my career to to make sure our contractors weren't ripping the gov't off.Let’s get specific.
Where was the accountability at the VA and the scandal where two sets of books were kept so the administrators could receive bonus while our veterans wait on long lists for their Dr. appointments?
As far as I know, not one person was fired or went to jail at the VA.
Gimme a break...OH, so your version is that if there is just one instance of FWB in the gov't, it means there is no accountability. Is that what your saying?
You also avoided the rampant FWB in the private sector - WHY?One instance...oh boy are you naive? I can cite a hundred cases...
Go check out CAGW -
https://www.cagw.org/
You will be shocked at the waste that goes on with our tax dollars...There you go with useless anecdotes again. I already supplied you the link that show gov't FWA is much lower than the private sector.
Why are you still ignoring private sector FWA????
"England was happy to force people into indentured servitude if they had no use for them, and China is happy to send people to their 're-education' camps, and if the re-education doesn't take, harvest the person's organs and cremate the body." - I am guessing you don't either based on your comments.
Some give and take is necessary when people live together, particularly in large groups. Chickens, for instance - not only is the noise a nuisance to others nearby but so is the waste. When on a farm with the next house a half mile away it's fine but when the next house is 20 feet it's another thing. Same for private sewer systems; it is not feasible, and quite dangerous, to have huge numbers of septic fields (or outhouses) in close proximity.
We are finding ourselves, IMO, in a position where the tears for the poor are overriding common sense and the result is hordes of politicians "buying" votes with promises of free this and free that. People feel badly for those less fortunate (and even those that simply don't want to put out the effort, or to whom a job is a second or third priority as we are constantly told it is not their fault), and want to help but the modern idea of "help" is tying those poor to chains they can never break. Our system is, in fact, designed and set up to do exactly that for it is extremely difficult to cut those chains and leave them behind. They are designed to remain, and remain they do.
Think Jim Jones. This does have some aspects of the Kool-Aid gang, Val.
Who says being successful in office (Trump is an absolute failure, btw) is necessary to qualify as a cult. The requirement is that they and their leader live in a fantasy world.
As an engineer, Jack, you know you are blowing smoke (which is probably why your eyes are closed to the truth). Here is why. The same polling company is conducting these polls month after month using the same methodology each time. So any bias there might be is canceled out over time; that is why they do it that way.
And, given the way states feel about Trump as of Sept, Trump will lose 381 to 156. More than likely, because Trump is unraveling by the day, it is only going to get worse.I predict Trump will win by 40 States in electoral college, and I did not do a scientific poll. Will see who is correct in 2020.
What a very transparent effort to avoid answering Scott's questions, Jack. I predict Trump won't even be on the ticket in 2020.
Besides wishful thinking, what do you base that fantasy on?
Have you seen where this lawsuit has gone? I couldn't find anything and I think it is a legitimate question.
Based on my recent analysis, I don't think either the Republicans, the Clinton campaign, or the DNC would be guilty of violating campaign laws because they hired a domestic company and as far as I know, didn't Direct them to contact foreign nationals.
That said, Fusion GPS may be in hot water because they did hire a foreign national to develop dirt (a thing of value) against Trump for the purpose to influence an election.
I would love to see how a court would rule.The lawsuit is in limbo, the FEC has not rued. I am of the same mind as you. I don't think Clinton will be charged with a campaign violation. It appears that the words "thing of value" in the law would be a sticking point. I do think the bunch that used the dossier will be the ones in hot water.
Hillary will walk away while leaving a trail of destroyed government employees that chose to do her bidding. T"Hillary will walk away while leaving a trail of destroyed government employees that chose to do her bidding. " - and what makes you say that?
Keep in mind this is just totally my opinion, and as a rule, I think it not the smartest thing to do to predict. however, I feel the Durham and Horowitz investigations will provide good provable facts of FISA abuse and other crimes. I feel there will be an indictment of several Government officials in trouble. I would not want to name anyone to be fair.
I would think Durham otherwise Durham would not have asked for the power to make his investigation a criminal investigation. I don't think him to be a "showboater".I trust Horowitz's integrity and don't think he is going to find anything beyond what he and Mueller have already found.
I do not trust Durham because he was picked by Trump's personal lawyer Bill Barr, the so-called Attorney General and is doing his work in total secrecy, something your side hates so much. Barr has proven himself several times over to be highly partisan and not unbiased like a real AG is supposed to be. In fact, I think Barr has committed impeachable crimes.
So, in thinking more about it and parsing what the FEC says - "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”
Here are the parts:
1. Any person
2. to solicit ... anything of value
3. from a foreign national
4. in connection with a U.S. Election
It is pretty straight forward IF you assume they mean to "influence" a U.S. election. To assume otherwise, it is a meaningless law because it is too broad in scope and many people have been convicted under it.
1. So, that the case of a campaign hiring a foreign national who owns a catering business to serve at an election function. Here, unless the purpose of hiring the caterer was for them to do something intended to influence the outcome of an election (maybe by drugging the participants with a hypnotic in order to make it easier to persuade them to vote a certain way) then this will not be illegal under campaign finance laws.
2. Trump's son goes to a meeting with a Russian national lawyer connected with Putin for the purpose of receiving dirt (a thing of value) on Hilary Clinton, a political opponent of his father, in order to use it to persuade voters to vote for his father - THAT is illegal.
3. Trump holds up taxpayer funded aid to a foreign country to pressure a foreign national to give him dirt (a thing of value) on a political opponent for the purpose of helping Trump win the election - THAT is illegal on two counts; 1) breaking federal FEC laws and 2) extortion.
Wilderness: If Trump is so innocent, why does he not cooperate with the requests for his tax returns? Why does he stop his people who have been subpoenaed from appearing for depositions? Why does he have to have a cadre of lawyers to protect him. A person who has nothing to hide does not have stoop to that level and try to obstruct justice.
Mueller's report outlined 10 instances of him obstructing justice. If he was not a sitting president, he would be indicted. That's why it behooves him to get re-elected because he knows that. That is his utmost priority and he will use every dirty trick in his play book to avoid being impeached or indicted.
He does not follow norms, rules, or laws because as president, he believes he is above the law. He doesn't listen to his advisors. He either fires them or they quit. His supporters say, "He is a different kind of president. He was a business man, that's why he is not aware of what the constitution says." However, ignorance is no excuse for violation of laws, norms, and rules. We are still a country of laws and he needs to held accountable.AGAIN you get things wrong, Wilderness, with "But it was OK to solicit foreign information about Trump/Russian collusion?" Neither the Republicans, nor the DNC, nor Clinton asked ANY foreign gov't or other entity to solicit dirt on Trump. All three hired a domestic company to dig up dirt on Trump - perfectly legal. FACTS MATTER Wilderness.
"How? When they are not allowed in the room and are not allowed any questions at all," - ARE YOU that submerged in the alternate conservative reality that you don't know there 49 Republicans that are allowed in those hearings????? I say "allowed" because some don't care enough to even attend, like my representative Ted Yoho.
AGAIN your ignorance is showing Wilderness with "nor investigator here". Just to educate you, it is the House to which the Constitution gives the authority to investigate presidential misconduct - Not the Senate.
Learn your government.
" Apparently, you are so uneducated about the process to know that the GOP has the ability to question witnesses about those smallest most innocuous questions."
Hmm . . . I heard some news yesterday, (I haven't yet searched to confirm it), that your statement might not be exactly true. It seems Adam Schiff told a witness he did not have to answer a particular Republican question and ended the hearing.
Of course, I should check out the details, but if that is true then maybe the Republicans don't get to ask those "smallest most innocuous questions." Just like they don't have subpoena power unless the Dems agree with the subpoena, (this isn't new, it seems to have been the practice in previous impeachment hearings).
GAYes, when the question pertains to asking about the specific whistleblower, as was reported, the witness does not need to answer since that question breaks the law.
You see, I was right? This just shows I should have checked it out first. Now I have to choose to believe you or go looking for the details myself.
Was the specific whistleblower question about their identity or just something specific to the whistleblower? I think that would matter.
Since I am not yet very invested in this aspect of the process I will accept, (and agree with), your explanation - for now. ;-)
GAThey asked Vindman who he had discussed the call with, in a direct effort to get him to reveal the identity of the whistleblower, had he known it.
And people wonder why this part of the Impeachment process is held behind closed doors. The Right will still squeal after the vote is taken, watch and see.
I have not noted anyone "squealing? It seems that all you do is make derogatory comments, pretty much about nothing. I guess some buy into this kind of comment?
One of the main reasons for closed hearings is so witnesses can't coordinate their answers.
Correct Scott, and did you know there were 107 closed door hearings before the open Benghazi hearings began? This makes the Cons protests seem petty by comparison.
Truly infantile but, as you can see, the faithful will obediently parrot the talking points no matter how dishonest or absurd.
And even though we see it for what it is, they continue. I suppose they have other option at this point.
As I understand the reports it was the Republicans trying to find out the identity of the whistleblower.
Yes, that is true and what Shiff stopped was the Republicans was trying to illegally "out" the whistleblower.
You are late. Valeant already clued me in about that.
GA
Apparently you don't know police process either. "Yep. And the cop's information goes directly to the prosecutor. And that information then goes to the defense, in it's entirety. " -- That information ONLY goes to the defense IF the DA presses charges (or Articles of Impeachment). Why do you insist on putting the cart before the horse????
The trial will be in the Senate. The previous interviews are a sort of Grand Jury investigation. Trump will get his chance to answer for his misdeeds if he doesn't take the 5th.
I absolutely agree - but "when court is in session". The "court" won't be in session until Articles of Impeachment are passed over the Senate. I thought you knew your government.
But we aren't there yet. So let me ask you, don't you agree that the defense counsel should be kept out of the initial investigation by the DA before charges are filed? Or do you think the defense should be part of the investigative process, helping the DA as best they can???I absolutely agree - but "when court is in session". The "court" won't be in session until Articles of Impeachment are passed over the Senate. I thought you knew your government.
But we aren't there yet, are we? So let me ask you, don't you agree that the defense counsel should be kept out of the initial investigation by the DA before charges are filed? Or do you think the defense should be part of the investigative process, helping the DA as best they can???
Poor not-allowed-republicans!
Rep. Ted Yoho. Yuck. Shameful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkEzRfkeoU4Come on My Esoteric, you can do better. I agree with the part of your sentiment that addresses the part about the Framers hating a big centralized government because I don't think they did. But you should have corrected the statement to show that it was the populace that the Framers feared hated a big centralized government.
I don't understand how you can say they had no idea what a big centralized government was when the Constitution itself is full of examples of how they planned to control and limit their new central government's power.
And you said as much in your second paragraph. So come on bud, if you have to pop a bubble at least pop the right one. ;-)
GAGA, yes, it does, but that, as I said, has nothing to do with the bogyman "big government" the conservatives fear - it is very silent on that. What it is not silent on is protecting against the people from the coercive effects of a central gov't as they experienced from the Parliament and the King. All but two provisions in the Bill of Rights speaks to an infirmity England visited upon the Colonies.
The first amendment speaks to the attempts by many states to control religious belief (think Jefferson).
The tenth amendments, which you might conflate with so-called "big government" are there to convince states that no, they are not irrelevant (as many like James Madison wanted to make them)"coercive effects of a central gov't "
I think this is correct. Which means this is just a semantics argument. I think the Framers feared an 'All-Powerful', (or too weak), central government.
So rather than big referring to size, maybe those making that argument are referring to power. *shrug But still, whether relating to size or power, the Framers did fear the populace's perception and rejection of the new "Central government."
Anyway, I don't disagree with the essence of your comment. It is just that I haven't been able to find any good discussions to join so I just nit-picked one of your comments to get the dust off of my keyboard. ;-)
GALet's put all of this in context. According to the Annenberg foundation. One of the main purposes of the constitution was to form a republic that would ensure that a monarchy did not take over the government and the people.
The preamble says we the people, not the framers of the constitution but we the population do ordain, and take an oath to uphold the laws of the constitution of the United States of America. It says nothing about how big or how small the central government shall be.
Here is what Annenberg says:
The preamble is the introduction to the Constitution. It outlines the general goals of the framers: to create a just government and to ensure peace, an adequate national defense and a healthy, free nation. With its first three words, “We the People,” the preamble emphasizes that the nation is to be ruled by the people— not a king or a dictator, not the president, Supreme Court justices, members of Congress or state legislators. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1905 (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) that the preamble is not a source of federal power or individuals’ rights. Rather, all rights and powers are set out in the articles and amendments that follow.
Here is the tax clause from Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What is important to our argument is that it says, provide for the common defense and general welfare.
Here is the meaning of that clause.
The most important of the specific powers that the Constitution enumerates is the power to set taxes, tariffs and other means of raising federal revenue, and to authorize the expenditure of all federal funds. In addition to the tax powers in Article I, Amendment XVI authorized Congress to establish a national income tax. The power to appropriate federal funds is known as the “power of the purse.” It gives Congress great authority over the executive branch, which must appeal to Congress for all of its funding. The federal government borrows money by issuing bonds. This creates a national debt, which the United States is obligated to repay.
Since the turn of the 20th century, federal legislation has dealt with many matters that had previously been managed by the states. In passing these laws, Congress often relies on power granted by the commerce clause, which allows Congress to regulate business activities “among the states.”
The commerce clause gives Congress broad power to regulate many aspects of our economy and to pass environmental or consumer protections because so much of business today, either in manufacturing or distribution, crosses state lines. But the commerce clause powers are not unlimited.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed greater concern for states’ rights. It has issued a series of rulings that limit the power of Congress to pass legislation under the commerce clause or other powers contained in Article I, Section 8. For example, these rulings have found unconstitutional federal laws aimed at protecting battered women or protecting schools from gun violence on the grounds that these types of policy matters are properly managed by the states.You lost me Mike. What does all that have to do with the discussion of whether the Framers feared a big central government? And the fact that I was just picking on, (good-naturedly), My Esoteric?
GAGA: There is nothing in the constitution that says the framers feared a big central government. What they feared was to have a monarchy or dictator take over the government and the people. I could find nothing in the constitution that states how to regulate the size of the government, maybe you can.
Wilderness and Scott were arguing about how our taxes are used to promote the general welfare. I said just read the preamble. It states, promoting the general welfare. However, I found out the preamble is not a source of federal power or individuals’ rights. Rather, all rights and powers are set out in the articles and amendments that follow in the body of the constitution.
The reason I included Article 1 Section 8 is because it states that congress shall levy taxes.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
What is germane to their argument is that one of the reasons taxes are collected is to provide for the general welfare. How it is apportioned is up to congress. Wilderness' argument is why should his taxes be used to fund those who don't earn it on their own. Conservatives always argue that paying for welfare programs is what big central governments do. They claim, it is better to use charities and private funds to pay for welfare programs. It is I got mine you go get yours mentality.
Did I muddy the water or make it any clearer?You were clear before Mike. I did not address any of the points you have made, although, I would pick at a couple of them as being a bit contrary to the topic and my thoughts about the Framers' purpose.
I was only picking at My Esoteric by making the point that they, (the Framers), did not fear a central government--that is exactly what they were proposing with the Constitution. Their fear was that the citizens would fear an all-powerful central government and reject the new Constitution.
The tax thing you are supporting was not a part of my comment. And as I noted, the "big" part of the Central Government argument was just a semantics thing. Whether the term was Big or All-powerful the concept is the same - the Framers were not fearful of what they were creating.
GA
GAGA, you may be right but look what has happened in recent years. The Framers would be rolling in their graves. We have proud self-professed socialists running for President in a major political party in the name of Bernie Sanders.
The first 10 Amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, was added so that it would be ratified by some of the original States. The people were suspicious of a powerful government that would impose regulations on them without representation, taxes being one of them...
It is also why the 2nd amendment was primary to insure we would not end up with a dictatorship the likes of Nazi Germany over a century later.
The truth is, they did not reject a big government out right as long as the people voted for it."The truth is, they did not reject a big government out right as long as the people voted for it."
And I think that is how it should be. I think any society has the Right to form any government they want and make any laws they want as long as they follow the rules of their constitution.
As an individual, I may or may not agree with society's choices but I always agree that it is their choice. If the majority of Americans, whether by their states or their Representatives, want a socialist-style government then that is a legitimate choice if the process of that determination and the resulting government follow the rules, (our Constitution). I might not agree with it, but that is my choice.
However, none of that changes my belief in Heinlein's or the "Bread and Circuses" statements. I still believe that the majority of 'warm-body voters' are going to vote self-interest first.
GAYes and your side is not? Gimme a break...the Democratic party is the most lock step group of people as a matter of fact. Just look at how they vote. Not a single Democrat deviated from the party line when it came to the ACA...
You are projecting again, Jack. The Democrats have proved to be the least lock-step party in history, much to their leadership's frustration. They need to learn things from you about that.
You are a big data guy...do the analysis...I challenge you. Democrats vs Republicans ...who are most party loyal?
Hands down, the Republicans - with the caveat that we are talking about today's very conservative Republican party, not the more liberal one under Lincoln and Roosevelt. How do you think Trump won? The Russian's convinced enough Ds to vote the wrong way or not to vote at all. That was not loyalty, that was cutting their own throats.
I wonder if five years from now, people who are screaming "the Russians did it! the Russians did it!" will realize how foolish they look to the other half (or more) of the country that never bought into the Russian Hoax?
Or if the half that never bought into the 'Russia Hoax,' as you call it, will realize that they were treasonous in backing the result of a foreign adversary clearly attacking our country.
More than likely those who didn't believe the Russians meddled in our election will come to their senses....including you, Ken.
It is interesting you think that Ken. Please explain why 61% of people believe the Russian's will interfere again in the 2020 election. And that includes a whopping 44% of Republicans!!! Why do so many Republicans think Russia will try to help Trump again??
Also, polls show a huge 73% of Americans think Russia DID interfere with the 2016 election.
So much for your "other half (or more) of the country " LOLWhile you may be positive that without those fake FB posts Trump would never have won, most thinking Americans realize that although Russia DID try to interfere they accomplished little to nothing. The only people believing their crap were those that had already made up their minds and were stupid enough to believe whatever they read on the net.
Which totally downplays the timing of the Russian interference. The e-mail dump they made on the same week that the access hollywood tape came out where Trump talked about sexually assaulting women sure did have an effect on diminishing the impact that negative event had towards Trump's chances of election.
" where Trump talked about sexually assaulting women...."
You must have heard something different from what the rest of the world heard. Or you're just a liar. I suspect the latter is true.Where have you been Wes, with your head buried in the sand as usual? "You can Grab Them By The Pussy" he says. I guess you don't that smacks of sexual assault - then again you are conservative, so maybe you don't.
Ah, it's the old man who thinks CNN is reputable. How's it going in la la land, old timer? I hope your nurses are on time.
Hey Scott Is that your name? I've been busy reading a lot, and thinking deeply about important matters, and so, quite naturally, I almost forgot you even existed.
Maybe you should come out of your Trump sycophant cocoon. Here is what he actually said on that tape:
'I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pu**y. You can do anything.'
So he just starts kissing them without their permission then grabs them. The definition of sexual assault: An act in which a person intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.
And there's literally an accusation by Karen Johnson that mirrors Trump's admitted actions:
Shortly after glittering balloons fell from the ceiling at the stroke of midnight, her husband said he wasn’t feeling well and the relative was ready to go. Johnson decided to make a quick trip to the restroom before they headed home. “I hadn’t seen [Trump] that whole entire night,” said Johnson, who was in her late thirties at the time. “I was just walking to the bathroom. I was grabbed and pulled behind a tapestry, and it was him. And I’m a tall girl and I had six-inch heels on, and I still remember looking up at him. And he’s strong, and he just kissed me,” she recounted.
And here's a link to the 25 women who have accused Trump of Sexual misconduct: https://www.businessinsider.com/women-a … st-2017-12
And here's the link to your messiah being named in a civil suit alleging he raped a 13-year old. Trump tends to sue everyone when he is wronged. Why not in this case you have to wonder: https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/ … e-lawsuit/
Now all you Trump sycophants are sure to dismiss these claims in much the same way those who admired Cosby were in denial about the claims against him while logically thinking people could deduce the monster that he was.I've never been functionally retarded before. I wonder what it's like. Also, I've never in my life asked a woman 'Woman, is it permissible for me to kiss thee?'
Things don't happen like that in the real world. Not often. Probably they do happen like this in the minds of the functionally retarded. You could probably give great insights, in this regard.
So are you telling me, Wilderness, that the multi billion dollar advertising industry is a waste of money? It sounds like you are telling me that.
Polls... yeah...
"If a lie is printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it." Vladimir Lenin.
"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success." Adolf Hitler
William James the father of modern Psychology "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."Ken: Wow! You just described Trump's playbook. "fake news, fake, news, enemy of the people, enemy of the people, lock her up, lock her up, build that wall, build that wall, believe me, believe me, some people say, some people say, witch hunt, witch, hunt, no collusion, no collusion.
It's not just a matter of repeating themes, a leader has to have leadership skills and Trump is not capable of leadership. His narcissistic brain is too scattered to be a leader.
When he is not on a teleprompter his delivery wanders all over the place. It becomes a shell and pea game for the listener. He lets you fill in the blanks so that you draw your own conclusions as he empowers you to think you understand what he is saying. Now, that is salesmen ship, not leadership.Are you saying we do NOT have a problem with fake news in this country? Have you seen what CNN has done the past several years? The New York Times? ABC?
It's disgraceful. Those mass media entities are the enemy of the people. ABC, apparently, is the friend of pedophiles, and thus, the enemy of even our children.Fox News is the worst of the fake news outlets and it's a favorite of Trump fans. That should tell you something.
It occurred to me this morning that the old saying "you sow what you reap" is applicable to Trump. He helped with that drip, drip, drip of stolen emails against his political opponent Clinton, as turned into a gush, gush, gush of damning legal evidence of Trump doing it again.
Consider that Articles of Impeachment likely to come out of this:
Article 1: Obstruction of Congress - Slam Dunk if the article includes all of the instances of Trump denying Congress their legally issued subpoenas
Articles 2 - 6: Obstruction of Justice - Slam Dunk for each of the 5 out of 10 instances from the Mueller report.
Article 7: Abuse of Power - Slam Dunk for using the color of office to get a foreign leader to do something that personally helps Trump
Articles 8 -12: High Crime and Misdemeanor (Extortion) - Possible for each combination (aid and office meeting with investigating the Bidens and the 2016 election myth) of using the color of office in threatening to withhold something of value in return for a personal favor
Articles 13 - 14: Bribery - Possible because Trump solicited "a thing of value", the investigations, to help with Trump's 2020 election campaign.
Article 15: Violation of Constitution's Emoluments Clause - maybe from Trump obviously profiting off of the horde of foreign gov'ts using his properties to curry favor.
Article 16: Treason: - doubtful but hopeful because of Trump's multiple actions which aid and abet a nation in active campaign, past and present, in cyberwar against America.The impeachment is a show for your purpose. It is going no where and they don’t have the vote in the Senate.
Why are they carrying on?
To give you guys hope...because they know they will loose big time in 2020.
What will your side do after Trump is re-elected resoundingly?
Will you move to New Zealand?They are continuing on because Trump is violating the Constitution (which you appear to care nothing about) and I believe the Constitution needs to be defended from attack. The Republicans are enabling him to do so. I suspect if the Republicans fail to convict with conviction is obvious, they will pay the price in the 2020 election.
Were you so concerned about the Constitution under Barack Obama and Joe Biden?
Of course I was, but then they did nothing wrong, did they? They didn't put Russian interests ahead of American interests like Trump is doing, did they? Both Obama and BIden were and are true patriots. Trump is a traitor.
Did Obama Obstruct Congress like Trump is doing?
Did Obama Obstruct Justice like Trump has done and is doing?
Did Obama violate the emoluments clause by profiting on being president while he was in office like Trump IS doing?
Did Biden extort a foreign leader to help him with his campaigns like Trump has tried to do?
Did Biden bribe a foreign leader to benefit him personally like Trump is doing?
Did Obama or Biden abuse the power of their office to gain personal advantage like Trump is doing?
Did Obama suck up to murdering dictators such as Un, Assad, Erdogan, and Putin like Trump is doing?
Did Obama throw his allies to the wolves to die by their hands like Trump did to the Kurdish people?
Did Obama bankrupt American farmers like Trump is doing today?
Did .... I am tired of writing but could keep on going if I wanted.
I see that you continue to be hot on the impeachment trail My Esoteric, but what evidence can you provide that the Trump Ukraine corruption pursuit was for political gain and not national interest gain?
I could agree that if it can be proven that his motive was for personal political gain then his efforts were an abuse of office, but if not, then there is the issue of national security gain, (as in foreign political influence), which should be an important issue to all of us.
Do you have that proof of personal gain?
GAI've asked this of others, and got only "It's obvious!" or something similar.
I have to wonder though - if anyone remotely connected to Trump goes after anyone remotely connected to a candidate or party (children, parents, cousins, nieces/nephews, etc.) would that also be a crime? Must we give a "get out of jail free" card to anyone connected to any of Trump's opponents?
And if so, what about people, including candidates, that are doing everything they can to promote the investigation of the front runner in the 2020 election? Was the mass hysteria about Trumps "collusion" with Russia a criminal act as well?If it wasn't for personal gain, why didn't the investigation go through regular channels? Why was Trump's personal lawyer named as the point person? Personal lawyer for personal gain, clearly.
Second, if Trump was so concerned with Ukrainian corruption and he believed that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election, why didn't he ask for the DOJ to investigate that back in 2016. If he truly believed that was where the hack originated, it would have been something he would have pursued to clear himself of any Russia ties or interference in the elections.
Third, why was the release of aid contingent on the public announcement of an investigation into Biden as witnesses are testifying about? Because it was more about smearing Biden with a conspiracy theory than about a fact-finding mission.
As for the 2020 election, which Democratic candidate is in collusion with the House to have Trump investigated? The investigation of the 2016 had to do with Russia's interference, as well as to see if there was conspiracy to undermine our elections. While collusion was clearly shown (manafort sharing internal polling date with high level Russians, Stone in coordination with Assange), Mueller could not prove conspiracy.You do understand that unanswered questions are not an answer to anything at all? That such questions are designed to give a feeling of guilt without need of evidence? And you wonder why I say the only answer given is "It's obvious"?
What I understand is that you cannot give a meaningful answer to any of the questions I posed relating to Trump's intent to commit a crime pertaining to the 2020 election. Got it.
Facts are obvious, Dan. To those who recognize them. Do you really believe Trump was interested in Biden's part of getting the corrupt prosecutor fired or for his own political gain? I'll look forward to your response....if you do so.
"It's obvious". Yes. That was what I said, isn't it?
Isn't a sad commentary on Trump and conservatives that the whistleblower had to send a "Cease and Desist" order to the President of the United States in order to protect himself and his family from physical and mental harm caused by Trump and his surrogates hate-speech attacks on him.
Since we know Trump won't stop, I suspect the next thing the whistleblower will need to do to protect himself from these evil forces is get a restraining order from a court.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics … index.htmlGreat reply and I salute your effort to reply to what was said rather than take off on a tangent. (Did you expect to actually change the topic onto something different?)
This is obvious as well - Trump wants to be dictator and destroy both Congress and the Judiciary.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics … index.htmlLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! I only know one person in this world who literally thinks CNN is legitimate news. I wouldn't click that filth for any reason.
You probably only know one person....period.
I've asked you before, what sources of news do you consider legitimate?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste and you are wasting yours, Wilderness, sorry to say.
Not sure what your first part means, but what "mass hysteria"??. Mueller had plenty of evidence of what is euphemistically called "collusion" meaning two or more people getting together for illicit activity, e.g., going to a Russian lawyer for dirt on a political opponent.
But, as you will tell me, collusion is not a crime, and it is not - but it is still collusion; just not conspiracy. If fact, Mueller presented evidence of conspiracy as well, just not enough evidence to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, but there WAS evidence.Personally, I'd call two years and millions of dollars spent on something that never happened "mass hysteria". You will disagree, of course.
Why do I get the idea that the evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia was "obvious"?Mueller investigation turned a profit with the asset seizure from Manafort. But you conservatives keep falsely parroting a cost.
So Russia didn't interfere in the election? Manafort didn't give them internal polling data? Those things definitely happened.Ah, but the investigation was intended, and created, to prove Trump colluded with Russia. While it is true that it was written as an open ended search for any dirt that could be found, the intent was to hurt Trump. Which you know.
No, the intent was to ensure that the person backed by a hostile foreign government, the one who asked them for their help and got it, that was elected, was not beholden to that country in any way. His actions sure do leave many Americans wondering to this day.
The fact that you cannot understand the national security implications of why such an investigation was needed speaks volumes to how the GOP views national security in the Trump term.Again, all you can do is spew conservative talking points than use the mind god gave you.
Good answer. Great logic and reasoning about the Muellar investigation into Trump's collusion with Russia. Or at least a diversion, anyway.
And that is proof positive of how far you have your head in the sand, Wilderness, if you actually believe the nonsense you spout. At LEAST five of the 10 instances of Obstruction of Justice are strong enough for a slam-dunk conviction in any court, according to Republican, neutral, and Democratic experts and also slam-dunk impeachment articles that any FAIR Senate jury would convict on. But then the #NoBallsGOP senators fear more for their jobs than they care about America. - SAD.
Absolutely. And that is why there was a Muellar investigation; to look into obstruction of justice. Was there a reason somewhere that you can't stay on track, but divert into another imaginary crime?
By reading the testimony. I have to assume everyone that has testifed have not gotten together to concoct the same lie. Taylor, Sondland (now), Kent, Yavanovitch, Volker, Morrison, Vindman, Hill, McKinley, Anderson, Williams today, and I probably forgot a few, ALL tell the same story - that Trump held up aid and a meeting with the President for help with his 2020 election.
The only one who has a different story is Trump, a known liar.
Finally, there is no contradictory evidence that it was for another reason.
The only thing it tells you is that one media is doing well while the main stream media is failing...
Trump has the audacity to challenge the status quo and they just can’t take it...hence the birth of the TDS...Doing well financially and badly fact wise tells the tale of Fox, Jack. Of course, you cannot tell fact from fiction so you like the network as do all Trump fans. It's the only network Trump voters will watch and why they are so lost as far as facts are concerned.
His delivery-style, obvious lack of focus, ability to contradict himself in the same paragraph are sure signs of a declining mental capability.
The many is dangerously mentally ill.
Read Dr. Bandi Lee's book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump
""If a lie is printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it." Vladimir Lenin."
Yes and Trump is a master of the lie (just as Hitler was)Yeah... i know you have a sketchy understanding of history, but Hitler controlled the media, they had a propaganda state that was revolutionary for its time.
It is very clear that Trump is the target of the media, not the controller of it.Because any tyrant wannabe always attacks the press, Ken. You should know that already. How's it working out for him to date?
"Because any tyrant wannabe always attacks the press, Ken." - And THAT is exactly what Trump is trying to do - destroy the free press in favor of is propaganda machine - just like Hitler did.
A real tyrant, just has his followers occupy the media sites, arrest or execute those who speak out against him, etc.
This is how we know Trump isn't a tyrant, and in fact, his pointing out that the MSM is full of fake news must have some truth to it.Give him time - he already has his supporter physically and verbally attacking the media at his Hitler-style rallies.
He even has his "brown-shirt" equivalents there - they were red hats. Maybe we should call his storm troopers the "Red Hats".What do you call members of the deep state? Yellow jackets....
All you Trumpers: Do you think Hitler started his reign by killing 6 million Jews? He started very slowly be intimidating those who didn't follow him by using his brown-shirt corp and holding rallies with those who supported him, just like Trump does by slowly dividing the country. Eventually the brown-shirts used violence to subdue those who wouldn't support Hitler. And once he was in real power, it was the SS...and then the concentration camps.
When dictators start out they are insidious in their process. Hitler and Mussolini started out by taking over the news and radio stations, just like Trump by calling them fake news and the enemy of the people. Just like Fox News is Trump's state run propaganda machine. While Twitter, Kellyanne Conway, and Stephen Miller are his ministers of propaganda.
Trump took an oath to defend and uphold the constitution, but iit has really become a pain in his side. and he has betrayed it in many ways.
.
1. Obstruction of Justice
2. Profiting from the presidency
3. Collusion
4. Advocating political and police violence
5. Abuse of power
6. Engaging in reckless conduct
7. Persecuting political opponents
8. Attacking the free press
9. Violating immigrants rights to due process
10. Violating campaign finance laws.All it takes is for people to trust and defend a cretin, as we can see for ourselves on these very forums. Tyrants love easily led masses...
Actually he spelled out in Mein Kampf exactly what he wanted to do, and what he thought of the Jews. There was no slowly working up to it, only as long as it took to gain the control and power to execute it.
I have to wonder at people who try to paint Trump as an anti-semite if they are themselves haters of Jews. Israel has had no better friend, and his son-in-law is Jewish. But go ahead and push on with such absurdities it just makes all your other points that much more suspect.
Well I'll be... that is just what I was saying, and it is not restricted to them, check out any dictatorship and you will see that the state controls the media.
In this case, the corporations, those looking to do America harm, and those who believe in the no-borders globalization efforts control 90% of the MSM media outlets. So they are most definitely against Trump, and his pro-America, anti-Globalist efforts.
This is just more proof that Trump is nothing like Hitler or Mussolini, if he was like them, he would control the news and radio stations... instead he has to contend with their lies, falsehoods, and negative propaganda.
And he has done more to do so than any President in living memory, he has put more Conservative and Constitutionalist judges in place than any President in history.
He has done more to expose the corruption within the FBI and CIA than any President since JFK. He has exposed and fired Brennan, Comey, Strzok, and many others... and the housecleaning continues.
And because of his efforts to dig up the corruption in Ukraine, the American people are now aware of how corrupt Biden is, saving the country from him becoming President as he saved us from Clinton.
Trump: protector of the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the Nation."...he has put more Conservative and Constitutionalist judges in place than any President in history."
He has put more "not qualified" judges on the bench that's for sure:
The response from Trump and his acolytes? The American Bar Association is biased against conservatives. That's what you call defending the Constitution is it? Good grief.Suddenly Democrats care about the Bar association...
Not sure a party that puts Roy Moore up for office or backs the guy accused of 25 counts of sexual misconduct should be taking any moral high ground on the topic.
Sorry, but this one graph says more about the claim Trump is "defending" the constitution with his judicial appointments, than any meme you care to regurgitate.
The letter from the ABA about a recent appointment also speaks volumes:
"Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-today practice including procedural rules".
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/10/3 … andyke.pdf
These are the type of people Trump is appointing. That's not an attempt to defend the Constitution, it's an attempt to lobotomize the judiciary.
Never said he was anti-Semite (although in his heart-of-hearts he may be, relatives or not). All I am pointing out is Hitler and Trump have very similar personalities and drives and mental illnesses.
'Hitler style rallies' - yes, Trump's rallies also have people in attendance. Just like Hitler's did.
He controls the conservative media. The real media is still trying to protect America from becoming like Hitler's Germany.
Saw this comment today....
Forward looking polls are hard to take seriously, but real time election results are clear as a bell. Virginia went blue, suburbs in KY went blue, Mississippi margins narrowed significantly, all under Trump's leadership....That is the real world, nothing fake about it....anger and an economy you had to borrow money for are not going to get Trump to the finish line in 2020.Here is why Trump will win a landslide in 2020 - the black vote
https://nypost.com/2019/11/06/devine-ca … nightmare/You can certainly make that case based upon his approval ratings with African Americans.
I'll counter with the data from the same NAACP polling that found Trump with just 50% approval rating among white voters. Trump carried 58% of the white vote in 2016.
It will be estimated that the black vote will be around 12.5% of the vote, so 20% of that is 2.5% of the total as opposed to the 8% he got (or 1%) in 2016.
Now white voters are estimated to make up 66.7% and Trump is down 8% among that group. That is a 5% drop among the total population. So while he increases about 1.5% among black voters, the 5% decrease among white voters more than offsets those gains.
As you feel the need to trust the NY Post as your main source for political information, you did note that they ignored the differences for all races, right?My info is just one data point of many...don’t rely so much on polls as they are proven to be unreliable.
I look at the whole picture when making my predictions.
The mass crowds in Trump rally
The booming economy
The trade deals
The court appointments
The border issues
The support for our military...You just sounded so certain though: 'Here is why Trump will win a landslide in 2020 - the black vote'
You relied on a poll that it was all too easy to debunk as telling you the opposite narrative to what you wanted proved.
I could pretty easily debunk the other points you just listed, but you're clearly not departing the Trump train, even in the face of hard truths, so there's no point really.Can say the same about the never Trumpers...
I guess we will have to wait till Nov. 2020, the poll that really matters is the election.
I have been right more than wrong...
I was right predicting Trump win in 2016...
And I was right about the Mueller report...not leading to any where...
And I was right about the Kavanaugh nomination...
That is 3 for 3 in my book.
Sighhhh -
"The mass crowds in Trump rally" - All Demagogues get mass crowds, they like the spectacle and want to see how over-the-top Trump can get
"The booming economy" - Again, he economy isn't and hasn't been booming, it is doing no worse or better than Obama's economy - although it is getting worse because of the disastrous Trump Tariffs. (now if you admit that the Obama economy was booming - which I don't think it was, thank god - then you have the right to say Trump's economy is booming; otherwise you are using hyperbole)
"The trade deals" - what trade deals?? The few he has accomplished changed basically nothing. Tell me, how many bankrupt farmers will vote for Trump again, lol.
"The court appointments" - One of the worst things to happen to America since the same type of Court eviscerated the 14th and 15th Amendments.
"The border issues" - Yeah, Americans really loved Trump for ripping babies out of the arms of their mothers.
"The support for our military" - Yeah right. Just ask the military how they feel about Trump trashing dozens of popular generals and admirals, or sending our Kurdish ally to die at the hands of the Turks, or denying patriotic gay's from serving in the military at all. I suspect he will not get nearly as many votes from the military who now hate him.
THAT is the Whole Picture Jack.
That is true. You forgot the PA results as well which were devastating to Republicans
I was referring to elected officials and how they vote.
When it comes to the voters, just look at the Black vote...
Why do they vote in lock step 90% democratic year after years... and get disappointed every time?Black's vote with Ds because they don't want to vote for somebody who hates them. BTW - Prove that stupid statement that blacks were disappointed EVERY TIME a Democrat was elected. What Hyperbole. What Hypocrisy.
They were disappointed in the sense they did not see any improvement of their lot...democrats court the black vote during election cycle but forget them the rest of the time. This is not me saying it but the truth in fact.
Just look to your inner cities, which are democratic controlled for the most part. There is no hyperbole.
By the way, if the GOP had been voting lock step as you claim, the ACA would have been repealed. It was only because of the maverick John McCain’s single vote that stopped the repeal. That is the proof my friend. Touche!
Only one vote kept the R's from voting lock step, Jack?
That is one more vote than Democrats....the definition of lock step.
And then two Ds voted against the impeachment rules - your point??
BTW, it wasn't just hero McCain - he was just the deciding votes because other Republicans of principal also voted to allow people to keep their insurance while the rest voted to take away their insurance.
Also, might it be for ACA because they believe in the a very good program that helps people?
“You have to vote for it before you can find out what is in it...”
Yes, big brother is alive and well...
They know what is best and that is to bankrupt the American economy.
As a simple guy on the street, here is one data point for you to contemplate.
Every years since the enactment of the ACA, my health insurance which was covered under my wife’s company plan has gotten more expensive and with less benefit coverage...that is straight 7 years until I qualify for Medicare and left that system.
Meanwhile, the ACA health exchanges set up after this bill are going bust left and right...
Tell me this was good for the American people?
That is why non of the GOP congress members voted for this bill.
That is why it was challenged twice in the courts...
That is why it will fail as a health reform bill. All 2000 pages of non-sense.Why do you keeping repeating debunked conservative talking points such as “You have to vote for it before you can find out what is in it...”??? Informed people know the REAL story behind that conservative myth
SO, you are saying with "Yes, big brother is alive and well...
They know what is best and that is to bankrupt the American economy." that is "Big Brother" to make sure everybody can have affordable insurance and it is NOT "Big Brother" allowing insurance companies to deny you insurance whenever they feel like it. Interesting illogic.
"Every years since the enactment of the ACA, my health insurance which was covered under my wife’s company plan " - MAY BE true for your wife's company (an anecdote), but it is meaningless since that has nothing to do with ACA. Let me give you my anecdote to counter your anecdote - MY company's health plan has given a rebate to my employees EVERY year specifically because of ACA (and so has your wife's in all likelihood). Also, since ACA, but unrelated, my companies rates have gone, they have gone down (allowing me to improve my plan for my employees), and they have stayed the same. - As I said, meaningless anecdotes.
"Meanwhile, the ACA health exchanges set up after this bill are going bust left and right..." - THIS IS another conservative talking point myth. They are actually thriving today and more are joining up each year. FACTS MATTER, Jack.
"Tell me this was good for the American people?" - THIS WAS VERY GOOD for 20+ million people who got insurance for the first time (people you don't think should have insurance, apparently).
"That is why non of the GOP congress members voted for this bill." - Because they vote in lock-step with their leadership.
"That is why it was challenged twice in the courts..." - IT IS challenged in court because the conservatives don't want people to have affordable insurance.
"That is why it will fail as a health reform bill. All 2000 pages of non-sense." - DESPITE CONSERVATIVES best attempt to take away insurance from Americans, ACA has done a great job in helping Americans, many of whom voted for Trump who wants to take away their insurance. Strange ...Wrong...there is no conservative talking points. It was estimated that it would have been cheaper to give the 20 million people who did not have health insurance, Medicaid type coverage than to revamp the whole system for the rest of the 90% who did have private health insurance...
This was a bad bill and time has proven those of us that opposed it at the time, correct. It will be revised one way or another. This bill cannot last because it was financially unsustainable.
Do the math...it does not add up.
Jonathan Gruber was right. The Obama administration had to lie to get this bill passed. The stupidity of the American public...Now that is a new one, where did you come up with that?? But it makes no difference, ACA is a success, millions of people still have insurance, in spite of you conservatives' best efforts.
No, you do the math, Jack, millions of people thinks it adds up fine and you want to take that away from them. Why do you dislike them so much to do that?I am watching out for my own interest just like most other people who does the same.
Tell me something, if you have to pay more for something and get less as a result, what would you do?
In every other endeavor in life, you would change it wouldn’t you?
Because I don’t like ACA as it was architected, it does not mean I don’t like to 20 million people who got healthcare.
I would have come up with or supported a different plan...that would not infringe on the rest of us.Your question "Tell me something, if you have to pay more for something and get less as a result, what would you do?" presumes wrongly that you are paying more for ACA and getting less.
Since that is by-and-large not true, it is a pointless question.
Yet you would DENY those 20 million people insurance while you try to figure it out.
Nancy in her own word -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLUJack: Obama wanted ACA to be a single payer system like medicare. However the GOP blocked that from happening (in lock step). Therefore, he had to compromise by creating the individual mandate so those who were well paid into the system as well by essentially taxing them if they didn't buy into the program.
Trump and his buddies had that removed. But originally, that was the plan. It was supposed to be a single payer system like medicare. ACA is over 2,000 pages because it is a body of laws that governs all aspects of health care.
Apparently, the GOP multitude of attempts to remove and replace it with a 19 page document never has flown. That's why Trump has not been able to remove and replace it. Knowing Trump, he might change some aspects of it, take credit for it and call it Trump Care.
He creates problems, blames others for them, solves the problems he created and then takes credit for it. While all the while acting like he is the victim. That's his MO.The problem with the ACA was long in the making since enactment in 2010...Trump is poised to fix it since McCain was the lone GOP that refused to repeal it and start over.
This is a great example of how not to create a comprehensive plan...
There is no reason any bill should be 2000 pages.
This problem could have been tackles in a series of small bills that fix the precondition limits on the uninsured...instead, we ended up throwing away the whole system that served 180 million people to help 20 million. Where is the logic in that?Jack: Sure we had sky high premiums that insurance companies could continue to hike. There were pre-existing conditions where they could deny you coverage; you could not keep your children on your policy until they were 26 years old. We were paying for those who were not insured to go to the ER for medical help. It is not a simple bill and a 19 page insurance policy. It is body of laws that govern the whole health care system.
"instead, we ended up throwing away the whole system that served 180 million people to help 20 million. Where is the logic in that?"
What system? There was no system. It was unfettered capitalism with greed where we were at the mercy of the insurance companies. How are only 20 million being served now?
I think your propaganda sources have their figures mixed up. Please read this.
https://www.kff.org/report-section/the- … uninsured/Really? What plan had Trump proposed before trying to end ACA? He took the same approach to ACA that he took with immigration rule changes and with the Kurds. He just flies by the seat of his pants and then people die because of his terrible policies.
As for passing a program that helped 20 million people, I see that as very logical. And I see helping those with pre-existing conditions as very humane, something that is clearly lacking in many of today's politicians."Trump is poised to fix it since McCain was the lone GOP that refused to repeal it and start over." - WHY DO you keep repeating that LIE, Jack?
ALSO, "This problem could have been tackles in a series of small bills that fix the precondition limits on the uninsured.." - IS SO WRONG, it would be almost funny if it weren't for the fact that so many people wouldn't be hurt (and a few die) if it was done your way.
If you had read up on it rather than make a lot unsupported assumptions you would have found that it is IMPOSSIBLE to piecemeal a bill together. THAT IS why your side keeps FAILING to come up with a plan.
I heard what Nancy said. I read what Nancy said. I wrote a hub on what Nancy REALLY said and MEANT, as well as the context it was all in - and it isn't the BS that has become conservative talking points.
So you know Nancy better than her and know what she mean...who the hell are you? Are you a psychic?
You are beginning to sound like Justice Roberts. Who ruled on the ACA and said the penalty is a tax...
The intent is whatever you want it to be.
That is why we have words and language. You speak what you mean so others can understand otherwise we might as well speak Greek."So you know Nancy better than her and know what she mean...who the hell are you? Are you a psychic?" - Exactly how brainwashed are you Jack?
What I know how to do is READ. How do I know what she means? Because I read what she wrote about what she means. All you read and regurgitate are conservative talking points.
And now, like Trump, you are turning on one of your own - Roberts. But I do not what you object to the most about Roberts is that he is a man of principle something few conservatives are.
Lock-step for most of it, disagree with the last thought.
I think voter's, as the framers constantly worried about, are too easily swayed by demagogues like Trump. That was one reason they were so afraid of an actual democracy and tried to insulate this flaw with the electoral college. Unfortunately, that institution no longer acts like it was first designed.
"We have proud self-professed socialists running for President " - Gee, Jack, that sounds totally unAmerican doesn't it. We all know that the framers of the Constitution wanted only white, male, non-Asian, Protestants to run for President.
I bet that if they knew what a socialist was back then, they would have added an enumeration that one cannot run for President.Stop with the race baiting...
Bernie Sanders is a socialist and proud of it and he was elected by the citizens of Vermont. That is our democratic system.
It has nothing to do with race. The founders did not expect anything or specify anything about who could run for president except that he or she be natural born citizen and of age over 35.
My comment was referring to his view on economics. The founders were capitalist in the mold of Adam Smith...and for that reason would reject someone like Bernie.Stop with the race baiting...
Bernie Sanders is a socialist and proud of it and he was elected by the citizens of Vermont. That is our democratic system.
It has nothing to do with race. The founders did not expect anything or specify anything about who could run for president except that he be natural born citizen and of age over 35.
My comment was referring to his view on economics. The founders were capitalist in the mold of Adam Smith...and for that reason would reject someone like Bernie.Stop with the race baiting...
Bernie Sanders is a socialist and proud of it and he was elected by the citizens of Vermont. That is our democratic system.
It has nothing to do with race. The founders did not expect anything or specify anything about who could run for president except that he or she be natural born citizen and of age over 35.
My comment was referring to his view on economics. The founders were capitalist in the mold of Adam Smith...and for that reason would reject someone like Bernie.What race-baiting, I was pointing out a fact.
If you actually believed "The founders did not expect anything or specify anything about who could run for president except that he or she be natural born citizen and of age over 35" to be true - THEN WHY do you say something so anti-American as "we have proud self-professed socialists running for President in a major political party in the name of Bernie Sanders." in such a disparaging manner?Why do you assume it was disparaging? Wasn’t it Bernie who wear his socialism ideals on his sleeve? So let me get this straight, if I repeat what Bernie say...I am being disparaging? So do you think being accused of being a socialist is good or bad? That is the crux of the matter isn’t it?
You can’t have it both ways...
Don’t disguise your true feelings from the voter. The Democrats are very good at that in the past. Say one thing to get elected and then do the opposite...like with immigration control...
Embrace it and let the voters decide.
For that, I praise Bernie for standing up for what he believes...
Unlike Hillary who in closed door sessions with her Wall Street donors say one thing and tell her voters something else all together.My esoteric, if you read some of my other published writings, you would know I am also an experience fencer. This is an olympic sport and one that requires skill and speed and smarts to out duel your opponent.
There is a few terms in fencing that may apply to our debates here which could be considered a verbal duel.
You attack and I “parry and reposte” to score.
You attack and I perform a “stop”.
These are real actions in a fencing bout.
It applies here to your constant verbal assaults...
In fencing, when an action fail to score, the player usually changes his tactic to something else...that is how a duel is conducted in real live.
In your case, you keep repeat the same action and get stopped every time...
When will you ever learn?Not changing subject, just injection some humor to an otherwise dull discussion.
Because you have NEVER had a good thing to say about socialism or socialists.
You are projecting what conservatives do.
I do have to disagree with the semantics, GA - in conservative lexicon "big" means "big". Also, the framers did want a "strong" central gov't to keep the states in line. What they didn't want is one that abused the People like the Parliament and King were doing.
Consider:
- James Madison fought to the end to have an absolute veto by Congress over any state law
- There was discussion of doing away with states altogether (it didn't get very far but it gives you a sense of what many thought)
- There were discussion a plenty over the abuses of the states visited on their citizens
- Then there is the Supremacy Clause
In all the books I have read, and you know I read plenty, the idea of "big gov't" as the conservatives mean it, just never came up. It was always making sure the central gov't (and later with the 14th Amendment, the states) did not trample on the rights of the people any more than necessary to carry out the vision contained in the preamble.Geez. And to think all this started with one little good-natured nitpick.
Going back to the context of the original comment that the Framers feared a "Big Centralized Government" my point was, (and still is), that they did not fear a big government but they did fear an all-powerful one. I think the sure death of Madison's Federal Veto supports that thought. As does the sinking of the "do away with the states" idea. (wasn't that Hamilton?)
Relative to the Supremacy Clause, I don't see that as an "all-powerful" government club but more as a final arbitor option. Which, I also think any central government must have to be a central government at all.
So what was it we were arguing about?
GAWell now that you have separated out "big gov't" from "all powerful", no argument at all.
Where in this summary does the Constitution say we should have cradle to grave coverage for every citizen and immigrants...?
The Constitution is a framework. It outlines specific areas that the federal government should be doing and the rest deferred to the individual States.
In addition, there is no limit to what individuals and private charities can do... In the old days, that was how people lived. They cared for their neighbors and their extended family...when they fall on hard times.
It was public welfare that destroyed that model. Now, people just keep to themselves and say let the government do it all. How sad!Jack: There is no summary, it is up to congress to levy taxes and the president and congress apportion them.
This is not the old days. When you say people just keep to themselves. Isn't that very generalized, what people?
Here is where the safety taxes go, according to Turbo Tax 2018.
Safety net programs:
Safety net programs typically constitute about 9 percent of the federal budget. This category includes all aid programs for low- and mid-income families that are not a part of Social Security or the major health programs.
Examples include:
Unemployment insurance
Food stamps
Low-income housing assistance
Programs for abused and neglected childrenThis "Where in this summary does the Constitution say we should have cradle to grave coverage for every citizen and immigrants...?" JUST SHOWS everybody how brainwashed by conservative talking points you really are.
The truth is "we should have cradle to grave coverage for every citizen and immigrants..." IS ONLY what YOU want to believe the rest of America wants - here is flash for you - WE DON'T, but we do feel we have a responsibility to society as a whole. We are not social Darwinist like you are.You don’t need to listen to me...just look at the progression of government programs since the 1960s...ever so encroaching...and come hand in hand with deficit spending...
But the bottom line is telling. Despite the huge spending to help the poor, the poverty rate has remained steady near 13-14%.
What does that tell you?JESUS - What it tells me Jack is that you never look at the data or do you never stop trying to mislead with what data you do have. You say the programs began in the 1960s - correct.
Do you know what the poverty rate was prior to the Great Society programs?? How about GREATER THAN 23%!!! In 1950 it was 32.2%!!!!!!
And since then it has varied between 11% in good years and 15% in recessions and the Reagan years.
Also, as inequality rises, it takes more to keep people out of poverty.
So, what does that tell YOU?
"It gives Congress great authority over the executive branch, which must appeal to Congress for all of its funding. " - NO IT DOESN'T, all the president has to do is call an illegal, non-existent national emergency and have a spineless, no-balls GOP let him do it. - LOL
"matters are properly managed by the states." - IT SHOULD BE noted that during the Constitutional Convention and many other writings including the Federalist Papers, it was often mentioned how the framers were disheartened by how poorly states the states treated its citizenry.
The Conservatives on the Court overlook that the states often do a terrible job for their people - even today as exemplified by conservative states not expanding Medicaid for their population.
Perhaps you can explain what Hunter Biden did that was illegal, Mike? I know you can't, and will more than likely, ignore my query as usual.
It makes no difference to Trump supporters, truth means nothing to them, only the attack.
I am mostly content to wait for Trump's defeat at the ballot box. Those who still defend the lying con man are beyond hope. I still occasionally engage one against my better judgement as I am flawed and have moments of weaknwss. Mostly when they, for example, whine about someone (besides Trump, of course) lying or, even more hilariously, call for "civility." They only care about integrity and civility in others; their idol can say and do whatever he wants with no consequences .
Those who are still with him are hopelessly lost. Will their judgment ever be trusted again? Not by me and I suspect not by others. Even the Mooch has jumped ship because he has some integrity left.
Weird, considering the prosecutor had already declined the investigation into Burisman. And never mind that if they were going to investigate the action under question, it happened between 2010 and 2012, a full two years before Hunter Biden even joined the company. It's why this has been debunked and is, literally, the next false smear campaign that the GOP is looking to run against a Democratic candidate.
Weird, considering the prosecutor had already declined the investigation into Burisma. And never mind that if they were going to investigate the action under question, it happened between 2010 and 2012, a full two years before Hunter Biden even joined the company. It's why this has been debunked and is, literally, the next false smear campaign that the GOP is looking to run against a Democratic candidate.
This shows the ignorance of the Right. Two completely different instances. And who was Biden's political rival, AA?
For once you're right. It is two completely different instances.
One is pointing at what is thought to be criminal action, the other at what is assumed to be criminal by assuming just the right intent.And what are YOU assuming, Dan? It's clear what Trump did, but Hunter was not being investigated at the time Biden, along with our allies, pushed for the corrupt prosecutor to be removed.
Randy, truth and logic do not matter to Trump supporters. But let's review the evidence accumulated so far:
1. The Crime - Trump told Zelenskyy he will withhold military aid UNLESS Zelenskyy investigates Biden - SOURCE: the Summary of the Call: in legal terms that is extortion.
2. The Evidence:
2.1. The summary of the transcript
2.2. Sondland's revised testimony admitting that Trump's release of aid was dependent on Zelenskyy investigating the Bidens
2.3. Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney admits on television that the aid was tied to Zelenskyy investigating the Bidens
There is SO MUCH more, but that is all that is needed.
What is extortion (Hobbs Act) - Extortion refers to obtaining property or compelling action by the use of threats or by the misuse of public office.
Extortion Elements of Proof:
1. Done under the color of the office - The Presidency - CHECK
2. That under the color of office, the official did something - Without Aid - CHECK
2. To cause (or attempt to cause) the giving of a benefit - Investigate the Bidens - CHECK
Why do you keeping insisting on lying about Biden, O? Although, I guess I shouldn't be surprised coming from a Trump supporter.
I really can't believe the lies you post here. Biden, representing US interests, spearheaded the removal of Shokun for NOT investigating more corruption since Shokun had refused to bring charges. If Biden were acting inappropriately towards the company his son worked at, he would have left Shokun in his post.
And the actions that were under scrutiny at Burisma happened between 2010 and 2012, a full two years before Hunter Biden even joined the company.
Facts matter Onusonus. Try and dig deeper than your right-wing conspiracy sites.Doubling down on your lies...how very Trumpian of you. That might be an accurate meme if you could prove that the investigator was actually looking into the company. But Biden had him fired for not investigating corruption.
Maybe you can prove Obama was born in Kenya while you're spewing those false conspiracy theories...Once more you're listening to Hannity and Limbaugh, aa. And as Val has already pointed out, you need to do some research other than from right wing sites. Your memes are silly and false. Find another outlet for them than the ones you daily visit.
Is this why Ivanka received 19 new patents from the Chinese, aa?
'O' only knows how to make things up - Truth not in his wheelhouse as you can see from the above ridiculousness.
O: Anybody can post crappy memes that take no thought. Why don't you show us what a critical thinker you are.
Here is how this is going to go. Thank God. It'll improve America for sure. What a disgrace Obama was, married to a transexual. Ever see a photo of Michael Obama pregnant? You haven't. It's because men don't get pregnant.
The ONLY one committing Treason is Trump and it should be one of the Articles of Impeachment.
I take that back, Giuliani is also committing Treason and possibly Pompeo. (Barr is committing other crimes)
I suppose the Right is saving their ammo to protect Donnie from the terrible Dems.
To Trumpers:
Obstruction of Justice:
Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General William Barr may have tried to clear him of this charge, but Special Counsel Robert Mueller specifically did not exonerate him. A review of the Mueller Report and information already in the public record shows why: Trump interfered in federal investigations and tried to influence their outcomes, violating federal law. That is a clear case of obstruction that any other public official would be prosecuted for. In this case, that job falls to Congress.
The trail of evidence starts with Trump’s attempt to get James Comey, the FBI director responsible for overseeing the investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia during the 2016 election, to drop an investigation into National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.When Comey refused,Trump fired him.
Trump made two more attempts at stopping the investigation by trying (unsuccessfully) to fire Robert Mueller, Comey’s predecessor. Then, Trump ordered White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a false record indicating that no attempts took place – McGahn refused.
Trump has repeatedly attempted to intimidate or influence witnesses in proceedings against him.
In all, Robert Mueller’s investigation revealed multiple instances where there was “very substantial” evidence that Trump had committed obstruction of justice.No, they don't want to understand the report. Like Linsey Graham refuses to read the transcripts of the impeachment proceedings...
They are terrified of the truth, almost as much as Trump himself.It is amazing the transformation of Graham from a rather respected conservative hawk to a Trump-kissing, brainless, supplicant. That is a tragedy in the Greek-sense of the word.
Ha! I like that. "a tragedy in the Greek-sense of the word."
I think understand Graham's motivations. He is between a rock and a hard place. Kiss the Emporer's ass and save the party's mantra or fall on his sword and watch the Democrats take power and lead the nation in a direction that is anathema to him.
I would not want to be in his shoes. More succinctly, I would not want to be in any Republican's shoes. They cannot abandon Pres. Trump without seceding political power to the Democrats for the next four to eight years.
GAWhat I wonder is if he can survive a campaign where his opponent uses before and after videos. First show him trashing Trump, then kissing his ass, ending with another clip of him trashing Trump - Over and Over and Over again for 8 months.
As mentioned, I would not want to be in Graham's shoes. My perspective is that the Republicans are tied to him whether they want to be or not. Anything short of support is a capitulation to a Democrat victory. And I don't want to see a Warren presidency.
But, I can accept a public verdict - whichever way it goes.
GAGA,
But, if you get a Warren presidency, could you REally live with it?
I have anathema concerning the GOP and the Republican Party and want all vestiges of them removed from Washington at any and all cost.
So, I guess that I should not be surprised by Graham and politicians like him.
We progressives need to be just as determined as Trump and his supporters if we hope to succeed.
Have you noticed how all of the "establishment" guys are ready to assign Bloomburg the task of "throwing his hat in the ring" if Warren gathers too much support?
A Certain amount of arrogance is involved in that assumption and it also tells me that commitment to the "status quo" does not necessarily have a partisan label. The dragon or beast describing as the current system will do anything to preserve its continued existence.That is why Trump is winning. He is the ultimate outsider who is draining the swamp in DC and those from both parties don’t like it. They don’t like loosing their power and influence and their honey pot.
As a progressive, at least you recognize this about big government. It is incestuous. Most progressives always vote for bigger government and higher taxes not realizing the waste that goes on.
There is not enough money in all the billionaire’s bank accounts to pay for the endless insane programs...that is the unvarnished Truth.The only Democrat that has a chance to beat Trump is ....Oprah Winfrey.
Unfortunately, she does not want to run for President.Then WHY is Biden CONSISTENTLY leading in almost EVERY head-to-head match up against Trump in almost EVERY poll. Open your eyes, Jack - please.
Because the polling is flawed. The only poll that matters is election day.
Face it Jack, you think polling is always flawed unless it agrees with you. You have to say such ridiculous things to keep your self-respect in your own mind. It also proves your "Trump is winning" mantra is pure wishful thinking.
The fact that so many very smart people spend billions of dollars on political polls prove you are wrong.So answer this. How did they get the 2016 election so wrong? With all the money spent. They missed the mark while I sitting in my chair at home predicted the outcome better than they... let that sink in...
What did I know that they ignored?
What was the sentiment around the whole country, and not just the big blue states of NY and California?
What was wrong with DC that the people are fed up and rejected all the established candidates...all 16 of the GOP and picked Trump...
"Draining the Swamp???" You are funny Jack. Trump has become the swamp
Hmmm, "incestuous" you say. You mean like Trump, his daughter, and his son-in-law?? Yep, I guess you are right.
And of course "There is not enough money in all the billionaire’s bank accounts to pay for the endless insane programs." is just another conservative talking point myth. (He is talking about Social Security and Medicare, folks.)I was referring to Elizabeth warren’s wealth tax scheme...
She wants to tax Gates and. Buffett, more like confiscate wealth.
Bernie is not much better with free college tuition and medicare for all...
Then there is the New Green Deal...what a disaster.Jack, do you care if Trump was abusing his power by asking the Ukraine to investigate a political opponent? A simple yes or no will do nicely.
So you don't care if he was abusing his power. I thought so. Others of your ilk don't ether.
You would if a Democratic POTUS did the same.
Trump has become the swamp
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Trump has always been part of the swamp.
Of course, I could live with a Warren presidency. Canada is too cold for me. ;-)
I think you make a good point relative to Bloomberg.
GAI want Biden and Klobuchar or Biden and Bloomberg.
I have cooled on Biden. I like Klobuchar and I am surprised at myself in that I really like Buttegeig - even though I don't support many of his policies. I could never go for Bloomberg. I think I should be able to decide for myself how much salt to use and soda to drink.
GAI like Buttigieg as well.
As to the salt and soda thing, I generally agree - BUT you do get into the whole public safety question.
For example, you may oppose a city banning the sale of highly sugared drinks (or at least taxing them to death) because you, as an adult, should have the right to decide whether to die by sugar or not; but would you likewise oppose, for the same reasons, banning over the counter sale of things like hydrogen cyanide or dynamite?
Personally, I think I am with you on the sugar thing as it relates to adults, but not kids. Since it is in the public interest to reduce the sugar intake in society as a whole, I can easily see taxing sugar used in products by the gram, or something. If people insist on eating such stuff to excess then they can pay through their taxes the drain on services as they get sick from it (mainly diabetes and rotten teeth, I suspect)
That said - there can never be enough salt!!! I eat raw anchovies for pete's sake.We are world's apart on this Scott. The public safety question relative to diet and lifestyle? That is many steps too far for me.
If that sugar freak pays for good health insurance, how is he a drain on public services? Maybe that logic might justify having to show proof of health insurance to avoid the sugar tax? Or, we could try the path of staying the hell out of folks' non-criminal personal lives.
GA"Or, we could try the path of staying the hell out of folks' non-criminal personal lives."
Insufficient. All the do-gooders, those wishing to impose their will on how others live, have to do is make whatever you're doing that they don't like into a crime. Whereupon they have every "right" to interfere in other lives and force those people into the life that the do-gooder thinks they should live. The most obvious example was the 18th amendment, where our constitution was amended to allow those same do-gooders (what else can I call them) to criminalize activity they didn't like.
I would rather not see Warren win either (for policy reasons), but even she would still be orders of magnitude better than Trump.
That would just be chalked-up to 'That's politics.' I think we have seen that a few times before.
GA
" - that Trump held up aid and a meeting with the President for help with his 2020 election."
That statement illustrates my point. I don't think all of those folks you listed have agreed that Pres. Trump did "it" to help his 2020 election. All of them may hold the opinion that there was a quid pro quo being demanded, but I don't think they have all attributed it to Trump's 2020 election.
I think that means we should consider whether demanding something in exchange for foreign aid is an abuse of office--aka "a crime."
I would not be surprised to find that every president has attached demands to foreign aid. Mulvaney said as much and Joe Biden publicly admitted it. I wouldn't think we just hand out foreign aid like candy, I think we are always looking to get something from it. The difference is what that "something" is.
Do you think otherwise, that foreign never comes with strings attached?
I think that leaves us in the position of interpreting appearances because I haven't seen any facts that prove Trump's actions were solely for his re-election benefit. I think it certainly appears that his intention was to benefit from his demands, but that is just what I think - nothing factual about it.
Looking at it that way, some of your listed witnesses have contradicted each other; yes to quid pro quo, but no to a personal political motive. And if that is true, then it may also be true that quid pro quo is not a crime under all circumstances.
And here we are . . . your determination that facts prove Pres. Trump abused his office is only your interpretation of appearances, not provable fact.
GAYes, even though many longtime official were freaked out by the actions Donnie took, you simply believe he was doing a service for the country, and not for himself. After all, he's not known for looking out for number one.
Is that what you read in my comment? If you read it in a mirror, by candlelight, you will see my real message.
'
GACome on Randy, read the response before you make a comment about it.
What you expect to see is not a validation of what is said.
GA
GA:
Articles of Impeachment don't have to based on a crime being committed by the president.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 479066001/GA:
President Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if its Prime Minister did not investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. Using taxpayer dollars to manipulate an important ally against Russia and attack a political rival is a clear abuse of presidential power.
Furthermore, this administration tried to conceal the whistleblower complaint that brought this corruption to light and label the civil servant who filed it as partisan.
In addition, Trump’s decision to pardon Joe Arpaio, who was convicted for contempt of court after ignoring a court order that he stop detaining and searching people based on the color of their skin, amounted to an abuse of the pardon power that revealed his indifference to individual rights, equal protections, and the separation of powers.
Pardoning this conviction goes against the Fifth Amendment, which allows the judiciary to issue and enforce injunctions against government officials who flout individual rights."President Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if its Prime Minister did not investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. Using taxpayer dollars to manipulate an important ally against Russia and attack a political rival is a clear abuse of presidential power."
It sure looks that way, doesn't it?
ps. I think it was Ukraine's president that Pres. Trump was trying to manipulate. I don't recall hearing anything about him talking to the Prime Minister.
GA
Geez Mike, not you too.
"crime" was a secondary determination. Initially, I spoke of abuse of power or abuse of the office. But the point was the question of whether demanding a quid pro quo was always an abuse of power, (I called it a crime . . . picky picky)
Do you deny that what Biden did was a quid pro guo? I don't. And I also don't think what Biden did was an abuse of the power of his office. In other words, I do think Biden's actions were obviously a quid pro quo, but I don't think it was a "crime."
Do you disagree with that? If not, then you agree that tying foreign aid to a reciprocal 'something' isn't always a "crime" or an abuse of office.
GAThat is true, but tying the quid pro quo to solicitation of an investigation of your chief political rival is trying to use foreign influence in the 2020 election. A clear violation of election laws.
Several other laws as well like extortion and bribery.
I think you are right Valeant. If it can be proven that Pres, Trump's motivation was to damage a political rival then I think it is a clear violation of both election laws and abuse of power of his offic3e.
GAAs I said before GA, Trump is out for himself in this situation. But watch Rudy throw him under the bus if it comes down to either of them getting jail time. Trump was the ringleader in this fiasco. Watch the public hearings next Wednesday to see some real patriots give evidence against the cretin.
I'm not sure motivation really matters here. Did Trump ask a foreign government to open an investigation into his chief political rival for the 2020 election? Yes or no? Would that investigation be of value to Trump, i.e., would it help elect him in 2020?
When a crime is this apparent, and is easily visible, motive is irrelevant. Did you see that person rob the bank? Yes. Who cares why they robbed it. They clearly committed the crime of robbery whether they had a motive or not. This is one of those cases."Would that investigation be of value to Trump, i.e., would it help elect him in 2020?"
Now that's an interesting question. I would think that if a crime (beyond stealing a sucker from a baby or some such) were found it would help Trump somewhat in the election (only somewhat as there ARE other candidates). On the other hand, if nothing was found then it would cause considerable harm to his re-election effort as Biden and the whole D party could SOB in distress at being challenged unfairly while beating their chest in a vast show of innocence and crying "WItch hunt! Witch hunt!" (sound familiar?).
Which one do YOU think Trump is counting on? What does that say about his reasons for doing it?Here is what our long-time diplomats had to worry about from our unstable president:
""I was worried that there could be some dramatic change where we would agree with the Russians, that, well, maybe Crimea is Russian after all, you know, or something like that," said Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine."
"To her colleagues, Yovanovitch's experience illustrated a phenomenon in Trump's administration where loyalty -- real or perceived -- drastically outweighed experience or expertise. Backbiting and attempts at sabotage appear regularly, including against onetime national security adviser H.R. McMaster. As senior officials with years of experience were summarily discharged, those with almost no experience filled the void."
THAT is who you and Jack want running America - SAD.You might have missed the 2016 election where the mere investigation into Clinton's e-mails was enough to make conservatives lose their minds, even though they never found anything to charge Clinton with. Trump was relying on the same thing with the Biden announcement. Trump cannot rely on policy to win, so he has to resort to smears. That's clearly of value.
I think you are prematurely optimistic in labeling Biden as his "chief" political rival. I think "a" political rival would be more accurate. If Biden is out-campaigned by his opponents then he wouldn't even be a political rival. So no benefit to Trump comes from the investigation.
Then, as Wilderness has mentioned, by your logic any office candidate would be off-limits to investigations of previous behavior because it could be perceived as a benefit to the candidate calling for the investigation.
Regarding your bank robber, I did see what appeared to be a man robbing the bank. Then I found out it was a training exercise for the bank employees being filmed for branch distribution. Or was it an undercover security guard pointing his gun at the real bank robber hiding behind the teller's window?
GA"Then, as Wilderness has mentioned, by your logic any office candidate would be off-limits to investigations of previous behavior because it could be perceived as a benefit to the candidate calling for the investigation." - NO, not necessarily.
Legitimate domestic oppo is legal.
But, if that candidate currently holds office and, like Trump, uses that office to get oppo for their next election, domestic or foreign, THAT is illegal.
That is the problem with Wilderness's broad, catch-all generalizations - it is easy to go down a rabbit hole.It certainly may be easy to fall into a rabbit hole of what-ifs, but it is also a feasible scenario. Consider the extreme opposite of your position; What if Joe Biden had done something crooked in his aid deal, would you still call an investigation into that "something" an abuse of power just because we are in an election cycle?
GAFeasible?? Are you asking that "is it feasible that any office candidate would be off-limits to investigations of previous behavior because it could be perceived as a benefit to the candidate calling for the investigation."? As I said, no, it isn't feasible; unless, of course, you are using feasible as in "it is feasible that the sun won't come up tomorrow, " lol.
If it were done through normal channels using the FBI rather than Giuliani, then I don't see why not.
If somebody had evidence of such a thing occurring, then turning it over to the proper authorities to vet would be quite legal - and appropriate.
What is not legal nor appropriate is Trump pressuring somebody, anybody, using the color of their office to start an investigation, especially when there is no credible evidence.
Can you imagine if Trump ordered the DOJ to investigate his political rivals? Paying someone from campaign funds to do opposition research is fairly accepted practice. Sicking government agencies on candidates, let alone foreign governments, is clearly authoritarian in nature.
Could you imagine if Obama had ordered the audit of candidate Trump? Or if he ordered his DOJ to publicly investigate him for the illegal payments? Trump telling Ukraine to use Guiliani and Barr as the point people in investigating Biden is pretty much the same thing.??? For nearly every day of the three years since Trumps was elected the top Republican candidate for the 2020 presidential election has been under "investigation" by one govt. "agency" or another. In fact he was under investigation even before the 2016 election, and was wire tapped in that effort.
How is this wrong, and if it isn't why is it wrong when done by the other political party?You have some serious disconnect with the facts. He was never wiretapped before the 2016 election. Carter Page was, and that was after he had left Trump's campaign.
Trump was under investigation for the crimes he committed during the 2016 election. It has been discovered that he broke laws regarding the use of charitable funds on an election, campaign finance laws, and likely fraud in how he repaid Cohen for the campaign finance reimbursements. These investigations were done after he was elected, by people within his own administration, not by the opposition party.
And Russia was under investigation and there were clear links between Russia and members of Trump's campaign. Why that doesn't bother you that there was coordination in the release of internal polling data to a hostile foreign government who then targeted US voters will continue to amaze myself and others here. I find your indifference to that borderline treason to our country.
Opinion piece worth a read:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11 … hment.htmlThere you go again, Valeant, trying to give facts to someone who doesn't believe in them. Others may read though, and that is a good thing.
Is there a reason you didn't address how it was right to investigate illegal activity of a Republican, and the front runner for the 2016 and 2020 election, but wrong to do so to a Democrat who is a runner, if not the front runner of the party, for the same election? That was the subject of my post, and very clearly so...
I did address it, you just couldn't process it. Russia, a hostile foreign government, interfered in 2016 to favor one candidate. If you don't see a reason to investigate whether the person they assisted was beholden to them, you are beyond reason.
Which hostile foreign government is helping Biden in the 2020 election? You're not comparing apples to apples at all.
And it's been pretty well debunked what Biden did. He represented the US to remove a prosecutor who would not investigate corruption before giving them aid. This is about Trump trying to smear his chief political rival and blackmailing another country to do it because him using his DOJ would have been too obvious a display of corrupt intent.Ah. So the ONLY time a presidential candidate should be investigated for suspected illegal activity is when a foreign government has taken action to help them or harm them, whether with or without their knowledge or consent.
I trust you know how that sounds...that you make excuses for Biden's actions, without any investigation, doesn't help, either. Even as you do so you chastise others for doing the exact same for Trump.I stated that the event in question has already been investigated and debunked. Again, you fail to process my arguments. If you're going to be this dense, you're just embarrassing yourself.
It's pretty clear to most that the reasons the prosecutor was removed, for not investigating corruption, do not jive with the reasons to investigate action Biden took. If Biden was acting to protect Burisma, he would have worked to keep that prosecutor in place.Wilderness: You can't make this stuff up. These examples are indicative of Trump's Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The psychological DMS-5 diagnostic criteria Manual are accompanied by explanatory notes that seem relevant here: “Vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with narcissistic personality disorder very sensitive to ‘injury’ from criticism or defeat.” And “criticism may haunt these individuals and may leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow and empty. They may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack.” The manual warns, moreover, that “interpersonal relations are typically impaired because of problems derived from entitlement, the need for admiration, and the relative disregard for the sensitivities of others.” And, the DSM-5 adds, “though overweening ambition and confidence may lead to high achievement, performance may be disrupted because of intolerance of criticism or defeat.”
The psychological DMS-5 diagnostic criteria offer a useful framework for understanding the most remarkable features of Donald Trump’s personality, and of his presidency.
(1) Exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements?
(2) Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance?
(3) Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and should only associate with other special or high-status people? That’s Trump, to a T. As Trump himself might put it, he exaggerates accomplishments better than anyone. In July, he described himself in a tweet as “so great looking and smart, a true Stable Genius!” (Exclamation point his, of course.) That “stable genius” self-description is one that Trump has repeated over and over again—even though he has trouble with spelling, doesn’t know the difference between a hyphen and an apostrophe, doesn’t appear to understand fractions, needs basic geography lessons, speaks at the level of a fourth grader, and engages in “serial misuse of public language” and “cannot write sentences,” and even though members of his own administration have variously considered him to be a “moron,” an “idiot,” a “dope,” “dumb as shit,” and a person with the intelligence of a “kindergartener” or a “fifth or sixth grader” or an “11-year-old child.”
Trump wants everyone to know: He’s “the super genius of all time,” one of “the smartest people anywhere in the world.” Not only that, but he considers himself a hero of sorts. He avoided military service, yet claims he would have run, unarmed, into a school during a mass shooting. Speaking to a group of emergency medical workers who had lost friends and colleagues on 9/11, he claimed, falsely, to have “spent a lot of time down there with you,” while generously allowing that “I’m not considering myself a first responder.” He has spoken, perhaps jokingly, perhaps not, about awarding himself the Medal of Honor.
Trump claims to be an expert—the world’s greatest—in anything and everything. As one video mash-up shows, Trump has at various times claimed—in all seriousness—that no one knows more than he does about: taxes, income, construction, campaign finance, drones, technology, infrastructure, work visas, the Islamic State, “things” generally, environmental-impact statements, Facebook, renewable energy, polls, courts, steelworkers, golf, banks, trade, nuclear weapons, tax law, lawsuits, currency devaluation, money, “the system,” debt, and politicians. Trump described his admission as a transfer student into Wharton’s undergraduate program as “super genius stuff,” even though he didn’t strike the admissions officer who approved his candidacy as a “genius,” let alone a “super genius”; Trump claimed to have “heard I was first in my class” at Wharton, despite the fact that his name didn’t appear on the dean’s list there, or in the commencement program’s list of graduates receiving honors. And Trump, through an invented spokesman, even lied his way onto the Forbes 400.
(4) Requires excessive admiration? Last Thanksgiving, Trump was asked what he was most thankful for. His answer: himself, of course. A number of years ago, he made a video for Forbes in which he interviewed two of his children. The interview topic: how great they thought Donald Trump was. When his own father died, in 1999, Trump gave one of the eulogies. As Alan Marcus, a former Trump adviser, recounted the story to Timothy O’Brien, he began “more or less like this: ‘I was in my Trump Tower apartment reading about how I was having the greatest year in my career in The New York Times when the security desk called to say my brother Robert was coming upstairs’”—an introductory line that provoked “‘an audible gasp’ from mourners stunned by Trump’s self-regard.” According to a Rolling Stone article, other eulogists spoke about the deceased, but Trump “used the time to talk about his own accomplishments and to make it clear that, in his mind, his father’s best achievement was producing him, Donald.” The author of a book about the Trump family described the funeral as one that “wasn’t about Fred Trump,” but rather “was an opportunity to do some brand burnishing by Donald, for Donald. Throughout his remarks, the first-person singular pronouns—I and me and mine—far outnumbered he and his. Even at his own father’s funeral, Donald Trump couldn’t cede the limelight.”
And he still can’t. Here’s a man who holds rallies with no elections in sight, so that he can bask in his supporters’ cheers; even when elections are near, and he’s supposed to be helping other candidates, he consistently keeps the focus on himself. He loves to watch replays of himself at the rallies, and “luxuriates in the moments he believes are evidence of his brilliance.” In July, after his controversial, publicly funded, campaign-style Independence Day celebration, Trump tweeted, “Our Country is the envy of the World. Thank you, Mr. President!” In February 2017, Trump was given a private tour of the newly opened National Museum of African American History and Culture, and paused in front of an exhibit on the Dutch role in the slave trade. He turned to the museum’s director and said, “You know, they love me in the Netherlands.”
Read more: Trump never stopped campaigning long enough to govern
(5) A sense of entitlement? (9) Arrogant, haughty behaviors? Trump is the man who, on the infamous Access Hollywood tape, said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything you want”—including grabbing women by their genitals. He’s the man who also once said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” (8) Envious of others? Here’s a man so unable to stand the praise received by a respected war hero and statesman, Senator John McCain, that he has continued to attack McCain months after McCain’s death; his jealousy led White House staff to direct the Pentagon to keep a destroyer called the USS John S. McCain out of Trump’s line of sight during a presidential visit to an American naval base in Japan. And Trump, despite being president, still seems envious of President Barack Obama.
(6) Interpersonally exploitative? Just watch the Access Hollywood tape, or ask any of the hundreds of contractors and employees Trump the businessman allegedly stiffed, or speak with any of the two dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, sexual assault, or rape. (Trump has denied all their claims.)
Finally, (7) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others? One of the most striking aspects of Trump’s personality is his utter and complete lack of empathy. By empathy, psychologists and psychiatrists mean the ability to understand or relate to what someone else is experiencing—the capacity to envision someone else’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts.
The notorious lawyer and fixer Roy Cohn, who once counseled Trump, said that “Donald pisses ice water,” and indeed, examples of Trump’s utter lack of normal human empathy abound. Trump himself has told the story of a charity ball—an “incredible ball”—he once held at Mar-a-Lago for the Red Cross. “So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died … His wife is screaming—she’s sitting right next to him, and she’s screaming.” By his own account, Trump’s concern wasn’t the poor man’s well-being or his wife’s. It was the bloody mess on his expensive floor. “You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red … I said, ‘Oh, my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away. I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away.” Trump describes himself as saying, after the injured man was hauled away on a makeshift stretcher, “‘Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!’ The next day, I forgot to call [the man] to say is he okay … It’s just not my thing.”
And then there was 9/11. Trump gave an extraordinary call-in interview to a metropolitan–New York television station just hours after the Twin Towers collapsed. He was asked whether one of his downtown buildings, 40 Wall Street, had suffered any damage. Trump’s immediate response was to brag about the building’s brand-new ranking among New York skyscrapers: “40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest—and then when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it’s the tallest.” (This wasn’t even true—a building a block away from Trump’s, 70 Pine Street, was a little taller.)
That human empathy isn’t Trump’s thing has been demonstrated time and again during his presidency as well. In October 2017, he reportedly told the widow of a serviceman killed in action “something to the effect that ‘he knew what he was getting into when he signed up, but I guess it hurts anyway.’” (Trump later claimed that this account was “fabricated … Sad!” and that “I have proof,” but of course he never produced any.) On a less macabre note, on Christmas Eve last year, Trump took calls on NORAD’s Santa Tracker phone line, which children call to find out where Santa Claus is as he makes his rounds. Trump asked a 7-year-old girl from South Carolina: “Are you still a believer in Santa? Because at 7, it’s marginal, right?”
According to Woodward’s Fear, when Trump’s first chief of staff, Reince Priebus, resigned, he found out about his replacement when he saw a tweet from Trump saying that he had appointed John Kelly as the new chief of staff—moments after Priebus and Trump had spoken about waiting to announce the news. Kelly was appalled, and that night apologetically told Priebus, “I’d never do this to you. I’d never been offered this job until the tweet came out. I would have told you.” His predecessor, though, wasn’t surprised. “It made no sense, Priebus realized, unless you understood … ‘The president has zero psychological ability to recognize empathy or pity in any way.’”
Priebus apparently isn’t the only White House staffer to have learned this; in February 2018, when Trump met with survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting and their loved ones, his communications aide actually gave him a note card that made clear that “the president needed to be reminded to show compassion and understanding to traumatized survivors,” as The New York Times put it. The empathy cheat sheet contained a reminder to say such things as “I hear you.” One aide to President Obama told the Times that had she and her colleagues given their boss such a reminder card, “he would have looked at us like we were crazy people.”
Most recently, in July of this year, in a stunning scene captured on video, Trump met in the Oval Office with the human-rights activist Nadia Murad, a Yazidi Iraqi who had been captured, raped, and tortured by the Islamic State, and had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 for speaking out about the plight of the Yazidis and other victims of genocide and religious persecution. Her voice breaking, she implored the president of the United States to help her people return safely to Iraq. Trump could barely look her in the eye. She told him that ISIS had murdered her mother and six brothers. Trump, apparently not paying much attention, asked, “Where are they now?” “They killed them,” she said once again. “They are in the mass grave in Sinjar, and I’m still fighting just to live in safety.” Trump, who has publicly said that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, seemed interested in the conversation only at the end, when he asked Murad about why she won the prize.
Another equally unforgettable video documents Trump visiting Puerto Rico shortly after Hurricane Maria, tossing rolls of paper towels into a crowd of victims. He later responded vindictively to charges that his administration hadn’t done enough to help the island, prompting the mayor of San Juan to observe that Trump had “augmented” Puerto Rico’s “devastating human crisis … because he made it about himself, not about saving our lives,” and because “when expected to show empathy he showed disdain and lack of respect.”
In October 2018, a gunman burst into Shabbat morning services at a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh and sprayed worshippers with semiautomatic-rifle and pistol fire. Eleven people died. Three days later, the president and first lady visited the community, and the day after that, the first thing Trump tweeted about the visit was this: “Melania and I were treated very nicely yesterday in Pittsburgh. The Office of the President was shown great respect on a very sad & solemn day. We were treated so warmly. Small protest was not seen by us, staged far away. The Fake News stories were just the opposite—Disgraceful!” Similarly, after gunmen killed dozens in the span of a single August weekend in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, Trump went on a one-day sympathy tour that was marked by attacks on his hosts and on political enemies, and an obsessive focus on himself."The man is a certified mega-narcissist"
Do you really not understand the difference between a qualified expert providing a certification of a health condition and your own opinion ? Can you really believe that your terrible sounding, but completely imaginary, diagnosis is a real thing?
Or do you just not want to acknowledge that you crossed the line between fact and opinion again, once more presenting your opinion as factual and truthful?
Eso, I'm not discussing whether Trump is a narcissist or not, and not even whether he has the dreaded condition of "mega-narcissism". I'm speaking of your willingness to make up a disease and then declare that someone, anyone, most definitely has it. This kind of "debate" is useful only in raising emotions and scaring people, not in coming to well reasoned conclusions. It doesn't matter whether that conclusion is that Trump is insane or that elephants have a long trunk: the reasoning process is flawed, and deeply so.
That it is flawed does not deny the possibility that your conclusion is true (outside of the made up disease), but neither does it confirm it.Wilderness:
Here is the "made up disease" as presented by Psychology Today with credible references.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/cond … y-disorder
Why do you think that is, Wilderness? Could it be he has been breaking the law since before he was elected? I thought you conservatives wanted law and order, guess not.
BTW - he was not wiretapped - but then you believe a proven liar, Trump, over America's entire intel community like most Trump conservatives do.anyone running for president should expect to be under scrutiny in ALL aspects of their background. Trump's issues were more problematic than his predecessors.
Heaven knows the GOP scrutinized Obama, I.e. Was he American citizen, is he a Muslim, how about his transcripts?
Even though you may say he was not proven guilty of anything,there were far too many instances that could be categorized as a appearance of wrong doing in his background.
The man is even today blaming government agencies, technically under his control, for plotting against him in what conservatives like to call "the deep state" AKA BS.......
Why do conservatives go thru so much trouble to defend Trump's every move? Is it only because he is "conservative"?Same-O, same-O. I ask why it is OK for the Democratic party to investigate possible illegal activities of it's leading opponent but not OK for Republicans to do the same and get a reply concerning possible illegal activities without ever addressing the question asked. And then an insinuation that asking about hypocrisy indicates a defense of one party over the other.
The closest you came to answering/discussing the question was your first paragraph: "anyone running for president should expect to be under scrutiny in ALL aspects of their background. Trump's issues were more problematic than his predecessors.". This seems to indicate that investigation of Bidens apparent criminal activity can be expected to be investigated...and then immediately an excuse for not doing so with an opinion that Trumps activity was much worse without ever having investigating Biden's or knowing the facts of either one.. How does that work?I have no issue with arguing for Trump's removal.
I have no issue with people trying to point out all they feel is criminal or wrong.
But please, don't spend your time typing up pages against Trump, and then turn around and say you are willing to support Clinton or Biden.
Don't call Trump a criminal, and then point to a criminal and tell me they are really a saint.
If you want change, if you want someone who will try and bring change, who will fight for the American people... I'm fine with that... give me the option of voting for a Warren or a Gabbard and I'll seriously consider throwing my support behind it.
The days of the typical D.C. corrupt insider getting elected I hope are over, Trump was stage one of that change... and if he needs to get 4 more years I'll support that, if the alternative is putting Biden in there and going back to the criminal corruption and selling out of America that has been the norm for the last quarter century.Who is saying Clinton and Biden are saints??? It seems it is only you trying to create a strawman. What we ARE saying is that Clinton and Biden AREN'T criminals.
It is OK, Ken, investigate Biden to the extent that you wish, but now Trump is President and in the "catbird" seat. In concert with his obligations to the Constitution to comply with the law, the focus is going to be on his behavior and not Biden's, since Biden is not in office.
In my opinion, I have issues with all of them, Clinton, Biden and Trump. It is just for me, that Trump is the worse among them as a bigger criminal that the other 2 combined.
Yes, I want change, substantial change, that is why I stand with Liz Warren 100%. You can bet that the fat cats and money changers will do their damnest to derail the Warren candidacy, which just makes more determined to offer her my support.
I could never support a scoundrel like Trump even if Satan himself is his opponent. That is the difference between you and I.Jack and Ken: There is a difference between the national debt and the budget deficit. Each new president assumes the national debt of the previous president. That is their starting point.
The budget deficit is based on how much was spent the previous fiscal year that has to be paid for or the government is shutdown. Plus how much more is needed for new expenses including the interest on what is already accrued as debt. All of that gets added to the national debt.
Right now, Trump's National Debt is around 23 trillion and counting. The federal tax revenue is around 3 trillion while the spending is around 4.5 trillion. That leaves a current budget deficit of about 1,5 trillion. Here is the link to the national debt clock. Have fun:
https://www.usdebtclock.org/I have no problem with that explanation. I could not said it better my self.
So, how did President Obama did in this? Did he not double the debt in 8 years? From 10 trillion to 20 trillion.Yes, after Bush double his.
Why does it not matter to you what the reason for the increase is??? All you seem to be worried about is the fact that it increased. What am I missing from your reasoning?Jack: You need to read this.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones … 9e85111917Let's stop calling it Quid Pro Quo. What Trump did is called bribery. He tried to bribe the President of Ukraine by holding back funding for the Javelin Missile system until he agreed to find dirt on the Biden's for the purpose of his own political advantage.
Trump even asked him to make a public announcement to the world. Further, he had Guilani and his henchmen running a parallel shadow government that was trying to usurp the authority of the ambassadors and diplomats assigned to the Ukraine.
Trump went so far as to get advice from Sean Hannity who has no official government office, but who was an ex bartender. Trump even had some of those people removed from office as a result of Guilianni's and Hannity's advice.Does this apply to Barack Obama as well...he try to influence a foreign election in Israel...
He use the IRS to go after Conservative groups.
He lied to the American people to get his ACA passed.
He violated our Constitution in his executive order to enact the Dreamer Act.
He had numerous scandals under his watch including Fast and Furious...
Benghazi tragedy and cover up...
The most serious and still unfolding is the spying on American citizens in the name of DJTrump, who was running for President from an opposing party...
Now that's a cute one. They could have done better photoshopping the heads, but it's still cute.
GA
What more proof do you need than -
"Laura Cooper, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, told lawmakers behind closed doors last month that she met with Volker in August to discuss the hold on aid. She said Volker told her in their meeting that he was attempting to lift the hold on the aid by having the Ukrainians deliver a public statement that they would launch the investigations being sought by President Donald Trump."
And the key take-away (as I point out in my book) is "President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents "
Worse yet, debt under Trump is raising at a 4.7% clip, and the huge deficits are just now starting to kick in. Give him a chance and Trump will do worse then Reagan.My esoteric....
Your selective memory is astounding.
The difference is, I will not support a criminal that uses their political position to make themselves (and their kids) hundreds of millions of dollars by selling out America, and its citizens.
This is what D.C. has become filled with, and I don't really care how many bodies Trump has buried in his backyard so long as he continues to expose the corruption, fire the likes of Comey, and undo the trade agreements and regulations that crippled businesses and job growth in America.
Don't have a problem with Trump being replaced, but not by the criminal traitors to the American people, like Biden, give me someone who will carry on the job of dismantling the D.C. corruption, and who will fight for working Americans."give me someone who will carry on the job of dismantling the D.C. corruption, and who will fight for working Americans."
Ken, Do you REALLY believe that Trump is doing THAT?Indeed, I just go by what has actually occurred.
Brennan outed as head of the CIA
Comey fired as head of the FBI
Strzok fired, 46 holdover DOJ United States attorneys ordered to tender their resignations, DOJ, AG, etc being cleaned out, top to bottom.
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe dropped a bombshell revelation in his book: the DOJ talked about recruiting Mike Pence to remove Trump from the presidency.
The Department of Justice reportedly held meetings discussing the possibility of having Mike Pence replace Trump as the president, justifying the de facto coup by invoking the 25th Amendment.
The discussions reportedly occurred following James Comey’s unceremonious ousting as director of the FBI. Rod Rosenstein, then current Deputy Attorney General, was a part of those discussions. It was reported that Rosenstein actually suggested removing Trump via the 25th Amendment.
I'm sorry, but that revelation tells me all I need to know. These 30+ year Congressmen, and these 30+ year career agents and administrators running around in the Halls of D.C. think they are untouchable, think they are running the country and have to answer to no-one... they are a click that protects their own... they are a group of corrupted public servants that think the country is theirs to run how they see fit... they consider the 'average' American an imbecile unworthy of their attention.
Until those Halls are cleaned out, Congress as well Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, Biden, and even the likes MCConnell need to be cleaned out... 30+ years in D.C. is too damned long, these people go there broke, and leave worth 100s of millions.
Trump is doing a great job ruining their 'syndicate of corruption' and exposing it to who-ever wants to see it. Like he exposed Biden and his son milking the Chinese and Ukraine for hundreds of millions.
The country will be better off for it, it might even get some new faces in D.C. (or at least ones who haven't sold out) running the show for a while, that work for the American people rather than selling them out.Well said...agree 100%.
Our democracy is at stake, and Trump is probably the only man strong enough to handle it.Jack: It's not our democracy that is at stake. It's our republic that is at stake. Trump acts as if he is king and the constitution just gets in his way. He is doing what the framers were afraid of. He has no regard for the separation of powers or the three coequal branches of government.
He wants to run the whole show by himself, just like a king would. He has no regard for freedom of speech. He wants to prosecute the whistle blower. He doesn't care that it is in violation of the 1st amendment. He defies the right for subpoenas by telling his staff to not appear, including himself. He doesn't care that he is obstructing justice.
He and Guilianni and his henchmen were running a parallel shadow government with people who had no official government office, including Guilianni. It's the republic that is at stake, maybe as well as the democracy of the country.
"The difference is, I will not support a criminal that uses their political position to make themselves (and their kids) hundreds of millions of dollars by selling out America, and its citizens." - So you agree that Trump and his kids are criminals?
"Don't have a problem with Trump being replaced, but not by the criminal traitors to the American people, like Biden" - AND WHAT evidence do you have that Biden is a traitor like Trump is??
Do you see Biden putting Russia's interests above that of America like Trump does frequently?
You need something else to prove that illegally using the power of his office, via a quid pro quo, to have a foreign country open up an investigation of his chief political rival in the 2020 election would be of benefit to Trump? Even if he had another motive, Trump's action to solicit a foreign government to provide a public smear of Biden would clearly be of benefit to Trump in the upcoming election.
If you were to witness a person robbing a bank, does motive really matter to the crime committed?You had me agreeing with you, right up to your closing sentence,
Yes, I agree "you need something else" and that was my original point. By my thinking, that something else, in this case, would be the beneficiary of the arrangement.
GA
"That statement illustrates my point. I don't think all of those folks you listed have agreed that Pres. Trump did "it" to help his 2020 election. " - BUT GA, why does almost everyone say so?
Which witnesses said Trump was doing it for non-political motives? I don't recall even one. A couple said they didn't know, another said he didn't see anything wrong with it, but none contradicted the basic theme. Except for Morrison, every one saw what Trump tried to do as wrong.
People on juries draw conclusions from the circumstantial evidence provided all of the time. What they look at are actions (not appearances).
Consider:
Action - Trump did ask Zelenskyy to investigate the Biden's - that is established fact, not an appearance.
Action - Trump did withhold aid - that is a fact and not an apperance
Action - Trump withheld aid to get Zelenskyy to investigate Biden - that is also a well established fact now and not an appearance.
He didn't just "appear" to do those things, he did them. And every expert who has testified found those actions a problem.
Williams - "she found the conversation to be unusual because it was political in nature"
Hill - "Bolton told her to convey to the lawyer that he was “not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” - IF IT were legal, why phrase it that way?
Vindman - "“I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play ..."
And that is just three of them. Plus, there is no contradictory evidence saying otherwise - it only goes in one direction.
If I were on a jury and asked the question "was Trump doing this for personal gain" just based on those three witnesses alone, I would say yes.
Of course there is the theory that Graham is pushing - everybody but Trump, the serial liar, is lying.And if I were a jury member I would also reach the conclusions you have.
You appear to have taken my comments to be a defense of Pre. Trump. If so, you would be wrong. By the appearance of things, I think it is exactly as the Democrats are proclaiming, Pres. Trump used the power of his office for personal political gain,.
My point is that this is only what I think. I don't see proof that what I think is right. I do see ample room for a Trump defense that this was a legitimate effort to root out corruption.
As far fetched as you think it might be, what if the Trump accusations bear fruit, what if there was Ukraine election interference in the 2016 elections, would that alter your perceptions? What if the Chalupa(sp?), (that investigative operative that signed onto the Clinton election effort, and the Ukraine ministry officials that she quoted as helping her), was in fact just as they are being described - an effort to defeat a presidential candidate. Would that alter your perception?
What if we went a step further. What if it could be determined that with the help of Ukranian Ministry officials, ( I think there were two specific ministry officials mentioned), the anti-Trump effort was on par with the perceived Russian pro-Trump efforts, would that affect your perception of Pres. Trump's efforts?
GA"I do see ample room for a Trump defense that this was a legitimate effort to root out corruption." - what evidence have you seen to suggest this?
"As far fetched as you think it might be, what if the Trump accusations bear fruit, what if there was Ukraine election interference in the 2016 elections," - To do so, I would have to suspend my belief that our entire intelligence community and Mueller were right and that all of the factual evidence they produce is false. I don't think I can ever develop that much skepticism
As to the Mexican taco, it would take many more such examples to corroborate it before I would begin to consider it. BUT, would effect my perception of what Trump did? Of course not. Why, because those reports were known back in 2017 (and apparently investigated) Trump waited (even if he knew about them since he hasn't mentioned them) until 2019 as he was ramping up his run for the 2020 election.
Trump was supporting the swamp with donations while doing business in NYC, now he realized he need to get rid of the swamp so he can help the American people. That is why he id demonized by the swamp...
Trump was and is the swamp. He hires swamp creatures to work all around him - how many is it now that have left office in disgrace or being investigated for a crime?
Both EPA administrators.
Zinke
Sessions
Tillerson
Mattis (although not in disgrace but because Trump was disgraceful)
A bunch if Homeland Security Directors
A couple of chief of staffs (again with Kelly leaving with his head held high and his fingers pinching his nose)
A couple of national security advisors
And there are many more.
What president does that Jack - it is shameful.A patriot who is looking out for the little guy. These bureaucrats are part of the problem, not the solution. There is a reason they are called the swamp.
Trump is clearly no patriot - at least not to America any; maybe Russia.
As to the little guy, he has spent his whole life screwing the little guy.
Both ideas are conservative talking points which are myths but I hear time and time again from your side.
Just a sampling about your con-man hero:
"Despite his fiery rally rhetoric and over-the-top working-class bluster, Trump's hypocrisy on this score has always been gobsmackingly obvious,"
https://theweek.com/articles/783976/bri … e-swindles
I doubt you will read it though because knowing the truth will hurt too much.Trump is a product of the Democratic controlled NYC political system. Pay to play...and did well for 30 years. Now, he has used his experience to undermine the political system. Turn it up side down. He is the prodigal son returning to the fold. He is a patriot. He could have spend his days playing golf and play with his grandkids. Instead, he is fighting the good fight and people like you who actually benefit from his policy yet want to impeach him for what? He has not done anything wrong except winning the election of 2016. Something you guys cannot except.
Jack: I hate to tell you this, but you are living in a fictitious world about Trump and Obama. What you say about Obama is based on the hardcore conservative party line and what you say about Trump is also based on the hardcore conservative party line.
Neither one of the them is based in reality. I get the feeling, you like the word (Conservative) and hate the word (Liberal) because somehow conservatism brings out what you think are the ideals in your world, while liberalism appears almost if not truly evil in your world.
I also get the feeling that if Trump ran as a liberal, you wouldn't like him, the same way you don't like Obama. I think you need to do some soul searching. Trump is not who you think he is or who you want him to be.
How is he a patriot when he got out of going to Vietnam because of bone spurs, but he golfs every chance he gets? How have we benefited from his polices when he is costing us 32 billion for his tariffs with China? How are we benefiting from his very high turnover of his administration and cabinet members?
I like to wake up in the morning with some degree of certainty. With Trump there is no certainty from one moment to the next. He changes his mind in mid-sentence. What good fight is he fighting? Iran has fired up their nuclear centrifuges. ISIS has been released and we lost our foothold in Syria to Putin and Turkey. It's not that he hasn't done anything wrong. He hasn't done anything right.To emphasize -
- Iran has fired up their nuclear centrifuges - BECAUSE OF TRUMP
- ISIS members have been released - BECAUSE OF TRUMP
- We lost our foothold in Syria to Putin and Turkey - BECAUSE OF TRUMP
None of those things are good; nor are they neutral; they are very BAD.
It's not that he hasn't done anything wrong. He hasn't done anything right.
Trump is a product of his crooked, racist father - nothing more, nothing less. You keep trying make the Ds out as crooks when it is mostly the Rs that are being convicted.
The man is a certified mega-narcissist, that is why he ran for president. He simply doesn't give a damn about anybody but himself.
I think I know why you are such a blind loyalist; you are afraid that Trump will turn on you as well if he finds out you criticized him just once like he TURNS ON everybody else."The man is a certified mega-narcissist"
May we have a link to the (signed) report that did the certifying, please? Or are you just spouting more liberal garbage without regard to truth? Have to admit, though, this one is right at the top of the list!You are more blind that I thought. I know you won't, because you can't stand the truth, but read The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump by Dr. Bandy Lee and 27 other psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental healthcare PROFESSIONALS.
There is no doubt in any intelligent persons mind that Trump is off his rocker and is very dangerous.I assume there is no link because there is no certification of being a "mega-narcissist" (is that even a medical diagnosis, or just a liberal one?). Then the question is "why did you say it if you can't back it up"?
It is a BOOK, Wilderness, you need to buy it and then read it Try https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-D … 1250179459
How quickly we forget and attempt a diversion. Refresh your memory:
"The man is a certified mega-narcissist"
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/345 … ost4104427
You have yet to provide anything at all, including a book, leading to a certified diagnosis of "mega-narcissist". You haven't even verified the terminology is something used in the health industry (google provides nothing when searching for the term).
So I repeat: was the claim just more garbage without truth - just a completely spun lie without connection to reality? If not, where is that link to a copy of the doctor's report that certifies a medical diagnosis of mega-narcissism?
Or are you taking the word of quacks ignoring their hippocratic oath in favor of political mud and expecting everyone else to do the same?
Jack, is this the way a president is supposed to act??
From the testimony of career diplomatic officials.
"At others, they describe futile efforts -- including by watching Fox News -- to learn what Trump's associates were doing in the countries where they were posted, and after-the-fact realizations that they were being undercut by their own employer. (The President)
"With the advantage of hindsight, you're going to think that I'm incredibly naive, but I couldn't imagine all of the things that have happened over the last five or seven months," the onetime US ambassador in Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, said during her interview. "I just couldn't imagine it." (In terms of Trumps mismanagement of foreign affairs [I had to work for a boss in the Air Force who wasn't that bad but I remember myself and other managers going behind him picking up the pieces he broke])
There ARE federal statutes against what Joe Biden did. This is just one of them. Knowing the law does put things in better perspective. Pay close attention to Section 2(A).
U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A)
being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)
being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)
being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201"There ARE federal statutes against what DONALD TRUMP did; not Joe Biden." - why do you insist on misdirecting the reader to something that is not true - oh yeah, because you are a blind Trump sycophant.
"you are a blind Trump sycophant"
That's pretty pathetic. Is that all you got? It's obvious people are not able to have an objective discussion on a political issue with someone who is so lacking.
What did Biden personally receive? (I don't think he received any personal benefit)
What did Poroshenko personally receive? (I don't know that he received any personal benefit)
Do you think it is illegal or unethical to attach strings to foreign aid? (I think it is acceptable and ethical to demand something from countries we give aid to - like an increased crackdown on gang violence in Honduras)
GAWhy do I get the impression that you are desperate to get Trump off the hook?
There has been a preponderance of evidence from credible sources that say there has been quid pro quo. The President is the only one who says otherwise. What would constitute enough evidence to proceed?
No, it is not illegal for the President to attached strings to foreign aid as as the Executive it is part of his job. The problems lies in the surreptitious nature of the withholding of congressionally appropriated funds for reasons other than bonifide national security interests. It has to be MORE than a coincidence that the red flag being raised over the Ukraine is all over Trump's political rival in the upcoming election. And, I don't believe in coincidences.
I have problems with foreign aid, as a byline to imperialism and interference in the affairs of others.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
He also threatened to withhold money from the Ukraine until they fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.O: That's BS. Here are the facts:
Hunter Biden was a director of the company, and Joe Biden did leverage U.S. aid to fire a prosecutor. But it overreaches by assuming that Joe Biden acted to protect the company his son was affiliated with. In reality, there was widespread agreement in the West that the existing prosecutor had to go, and it’s not clear that the company would have benefited from his ouster anyway, given evidence that its cases had long been dormant.'O' cares nothing about facts or truth. That is as obvious as #TraitorTrumps guilt in:
- Obstructing Congress
- Obstruction of Justice
- Abuse of Power
- And, in my opinion, Treason!So says Biden, But it you exercised a little cognitive self dissidence and opened your eyes to the facts you will see that the "stronger, more solid" prosecutor knew not to bite the hand that feeds him and dropped the whole thing.
But that's not the only time daddy has taken advantage of his VP powers to fill his family's pockets.
And AGAIN 'O' LIES. They are NOT investigating Hunter NOR were they investigating the company he legally worked for.
This is a #TraitorTrump and his surrogate 'O's lies.
Don W: Thank you for the chart about Trump's nominees for judgeships. The damage he is doing to the pillars in our society will take a generation to repair What he did with Ukraine is bad. What he's done to our nation is horrible.
Time and time again Trump supporters prove how blind they are to the obvious. There really is no point in conversing with them, they are gone.
Really, Valeant? How about you, as someone that is NOT a Trump hater? Do you find it reasonable to make up a disease, then claim that Trump has been "certified" with that disease when he has not? Do you find that to be a reasonable avenue towards truth and fact?
Or was the statement just spin and exaggeration, without a hint of truth in it?See above, Dan. You're too far gone to debate with. I definitely think anyone with a modest level of education can recognize plenty of symptoms of behavior in Trump's words and actions. It's not rocket science in this case.
And just like Esoteric, you refuse to even mention the topic, deferring instead to the evils of Trump and the stupidity of anyone that is not on that hate filled bandwagon.
One day, when you decide that a discussion of proper reasoning, of logic methodology and of striving for truth rather than opinion, come back. When you've decided that vilifying Donald Trump should take second seat to honesty and truth, when your goal in these forums is not to insult anyone not hating on Trump, come back.
For I decided some time ago that discussions of Trump are fruitless. Discussions, on the other hand, of the reasoning path taken to either glorify or vilify him (or anyone/anything else) might be not only interesting but valuable, for I don't see much actual reasoning going on any more. Just opinions, issued without any backup reasoning to accompany them.Did you really just try and put Donald Trump and his supporters on the side of 'honesty and truth?' That is some good stuff right there.
Pardon me if I won't put much stock in a lecture on proper reasoning from the king of denial about all the evidence of his criminality? It's not stupidity, it's a choice you've made to live in the alternate reality of conspiracy theory that had been created for you. You and people like Onusonus come on here to defend those conspiracy theories, such as the debunked Biden-Ukraine connection as truths, with no base in fact.
I do not see much logical methodology is being convinced that hard-working members of our government are all partisan hacks and that a man with a history of fraud and dishonesty is the all-knowing messiah.
And your constant claim that anyone not on your side has the motive of hate is ridiculous. It's not hate, it's patriotism. Some of us still believe in the Constitution and free and fair elections.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump … 24446.htmlWhat has Congress done for the American people in solving problems?
They tax and spend and yet the same problems just get worse.
The definition of insanity - repeating the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome.Your point about fiscal responsibility has merit. But tax and spend is a bit better than not taxing and spending.
We do need to reign in the deficit spending though. That's a point of agreement. Where we reign that in will be a point of disagreement, for sure.That is a false representation of National debr.
You have a funny way of doing math.
The only thing that matters is total debt.
When Bush left office the total debt was $10 trillion. When Obama left office it stood at $20 trillion. That means, Obama in his 8 years has racked up more debt than all previous presidents combined.The math is fine. I understand that Obama and Congress felt they needed to spend in his first term because of the crashing economy left by bad policies of both Clinton and Bush.
What I noted was that with Democratic presidents, for the most part, the deficit decreases. I will also concede that the GOP Congress also played a part in bringing the deficit down in Obama's second term by watching spending levels.
And your math is a little off as you're counting the debt from his time in office, as opposed to the debt his budgets actually accrued. Still not great, but if you note his second term with a healthy economy, that's a more accurate judgment for his fiscal responsibility.
Another four years of Trump will mean the largest Debt EVER, and he won't have saving America from a depression as a reason for his.
Funny, how the Right criticized Obama for rising deficits, while Trump increases them and hardly a whisper? Your point is noted, all of this in a favorable economic climate?
Fiscal responsibility is no longer the real reason the GOP support Trump.It is amazing how many core values conservatives have had to give up to supplicate themselves to Trump.
* Free Trade
* Reducing the Debt
* Balancing the Budget
* Family Values
* Law and Order
* and many othersWrong, I am always pointing out the deficit spending. To be fair, it was not Trump but the Congress, half controlled by the Democrats that kept the spending up. Trump wanted to cut spending but had to work with congress or else shut down the government...
The problem with the current trade policy with China is that it was not free. They had the advantage over us. Trump is trying to fix that with tariffs.
The only people violating our laws seems to be Democrats right now. They mis used the FISA courts to spy on Americans...
The IG report will be due out soon. We will see who broke our laws?It was Trump and the D's had no say with that GOPTaxScam; please tell the truth.
No, Trump did not want to cut spending, he wanted to cut taxes for the rich and corporations - and that is what he and GOP did.
Trump does not want ANY multi-lateral trade policy, that is why he has cancelled or pulled up of them all.
Tariffs fix nothing, if you study your history, they only destroy economies; they always have and they always will. They only hurt the country that impose them A LOT, and hurt the country they are imposed against A LITTLE
Exactly what laws are the Democrats violating. I'll give you a hint - None
If the FISA court was misused, which I seriously doubt, it was the Republicans who did it since they are who sent the requests to the FISA courts - not the Democrats as you falsely accuse.
I bet Trump's personal attorney Bill Barr is holding the IG report up because he doesn't like the answer."...he wanted to cut taxes for the rich and corporations - and that is what he and GOP did."
While that may be true, would it not be a little more honest to give the whole story? That he and the GOP cut taxes for virtually everyone in the country (except, of course, those that already pay none)?No, it would not be a little more honest in a real sense. While most people saw a few dollars cut in taxes, many did not, they saw an increase - it was just that, a pittance just so people like you can "claim" they got a tax cut. In a real world sense, they did not receive the large tax cut that Trump and the GOP pulled the wool over their eyes about.
BTW, there are very few people that pay no taxes at all. All people who work pay taxes but of course for your scenario to work, payroll taxes are just pretend taxes - as is sales tax, property tax, excise tax and host of others most people pay.
That is a false representation of National debt. and deficit spending.
You have a funny way of doing math.
The only thing that matters is total debt.
When Bush left office the total debt was $10 trillion. When Obama left office it stood at $20 trillion. That means, Obama in his 8 years has racked up more debt than all previous presidents combined.That is a false representation of National debr.
You have a funny way of doing math.
The only thing that matters is total debt.
When Bush left office the total debt was $10 trillion. When Obama left office it stood at $20 trillion. That means, Obama in his 8 years has racked up more debt than all previous presidents combined.
Let’s take a pause and celebrate Veteran’s Day along with Trump in NYC.
It is a day of remembrance 11/11. God bless our troops and vets. They are the true heros of our time.
According to you, I bet he shot Kennedy, fabricated Obama's US birth certificate and ran Clinton's home server.
Huge conflict of interest, but that little detail is no never mind to a die hard liberal.
O: Great conspiracy theory and distraction, but if it is true, congratulations, you and your fellow conspirators have just violated the first amendment that gives protection to whistle blowers.
A liar of liars is implicating Trump on Ukraine.
Being judged by a biased House of Congress with an agenda to oust the President before more of their criminal activities and corruption gets exposed.
Before more of the Globalization efforts can be sidelined, and before he can assign more Conservative Judges.
This is all a political show, a farce, to get Trump out. Its politics... all forms of falsifications are acceptable, all forms of criminal acts allowable, so long as it removes Trump.
This is how some 20% of Americans feel, the majority of those in D.C. included. They will do mental gymnastics to convince themselves and others they are doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Some of these threads and comments are prime examples of this.
Its a sign that for some people politics has attained a cult status, it is their religion whether they realize it or not, and like with all religions, the fanatics, the extremists will believe and do almost anything for their faith.Agree 100%
We don’t have a democracy anymore.
We have a permanent class of bureaucrats who will do the bidding of the rich and powerful at the expense of the voting public.
We need to drain the swamp from top down from both parties.So you guys have now stooped to calling:
Bill Taylor, a decorated war hero, a liar
Lt Col Vindman, a respected military office a liar
Fiona Hill, a dedicated civil servant respected by all, a liar
Gordon Sondland, a Trump mega-donor, a liar
Tim Morrison a liar
Volker a liar
Yovovitch a liar,
etc, etc.
Normally the simplest truth is the real truth - only Trump is the liar - not all of these other people.Even though I have given up on those who still, after all that has transpired, defend Trump, I cannot help but be astonished and horrified at how easily intelligent people will deny their own eyes and ears to maintain their "beliefs."
These people have the same characteristics of those normally intelligent Germans who followed Hitler to hell or who embrace what he stands for today under the guise of Alt-Right or outright Nazism.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
Speaker of the House Pelosi isn’t too keen on having this number creep out into the public eye, so yesterday, as evidenced by the filing of re-appropriation form 77-A in the Congressional Budget office, she quickly moved $2.4 billion from the Department of Social Security to cover the cost of impeachment. Are you retired? Well get ready to pay,
https://potatriotsunite.com/impeachbill … 1CCoth1NCoI hate to break this to you, but Santa Claus is not real.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/pelos … t-inquiry/That is your truth, and since relativism is superior to objective truths according to liberals, I rather think my article fits a narrative that is suited to the bigger truth that politicians steal money from the citizenry. Ergo your "fact checkers" are invalid.
George Conway really simplifies the argument:
The attorney also had some advice for the GOP: “Take that Republican hat off and look at it neutrally. Or look at what you would have done if Donald Trump were a Democrat. Would you be making these ridiculous arguments about process? If Barack Obama had done this, they’d be out for blood and they’d be right.”
Conway returned to his pet theme – that Trump is unfit to govern because his judgement is impaired by undiagnosed narcissistic personality disorder – giving other recent scandals as examples.
“Trump always puts himself first,” he repeated. “You saw it with the Doral – wanting to have these foreign leaders meet at the Doral. You see it with the Mueller investigation. The Mueller investigation was about what Russia… it wasn’t really about Trump, as such, but because of Trump being Trump he made it about himself.
“It was really stupid for him to do that. It didn’t have to be about Trump but, because he’s so self-obsessed, it became about Trump because he tried to quash the investigation. If he’d just shut up about it and not tweeted ‘witch hunt’ 600 times and not just played golf for two years there wouldn’t have been a whole volume two of the Mueller investigation showing that he had obstructed justice,” Conway continued.
He wasn’t finished there, concluding: “The point there is, he was trying to stop an investigation that was looking into what Russia had done to the United States. His duty as president was to stop what Russia was doing to the United States. He did not give a hoot about that. That, to my mind, was also an impeachable offence. Frankly, just as bad as what we’re talking about here.”Like Obama giving Iran $150 Billion as a bribe to sign his worthless 'non-nuclear weapons' deal?
Like Biden threatening to hold back 1 billion in support to Ukraine if they didn't call off the investigation into the company his son was on the board of?
And what were they investigating? The disappearance of U.S. Funds?
The Republicans have had no spine, its why Trump so easily swept them aside and took over the party, they have been all but worthless in doing anything for the country for a long time. Sell outs and liars like McCain who promised to repeal the ACA and then spat in the faces of those who voted for him moreso on that issue than any other.
Americans are tired of the criminals in D.C. ... and if it takes a man like Trump to put the light on all the cockroaches, so be it.
The glaringly obvious question is why aren't these b_stards investigating the obvious criminal activity of the former Vice President, whose crimes Trump was trying to expose?
Oh that's right, Trump's real crime is that he is exposing all these cockroaches for what they are... and they will stop at nothing, no lie, no fabrication, no kangaroo court is to outrageous in their efforts to get rid of the man ruining their corrupt ways by exposing them.You are so lost in misinformation, it's pathetic. Please do not reply to my posts with this junk ever again.
Ken, you must have some information sources I can't find, or, maybe you are having one of my 'martini nights.'
Your $150 billion? Are you speaking of the unfrozen Iranian assets that were returned to them, I read that it was $1.3 Billion - 1/100th of your figure. What money are you talking about?
Also, everything I can find says that Shokin(sp?), the supposedly corrupt Ukraine prosecutor Biden wanted fired was not investigating Burisma, which was the reason he was singled out. What is your source that says he was investigating Burisma?
Since I happen to agree with McCain's vote - the Republicans' plan was only for destruction - not a fix, (and I do not support the ACA), I won't say my opinion is more valid than yours, (even though I think it is), but I think you are only carrying Republican water with your "Liar" accusation.
GAGood to hear from you GA,
Correct: https://www.truthorfiction.com/nuclear- … n-to-iran/
We can argue how much of a windfall that deal was for Iran, but it was none-the-less a gift. A 'quid pro quo'...
Some alternative sources of information for you:
https://hamodia.com/2019/10/06/bidens-v … -scrutiny/
https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/ukrainian-p … ng-hunter/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/worl … -ties.html
https://www.westernjournal.com/ukrainia … s-proving/
I covered a broad spectrum there, so that the facts coming from both biases help paint a better picture that Biden was deeply involved, Billions of dollars were moved around, and his son somehow landed on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine. Draw from it what you will.
And I do not. He ran on repealing the ACA, he said it was his top issue, and he reneged. It needed, and still needs to be trashed. All the ACA does is make the Insruance, Medical, Pharma, richer and more powerful, it allows them to grow monopolies and it squeezes "working" Americans.
The ACA was evil dressed up to look like salvation. It was meant to destroy the existing Medical system and allow the government to in turn create a "social healthcare" system where they could take the other half of what we earn through whatever taxation they created to support it.
If you believe in a Socialist state that controls all aspects of every persons life (everyone not of the elite class) then the ACA was brilliant, if you do no favor government control of your life, the ACA was a horrible deal.Thanks for the welcome Ken,
I must admit I was unaware of the extent of Iranian assets that were unfrozen by the Nuclear deal. And as you say, since the numbers quoted by various source sources range from $50 billion to your $150 billion, we could argue about the size of the "windfall." However, most sources also pegged the liquid amount available to Iran to be around $50 billion - about one third of your misleading statement.
I hesitated to call your statement misleading, but the 'rest of the story' pretty much precludes any other description. You said;
"Like Obama giving Iran $150 Billion as a bribe to sign his worthless 'non-nuclear weapons' deal?"
But it appears that not only was your number unrealistically exaggerated, but pinning it on Pres. Obama was also an exaggeration.
"The nuclear agreement included China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, so Obama didn’t carry out any part of it on his own. The deal did lift some sanctions, which lifted a freeze on Iran’s assets that were held largely in foreign, not U.S., banks. And, to be clear, the money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran. It had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s nuclear program."
Source: Factcheck.org
*These points were also reported by: CNN, APnews.com, and of course, your truthorfiction link.
So while I learned something new about those unfrozen Iranian assets, I don't think I was wrong to challenge your statement.
Regarding the Burisma/Hunter Biden investigation, except for the link quoting the fired prosecutor, I didn't read any credible information that contradicted what I said about Shokin not investigating Burisma. Also, and just as a note; I try to rarely criticize a source for bias just because I don't agree with its agenda or the way it presents facts, but WesternJournal.com just might be one of those rare times I would.
As for the ACA and McCain's vote - we could make that a topic of its own, (as it already has been), so rather than delve into deeply and begin another argument, let me just say that my recollection of the McCain vote timeframe was that the Republicans were promising Americans would not lose their healthcare coverage, they were going to Repeal and Replace Obamacare so that everyone's, (generally speaking), healthcare coverage would still be available.
As I recall, that is the program McCain pledged to support. But, when it came time for the vote the Republicans did not have a "Replace" plan. The vote was only for a "Repeal" plan.
With no replacement plan the vote would have stripped healthcare coverage from a lot of folks and left them in limbo until Congress could thrash out an acceptable, (to both parties), new bill. Good luck with that.
I don't like the ACA, never did. And frequently criticize its claims of success. (the real "success" was not better healthcare plans for all Americans, but simply the expansion of Medicaid that gave free "ACA" coverage to around 11 million Americans)
So my support of McCain's vote was not support for the continuation of the ACA, but support for his pushback on a purely partisan political move that would have benefitted the party but hurt American citizens.
GAGA: Thank you so much for clarifying all those points. I couldn't have said it better myself, especially the part about Obama bribing Iran about their own money. That is such a GOP talking point. Sometimes, they just believe what they want to hear, without doing the research, but then that is how propaganda is supposed to work.
Well GA, sometimes I like to be hyperbolic when the 'opposing' position seems to be equally far flung.
As I have said in many ways, I have no issue with people having complaints with how Trump conducts himself or the Office of the President, within reason, and these days reason is a hard thing to find.
Rational intelligent human beings have convinced themselves we are on the brink of becoming a dictatorship and that Trump will be worse than Stalin or Pol Pot or their favorite National Socialist.
These same people have blinded themselves to any charges of wrongdoing by politicians within the political party they support.
I enjoy having a realistic and thought provoking discussion, but it is hard to do so with those that choose to ignore the reasons why Trump was elected in the first place, convincing themselves that it is just a bunch of white racists that are deplorable and whose opinions deserve no consideration.
I may lean to the right, but I think articles that I have written that look at politicians like Gabbard and Warren favorably show that I am a fairly open minded individual that has an ability to weigh things fairly and with some objectivity.
Which makes me wonder, where the mindset is of those who would label me a 'right wing extremist' or worse.
As always GA, you have a 'fair and balanced' perspective on things, and I cannot fault your deductions, even when we disagree on particulars, such as we do regarding McCain.That was well stated Ken. And I, (at my peril), completely agree with your assessment.
Ideologies have supplanted reason. And it seems that 'nitpicking' and 'holding feet to the fire' are my only points of entry to good discussions these days.
Maybe I will start another McCain thread so we can pursue that discussion. I really think that I can persuade you to see it my way. ;-)
GA
"Americans are tired of the criminals in D.C. ... and if it takes a man like Trump to put the light on all the cockroaches, so be it." - THEN WHY did YOU elect one???
Perhaps you didn't read: "...if it takes a man like Trump to put the light on all the cockroaches, so be it."
All Trump cares,about is being the biggest cockroach. He doesn't care about the country, or the people, or you.
Which is Trump, the cockroach, the criminal, or both? No other choices left.
I have been astonished by this from the beginning. Why would anyone think a sleazy, lying, con man like Trump would have any interest at all in cleaning up D.C.? All he cares about is himself. Every action he takes, every word he utters is about making himself richer or more powerful or feeding his own ego. It is so frickin' obvious!
Trying our best to help people understand the GOP defense strategy.
Let's recap, shall we?
1. A transcript of the phonecall has been made public, and there is no indication of a quid-pro-quo. Former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified that "The transcript of the phone call that was declassified and released by Trump in late September “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.” He further testified that "“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.” Further, Morrison tried to edit the transcript to add to it that which didn't happen, but was unable to do so because these call records were moved to a system with security sufficient to prevent him from doing so. Further still, Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has stated that there were no quid-pro-quo demands made in the phonecall.
2. Quid-pro-quo deals are, in themselves, neither inappropriate nor illegal; they are what foreign diplomacy IS--a bargain made in the national interest. (They do become illegal when demands are made for bribes or kickbacks intended to personally benefit the negotiator--as in Joe Biden's case.)
3. One of the duties of the president, as per Constitutional mandate, is to see that the laws are enforced. It is Trump's Constitutionally mandated DUTY to investigate corruption and see that the laws prohibiting it are enforced.
4. A treaty agreement between the US and Ukraine requires that each assist the other in investigating criminal activity and corruption.
5. Presumably, the personal benefit that Trump would derive would be the exposure of the corruption of a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president (Biden)--a presumed political rival. I should perhaps remind some here that Biden publicly, on videotape before the CFR, bragged about having a Ukraine prosecutor removed in order to halt corruption investigations into Burisma, under the direct threat of halting US monetary aid to Ukraine. Biden's interest in halting this investigation was to prevent disclosure of his and his son's corruption.
So I am assuming that the Democrat position is that, if someone is running for president, there is something inherently wrong in allowing the public to learn of their criminal conduct, or in investigating and/or prosecuting their criminal conduct. (If this is you position, just make Hillary your write-in candidate.)
6. Aside from the the allegations that there is something impeachable about Trump discharging his presidential duties, or that there is something wrong or inappropriate, even were there a quid-pro-quo, being nonsense, all such allegations that such occurred are based on pure hearsay and various opinions about said hearsay. In other words, gossip--refuted by everyone who has actually testified. The only person claiming to have direct evidence (Eric Ciaramella, the supposed "whistleblower") will not testify, and great efforts were directed towards supressing information about his identity, or even keeping his identity a secret--due to the fact that this would reveal that he is a Democratic operative and shill, known to have met with Schiff and others to concoct this story in advance.1. No, only a partial transcript was made public. Trump refuses to release the entire transcript.
2. No, a sitting U.S. President demanded a foreign power investigate his main political rival in 2020 to discredit him, which is a gross abuse of power. He also bribed Ukraine with foreign aid, which is illegal. Both are impeachable offenses.
3. Yet he doesn't hesitate to break laws and violate the Constitution himself, i.e., the "phony" emoluments clause in which he forces federal workers and agencies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on stays at his resorts.
4. Then Ukraine should have no problem releasing a complete transcript of the call with Trump along with all email exchanges. Nor should Trump.
5. The entire Biden episode has been fully public since 2014. Biden also had full support of Republican senators. But somehow it matters only now.
6. The inspector general interviewed all of the people the whistleblower mentioned who were on the call, all of whom confirmed what happened.
Other than the gross distortion of facts, I agree with you.Well, I find myself once again forced to remind you that, had a quid-pro-quo actually occurred, there would be nothing remotely inappropriate--let alone illegal--about this. It is one of Trump's Constitutionally mandated duties as president to "see that the laws are enforced."
The Democrats seem to have a consistent and ongoing problem with their criminality being exposed. And...uh...yeah, having ones crimes exposed does tend to be detrimental to ones political aspirations--though it is hard for most of us to see why the investigation, exposure, and (hopefully) the prosecution of crimes--and the Rule of Law generally--ought to be suspended on behalf of Democrats, for fear the electorate might find their crimes so distasteful as to decline to vote for them.
From tickerforum.org:
"The Ukraine government has "leaked" (ha ha ha) documents that implicate not only Hunter Biden but members of John Kerry's family in the receipt of millions -- right at or about the time that Joe Biden threatened to pull a billion dollars in funding unless the prosecutor investigating Burisma was fired.
"Now that's not "statecraft", since the issue there was not a function of a trade of one government policy or benefit for another. That would be legitimate, but that's not what was in play here; this was a looting operation, as has been going on for a very long time in the Ukraine, and the beneficiaries and those hired in an attempt to deflect the investigation were all private American citizens with connections to powerful politicians and State Department members.
"That is corruption folks.
"This was always my assumption in terms of what was really going on with Biden and friends at Burisma, of course, as I've repeatedly stated. But now there's what appear to be hard documentary proof that not just Hunter Biden but John Kerry's family and Kerry himself were involved.
"Let's be clear: Assuming these documents are real, and it appears they are, they implicate the entire Obama Senior level of the former Administration including the Vice President himself and, likely, President Obama himself in a corrupt scheme to enrich specific US individuals including but not limited to at least some of the principals!
"This violates so many laws I can't even begin to list them and wildly exceeds any corruption that has been uncovered in previous administrations, including that of President Nixon.
"Indeed at minimum this activity likely implicates FCPA as well as money-laundering statutes, both of which are serious felonies. Never mind that there's a formal treaty with Ukraine requiring extradition between our nations for criminal acts, so whatever crimes were committed in Ukraine by these individuals in this scheme, if any (and I bet there were) the parties could be forcibly extradited there to stand trial up to and including President Obama himself.
"This why the Democrats have their hair on fire trying to bury the lede. The latest is that they're claiming the Ukrainian sources are "lying." Well, the Ukrainian sources may be lying about this or that but wire transfer records are truth. No bank will ever let you get away with forging a bank statement since if they do they eat the money that was allegedly there but really isn't, or the other end does!" http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=237355
And, re the wire transfer records:
"The newly leaked records show 45 payments between November 2014 and November 2015 totaling $3.5 million, mostly in increments of $83,333.33. The payments correspond to Morgan Stanley bank records the New York Times reported on earlier this year...."
More details on this at https://www.zerohedge.com/political/lea … ey-accountIf Trump has nothing to hide, why is he stonewalling with John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney? They have been subpoenaed but, Trump won't let them appear for the hearing. Isn't that obstruction of justice as well? In addition, The lower courts have subpoenaed him for 8 years of his taxes.
But,Trump wants SCOTUS to block the subpoena for his taxes. Isn't that also an admission of guilt?I see that Blue is relying on conspiracy theory sites akin the the infamous InfoWars for is false narrative, lol.
Oh, I don't believe I would characterize Morgan Stanley bank records reported by the New York Times as a "conspiracy" source--nor documents released by Ukraine. Of course the customary rebuttal of liberals is claim that any source reporting actual facts--factual reporting being anathema to the MSM--as a "conspiracy" site. Perhaps you should address the facts presented, rather than resorting to ad hominems against the messenger. But, hey, that's all you've got, right?
Odd, too, that liberals continually find themselves in the position of demanding the coverup of crimes and crying about how the public exposure of their crimes is "election interference." Criminality WILL tend to negatively affect ones political aspirations.I do not doubt that Morgan-Stanley has such records. What I doubt is how your conspiracy theory sites use that information to stitch together a false narrative. A narrative no credible person believes to be true - EVEN THE Republicans which controlled Congress at the time. Why did THEY do nothing?
FICTION: "A transcript of the phone call has been made public, and there is no indication of a quid-pro-quo. "
TRUTH: "A transcript of the phonecall has been made public, and there is every indication of a quid-pro-quo."
MORRISON: "accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.” - Vindman said the same thing but added that important details were left out.
Yes, MORRISON said "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.” - (which nobody else agrees with) BUT he also said:
1. "how it would play out in Washington's polarized environment"
2. "how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress"
3. "how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship"
Without a doubt, Morrison thought something was wrong, he just didn't think it was illegal.
FALSE: "Morrison tried to edit the transcript to add to it that which didn't happen,"
TRUTH: It was Vindman who tried to get edits made, but was ignored.
ZELENSKYY: "Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has stated that there were no quid-pro-quo demands made in the phone call" - HE DID say something like that sitting next to TRUMP who was glaring at him; you know that man he had to please to get your aid? What would you say in such circumstances? Would you say "Trump, you're a liar"? I think not.
FALSE: "They do become illegal when demands are made for bribes or kickbacks intended to personally benefit the negotiator--as in Joe Biden's case."
TRUTH: "They do become illegal when demands are made for bribes or kickbacks intended to personally benefit the negotiator--as in TRUMP'S case.
"One of the duties of the president, as per Constitutional mandate, is to see that the laws are enforced." - BUT, the Biden's broke no laws or are accused by competent authority that they broke any.
SIMPLY FALSE: "A treaty agreement between the US and Ukraine requires that each assist the other in investigating criminal activity and corruption."
FALSE: "Biden's interest in halting this investigation was to prevent disclosure of his and his son's corruption."
TRUTH: Neither Biden nor his son were under investigation for corruption, nor were they accused of any. Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time, didn't think there was any corruption either. Only Trump supporter today think such nonsense.
FALSE: "Trump discharging his presidential duties,"
TRUTH: Trump was NOT discharging his duties but violating his oath of office by committing several crimes.
HERE is the thing about "hearsay":
1. The rules of hearsay DO NOT apply to non-judicial proceedings such as impeachment
2. Even if this were judicial, in the sense that the House investigation is equivelent to a Grand Jury, hearsay rules DO NOT apply
3. In Trump's case, Trump is forcing everyone to rely on hearsay because HE WONT LET the people with first hand knowledge testify as the Constitution requires he does. (For which he will be charged with Obstruction of Congress)
Case closed, excellent truthful summary! And this explains who they should really be investigating.
https://youtu.be/Q6PLzRy3b30Thanks Mike, but I would tread cautiously. I was caught with my pants down concerning the amount of unfrozen Iranian assets--I was so preoccupied with the $1.7 billion cash that went to Iran immediately that I neglected to dig deeper to get the whole story.
Even though I think I have a handle on the other points, it is entirely possible that I am placing too much faith in numbers. While the majority of 'credible' links I searched reinforce the premise that Shokin was not investigating Burisma and Biden was right in his condemnation, I have run across more that one source that does plant a seed of doubt.
So, while I do think I have an understanding of the timeline and details, I am less than certain that what I think, (formed by those multitudes of sources), is in fact the truth. I have that "seed of doubt" that all is as it appears to be.
GAAnd that would be an entirely reasonable and informed decision, taking the time to review information that is available, and come to a conclusion...
You have proven to be very good at that when debating an issue, which is why I enjoy our discussions.
So lets consider that Joe Biden was dealing with Ukraine in the best interests of America, that he was helping funds get shifted around in the best interests of supporting those in the Ukraine that would help America establish friends within that nation that would work with them, and against Russia.
And to be clear, America during the Obama Administration was working against Russia on all fronts... Libya, Syria, Ukraine, all had one thing in common at that time, they were strong dependable allies to Russia.
So that would all be good... VP Biden was doing his Patriotic duty and even recruited his son to help by placing him Burisma.
But....
What about that deal with China, and the 1.5 Billion his son's Investment corp received just a short time after Hunter and Joe took a trip there?
What was that deal all about?
What other "deals" may be out there that we don't know about?Ken, you were doing great until you came up with this non-sequitur ".. that would all be good... VP Biden was doing his Patriotic duty and even recruited his son to help by placing him Burisma." -
I sure hope you were just being ironic and not serious.Ken, regarding the Biden/China thing . . . My uninformed opinion is that this is just typical power-play politics as usual. My opinion is that Hunter got his "deal" based on his name.
It ain't right but it ain't wrong either. It is just the way things are, and have been, since one man became more powerful than another back in caveman days.
I think you also understand that point, but because it is an opposition name in the crosshairs you are taking full advantage of the circumstances.
However, this brings me to a question I can't yet answer; "Are the Ukraine and China details connected or unrelated issues? If connected, you have made a very valid observation, but if not, then you have only conflated two issues to buttress your perspective.
The bottom line is that you have now put the onus on me, (since I addressed your idea as a conflation), to find out which perspective is the more correct one. I will get back to you after I look around a bit. ;-)
GAAh, well here we have a different view on that.
Considering the plight we now have with China, one has to look back on how we came to be here in the current dilemma.
Its been a long journey, going back to Nixon and Kissinger, and also those Chinese businessmen that funneled hundreds of millions into the Clinton's campaigns over the years. And the Biden deal we know of.
What exactly were the Chinese buying with that money, and at what cost to America and working Americans?
At what point do we say what is going on has crossed the line from greed and corruption to treason?
This is no minor matter, China is now the more powerful economic force across the globe. While America still has a more powerful military and a larger Nuclear arsenal, China has surpassed America on almost every other front, from industrial ability to advanced technology.
At what point do we say, it is wrong for our Vice President's son to be taking billions from a nation whose written down goal for the past 50 years has been to take down America and replace it on the global stage?
An interesting question, I look forward to reading what you determine.Having heard the testimony of two state department bureaucrats, does anyone here think what Trump did was impeachable? It is a very simple question. Based on 3rd hand evidence, why is this even being considered by Congress, it would not be allowed in a court of law.
If the President had a different name or was from a different party, this would not be seen by the light of day. Hence, Alan Dershowitz’s shoe on the other foot test. This impeachment inquiry is a farse.We heard from a few star witnesses aside from the State Dept bureaucrats. Trump on the South Lawn of the White House and Mick Mulvaney in his pres conference admitted they used Congress-approved aid to demand an investigation into Biden, their chief political rival in the 2020 election. That aid was only released after the White House became aware of the whistleblower complaint that had been filed and was making its way to Congress.
Some of us still would like to see free and fair elections. When Trump illegally solicits a foreign government to investigate his chief political rival, that is not upholding his oath to defend the Constitution. This follows evidence that he paid hush money illegally during the 2016 election, likely committed fraud in doing so to reimburse Cohen through the Trump Organization, and then illegally used foundation funds on his campaign. For a guy sworn to defend the laws of this country, he sure does break a lot of them.
And this investigating Crowdstrike to try and get the blame off of Russia for their interference in the 2016 election. Trump is clearly working for Russian interests by asking Barr to travel around the country to try and reframe the outcome that most Americans have already accepted as a truth.
Russia attacked our elections in 2016. It has been shown that Trump, on ten occasions, obstructed the investigation into that interference. Why do Trump supporters not see that as Trump protecting the country that waged an attack against our democracy? (https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement … b7691c2aa1)
And lastly, why do you not see Trump obstructing witnesses with more direct knowledge of the events in question (Mulvaney, Pompeo, and McGhan in the Mueller obstruction) from testifying as an illegal action? He is obstructing a lawful inquiry by ordering witnesses to defy subpoenas. If your main defense is to prevent people from testifying, or filing suit to prevent Congress getting the grand jury evidence pertaining to the obstruction committed in the Mueller Report, chances are very high you did something wrong.Trump does not need to investigate his rivals to get re-elected. That is the fallacy of your argument. He is going to be re-elected in a landslide because he is doing good for the American people in economy and trade, while Democrats have done nothing except to obstruct and investigate and go fishing...
The 2018 midterms would disagree with your claim, as would his approval rating.
And many disagree with your claim about the economy and trade. The economy is pretty much the same as Obama had, and his tariffs have decimated farmers and turned the agricultural industry into one big socialist endeavor with nearly 30 billion in bailouts that will never get paid back. The deficit is up 68% under Trump, so he's selling a healthy economy built on increasing debt. Obama got his strong economy while reducing deficits.
And I notice you avoided my question pertaining to Trump committing an impeachable offense in obstructing witnesses not to testify to Congress. Hard to defend such an open abuse of power.I ask you very simply, what is impeachable? It is whatever Congress decides.
You saw what happened with Bill Clinton. Despite the tons of evidence against him, Congress decided to acquit him. Do you really think it would go any different here with Trump, even assuming he committed all the wrongs you claim he did? With a GOP majority in Senate.
Use your head and not your heart.
If you truth believe Trump is so bad, then let the voters decide. I think you know the answer to that. Trump is a populist and with the current economy on fire, he would be easily reelected in a landslide. It kills the Democrats that they just don’t have anyone in their camp to go up against Trump.I'm sure they said the same thing about Nixon, who was way more popular than Trump when they began exposing his illicit behavior. By the time everything had come out, the Republican party had no choice but to turn on him.
Do I think it will happen here? No, I think Trump now owns the Republican party and because they do not band together to fight his corruption, they have to support him. I find them spineless.
But that does not mean that his crimes should be free from investigation by the House or free from trial in the Senate.
And the Democrats were on board with letting the voters decide. That was until Trump blatantly tried to illegally get a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election. He publicly asked Russia to 'find the missing e-mails,' and got their interference moments later in 2016. This time, he tried to use Ukraine, while also trying to prove a false narrative that Russia did not interfere in 2016, but got caught red-handed.
This is why we've arrived at impeachment. Trump openly tried to use the power of his position to illegally affect the 2020 election. That is not either free or fair elections. And after the illegal hacking and campaign finance violations effected the 2016 election, it's become painfully clear that Trump needs to be held accountable to our laws. And no, the GOP won't do it, so we're hoping that enough Americans can be convinced of his criminality to sway their representatives.What "tons of evidence" for "what impeachable crime"??? That was a true Republican hit job, pure and simple. What Clinton did (lie to a grand jury in a private trial) was a crime, yes, but not impeachable. It wasn't impeachable because he did not abuse his office when he lied. What the outcome should have been is that Clinton be tried in a civil court after he left office. (Should he have gone to jail for lying to the grand jury, absotutely)
The two articles were 1) lying to a grand jury and (the stronger of the two articles) 2) Obstructing Congress by "encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony" and other similar things. (nothing at all like the illegal total stonewall Trump is conducting)
It wasn't even close in the Senate, where the Republicans ruled. 10 Republicans sided with Clinton on Article 1 which failed by a lopsided 45 guilty to 55 not guilty. For Article 2, while well short of the 2/3rds needed, it failed as well 50 to 50 with 5 Republicans siding with Clinton.
Explain such a failure other than the Republican's failed in their takedown attempt/ (By the way, many Republicans were found to have been doing the same thing Clinton did with Lewinsky. Some, like Gingrich, resigned; some, like Clinton, did not.
By "letting the voters decide" in a situation like this, you might as well be saying "tear up the Constitution since it means nothing anymore".
If the Republicans in the Senate cared more about America than they do their jobs, Trump would be toast.
One more thing. In the aftermath of the failed Clinton impeachment, I predicted that we will regret it some times down the road. It is happening now exactly as I predicted. Once we politicize a case, and ignore the facts on the guilt of Clinton, we set the stage for what follows. Now, we can impeach a President on hearsay and no one blinks an eye...
The same goes with the Kavanaugh nomination. I wrote in the aftermath that our justice system will be compromised. Wait till the next Supreme Court nomination...
Every-time we use shortcuts to get what we want, it sets the stage for the other party to do the same...and more.
Obama did this with the ACA, we are still paying the price 10 years later.
I stated what I needed to say. Peace and have a great Thanksgiving. We have a lot to be thankful for this year. One of it is President Trump fighting everyone for us, in spite of the deep state undermining his every move.The economy is tanking fast. The Fed is projecting a GDP growth in the current quarter of only 1.0% and slowing.
At the current rate, it will go negative in the second quarter of next year.
A far cry from Trump's promise of 6%.With little help from Democrats...
Yet, the underlying economy is strong. Despite a world recession...
The stock market is a leading indicator.
It is reaching new highs by the day.
Why do you think that is?
If you know the answer, you would have a different view.
I want you to put your money where your mouth is.
If you truly believe the economy is tanking, your only action now is to take all your money out of the market and place it in cash or gold.
Are you willing to make that bet?
I think not.I already know the answer and have placed my bets.
The #1 buyer of U.S. stocks right now is American corporations that are using the money they retrieved from their overseas accounts after the 2018 tax law.
The market is now grossly overvalued. Once that money runs out, the market will tank.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/buyba … =home-pageSo what? that is the nature of the stock market.,.and of investing and of business cycles.
The point is, people are happy now with their economic status...however fleeting.
For me personally, I have done extremely well under Trump. The reason is very simple. I believed in him and his policies and I invested based on that believe. Those who follow Paul Krugman of the NYT, a Nobel winner no less, would have missed out on one of the biggest economic boom.
Go figure...
Politics trumps everything but not for me. As a conservative, I follow my instinct. It has serve me well for over 60 years.
My advice to all who is on this forum is to take a break. Enjoy the holidays.
The hatred needs to take a pause.
Trump is no boy scout but he is not the devil either.
He is trying his best under tremendous pressure from all sides.By the way, I would not rely much on Goldman Sachs...they are part of the problem and not the solutions...
Check this out -
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/09/malaysi … probe.html
Was the stock market a leading indicator the day before it cratered into the 2008 Great Recession? Don't always believe what you see. The market is currently overvalued, not as much as it was in 2008, but overvalued nevertheless. It is also very susceptible to news about the trade talks, going up a lot or down a lot based on headlines.
No, what I will do, once I have a good feeling of which way the market is going, I will either sell vertical put spreads or vertical call spreads. I will keep the stocks I have and, if the market tanks, buy more.
Jack always avoids those questions because all he knows is conservative talking points.
They are not talking points.
If the hearing is to be respected, let them call all the first hand witnesses mentioned. Why don’t we get those people to testify as to what they heard. They are the real whistleblowers. Not these bureaucrats that heard rumors and opinions...
it is laughable that smart people like you fall for this stuff. If it was on the other shoe, what would you say? Be honest with yourself...If they are not talking points then why do I hear virtually every conservative repeat them word-for-word (almost)?
"Why don’t we get those people to testify as to what they heard." - YOU KNOW the answer to that Jack - Trump won't let them testify (which is an article of impeachment all by itself. I am guessing you approve of Trump withholding evidence?
"And this investigating Crowdstrike to try and get the blame off of Russia for their interference in the 2016 election. Trump is clearly working for Russian interests by asking Barr to travel around the country to try and reframe the outcome that most Americans have already accepted as a truth."
- AND THAT deserves an Article of Impeachment called Treason!!
Yes, Abuse of Power and Bribery
1. "it would not be allowed in a court of law." - For the 100th time, Jack, an impeachment is not a court of law - it is not even a trial. Please read your constitution!!
2. You worry about 2nd and 3rd hand info from our dedicated, professional, professionals with unimpeachable integrity, YET you fail to mention that your lying, amoral leader his hiding behind illegal Obstruction of Congress actions by refusing to comply with subpoena's that would produce the 1st hand evidence you want.
3. You clearly have not read the 1st hand evidence of the call summary which clearly tells the world Trump wanted something-for-something
4. We heard 1st hand from Mulveney that they there was a quid pro quo
WHY are you not bothered by that, Jack?????Because I know the motives behind the Schiff hearing...he has zero credibility with me and the American public. Why Nancy Pelosi put him in charge is very telling. She does not expect this to go any further than Thanksgiving. Mark my words. I am often right about this sort of thing.
What are the motives behind the Shiff hearings other than to investigate Trump's criminal actions?
At what point do we say, it is wrong for our President's son-in-law, daughter, and son to be taking billions from a nation whose written down goal for the past 50 years has been to take down America and replace it on the global stage?
They are doing that today!!!!If that is so, you should provide some links to the supporting information.
A quick search offered little more than "China this month awarded Ivanka Trump seven new trademarks across a broad collection of businesses, including books, housewares and cushions."
To my way of looking at it, being awarded trademarks is different than being given 1.5 Billion in cash. And then further looking into where that money went, there was even more questionable activity.
But as I keep saying... don't point to Trump and say he is a criminal, and then point to criminal (Biden or Clinton, take your pick) and say that is the solution, the one to solve the problems.
I don't care if there are legal loopholes, which allow Hunter Biden to collect Billions of dollars in funds from questionable sources. I don't care if those loopholes allow the Clinton's to run a Charity that funnels hundreds of millions of dollars.
Any rational person knows exactly what those funds are, payoffs, bribes, influence, that will effect policy and national politics. In short, the selloff of American interests, be they sovereignty or jobs."If that is so, you should provide some links to the supporting information." - I HAVE, several times; the last time was for Sharlee
"...being given 1.5 Billion in cash" - THIS is just another Trump lie you are repeating - totally debunked and not to be believed.
"Any rational person knows exactly what those funds are, payoffs, bribes, influence, that will effect policy and national politics." - NOT TRUE. But if you change it to "Any Trumper knows exactly what those funds are, payoffs, bribes, influence, that will effect policy and national politics.
Openly asks Russia to hack opponent.
Denies collusion.
Openly admits firing Comey over Russia investigation.
Denies obstruction.
Tells over 15,000 verified lies in under 1,000 days, and there's still people who believe him. smh Just wow.
Related Discussions
- 48
Would The Current Senate Impeach President Trump
by Sharlee 5 years ago
Would the current Senate vote to Impeach President Trump? I would like to hear your thoughts, please share.
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
- 119
Was the Most Recent Mueller Hearing a Democrat Disaster?
by Readmikenow 6 years ago
Anti-Trump Harvard Law prof Laurence Tribe calls Mueller hearing ‘disaster’ that helped the presidentHarvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, a fierce critic of President Trump, said Wednesday that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's House Judiciary Committee hearing was a...
- 43
Is It Time to Impeach President Trump?
by Allen Donald 8 years ago
Here's an article about a group of legal scholars calling for the impeachment of President Trump based on his violation of the Constitution:http://time.com/4658633/impeach-donald-trump-congress/Here's the part of the Constitution he's violating:Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. It's clause...
- 110
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 8 weeks ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...
- 82
Impeachment of a President
by WeStand4Freedom 15 years ago
Approximately 7 months ago I posted this forum " Impeachment of a President. Although I received a few followers that agreed w/ my chosen topic, many scoffed. Who is laughing now? Are you all seriously STILL pleased w/ this president? If so, you all must already have money and are not in need...