The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
"Yes, he's gross, but I like his policies."
"Yeah, and morals don't really have anything to do with leadership or a great nation."
Probably true: if it did we wouldn't have the batch on Capital Hill that we do.
So elect the worst of the worst to be at the helm to help with that problem...makes no sense.
A whole lot of people, numbering the in the millions, did not and do not see Trump as the "worst of the worst". As a matter of fact, a whole lot of people, numbering the the millions, saw him as better than the alternative, and a great many still do.
Plus, of course, there is the small matter of ideology and priorities - while I would wish for a more "statesmanlike" GOP candidate with the same ideology, all that the D's have to offer, IMHO is a further degrading of our country. They may produce that statesman, but do not even try to give the country what it needs. IMHO.Wilderness: When you say batch on capital hill, who are you referring to by name?
A whole lot of people also believe the world is flat. A whole lot of people don't pay attention to politics and are susceptible to con artists. A whole lot of Americans are uneducated. However, we should remember that the majority did vote for another candidate.
America became great for a reason, and it sure wasn't due to electing side-show charlatan liars who somehow "tell it like it is." We could be advancing our nation but, due to the abhorrent behavior of our leader, we are otherwise predisposed, as he wants it.
I still don't think Trump has much of an ideology, other than purposely dividing the nation. There are ways to control illegal immigration that would be more effective and less divisive, but that's not what he wants.
But, we know this conversation will get us nowhere."A whole lot of people also believe the world is flat." - and they voted for Trump as well.
Yes they did, and now they don't, after seeing the monstrosity they and the Russians put in office.
TraitorTrump has spent three years degrading America.I find it interesting that all you have to offer is calling names like a 3 year old. It's so interesting and says so much, though you probably don't intend it to.
Oh, you mean like TraitorTrump, your hero, does ALL THE TIME?
Is that similar to calling those who disagree with the POTUS Trump haters? You do this quite often as you already know.
Two new items from the Horowitz exoneration of the FBI (relative to an unbiased investigation into the Trump Campaign)
1) FBI agents texted among themselves that they support Trump (yet Republicans say nothing about that)
2) FBI agents leaked information to TraitorTrump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. (yet Republicans say nothing about that either)Is it inaccurate? Do you love Trump, or are even ambivalent?
I've often stated--to yourself on more than one occasion when you accused me of hating Trump--I've always known he was a con man, even long before he convinced you he wasn't. I've never had any respect for him or his values.and therefore, I cannot hate anyone I never had any respect for to begin with.
Now explain why YOU don't hate Obama or Hillary as the shoe is on the other foot now. Go for it if you dare!
Ask yourself this, Dan. Why has not one Republican from the House asked why Trump hasn't allowed the documents and witnesses to come forth? It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out, but I'll give you a few days to zero in on it.Wilderness: Indifference is much worse than hate. Indifference is what Trump supporters are. They are indifferent about Trump violating the constitution, acting like a king and a dictator; calling schiff a scum bag and dirty bastard at his rallies, and inciting violence.
I know you don't like to hear this. But this is how Hitler was able to commit the holocaust because the German people were indifferent to what Hitler was doing as long as he was making Germany great again. They simply look the other way, just like Trump supporters.
Trump is absolutely right when he says, "He could shoot some one on Fifth Ave and no one would care." His people see him as being strong. They don't care how vile he is as long as he can attack the scum bags who oppose him. They don't care that his conspiracy theories never come true.
They don't care if he and his staff don't appear for their subpoenas. It doesn't matter if he swears on T.V. to the world and is the worst role model of a president for our children. None of that matters as long as he is making America great again in their minds...Long live King Trump and the hell with the constitution.Totally incorrect, they just do not share your opinion that he has violated the constitution and acts like a dictator.
As Presidents go, Trump is the least warmongering of the bunch. Not very dictator like.
This is semi-true, the politicians that have shown no respect to the American people, and have treated them like 'deplorables', for decades now, deserve no better.
They are proving that very point with this endless effort to denigrate the President and impeach him on false, fabricated charges."Totally incorrect, they just do not share your opinion that he has violated the constitution and acts like a dictator." - AND THAT is what Hitler supporters said when the same thing was said about him - Look how that turned out!
"As Presidents go, Trump is the least warmongering of the bunch. Not very dictator like." - I am very confused about that non-sequitur. Exactly what does one have to do with the other?
I can't hate Trump, just like I can't hate Hitler. WHY? Because both are similarly mentally ill save Hitler is a sociopath while Trump is simply a psychopath. They can't help themselves in their bad actions.
What I can hate is Trump's policies. I can hate Trump's misogyny, I can hate Trump bullying. I can hate Trump's racism. I can hate Trump's traitorous actions.
Those are the things I hate and that you embrace.Personally, I find it difficult to believe that you can post such vitriol and nastiness, about a specific individual rather than about their actions, and not hate them. Just as I cannot understand how you can make such vile accusations about the people on this forum, without having a clue whether they are true or not, and not hate them as well. That one may be just an outwelling from the hatred of Trump, but still crosses any possible line of either rationality or common courtesy.
Do you hate Obama and the Clintons, Dan? Is it possible for you to dislike their policies without hating them?
I dislike both of them and wouldn't care to dine with either of them, especially Clinton. But I don't provide a constant stream of hate filled dialogue about either, which is what I see here. A dialogue with the same nasty name calling every day, with never a kind word or even recognition of accomplishments.
When we hear a man admit he sexually assaults women, use racist speech in telling minority Americans to 'go back,' and calls other Americans 'the enemy of the people' because they oppose his often reckless policies, that is someone that should never be granted a kind word. I pity you for being supportive of someone like that, I truly do.
Its much better to like and support the person who says all the PC things, while he or she sells the Country's interests out, allows its people to be screwed, and continues starting wars without end.
I pity you for supporting those that are selling you out, and destroying your children's future.I do not support those who start wars without end. You are thinking of the GOP again and projecting. And again, the GOP is the one who denies the climate science and is selling out the environment for profit, endangering the future of American children.
Are you saying you're on board with the bragging about sexual assault, racism, and labeling Americans as enemies then Ken? What a sad deflection that was.
Oh, you don't like to be called a hater? Or are you one of the select few who ARE able to decide who truly hates who? If so? What a gift...
I bet if we go back an look at your posts we will find a stream of hate filled rhetoric about both.
Exactly what is nasty and vitriolic about the TRUTH? Unlike Trump, I didn't Trump about anything.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Trump isn't:
- a psychopath?
- a racist?
- a misogynist?
- a bully? (Today he took on another person with a disability, Greta Thunberg)
- a homophobe?
- an Islamophobe?
- a traitor?
Could you please delineate the immoral acts of that batch on Capitol Hill? This is the third or fourth time you and others have stated she is corrupt. Please share your specific knowledge of her corrupt behavior. Inquiring minds want to know, and this is not the first time the question has been adked. Will any of these claims ever be backed up with a substantive response?
Not fair asking for facts, Sandy. It frightens them.....
Who is "she"? I didn't mention any names at all...
You tell me, then. I'd really like to know who this immortal batch is.
PP, if you think our legislature is composed of fine, upstanding citizens concerned about the country and doing their absolute best to help it you have far bigger problems than a man you don't like in the White House. FAR bigger.
You are half-right Wilderness, most, but not all, of the Republicans don't give a damn about America, they only care for their jogs. Most of the Democrats and the rest of the Republicans are fine, and upstanding citizens.
If you're voting for Biden you don't really care about gross old men.
You make a good point hard sun, but I think it only bolsters my point that 'the market' sets CEO pay ranges. I did not mean to imply that the CEO sets the ranges.
I think your link's reference, (and focus), to Compensation Consultants could be equally comparable to sports or celebrity agents. All are part of the market forces that determine compensation ranges.
Here is one reader's comment from your link:
"CEO compensation is highly subjective. The type and size of the Industry, the reputation and past accomplishments the CEO brings to the table, How well he is suited to carry the momentum built and transit to next level etc; are crucial factors. When these and other considerations need to be considered, employing consultants who go by one size fits all may not be the right strategy. This can result in lopsided compensation setting off a chain reaction among other employees. What needs to be done is the input of the consultant with a bit of customization to suit the requirement so that the Compensation is fair and does not look like equal as the survey reveals."
I think this illustrates the market-part played by Compensation consultants. Boards may accept their semi-standardized recommendations, but that is only because the market has accepted their place in the process.
Another reader comment mentioned Union collective bargaining as a comparable service to that of the Compensation Consultants, and I agree. But I also see those Union efforts as a market force—not an arbiter. This is how I see the Compensation Consultants contributions.
The article's description of the unexpected commonality of the recommended CEO packages would only seem to be a surprise if the Consultant wasn't considered a part of the market forces. Just like your mortgage auditors - if that market didn't support inflated or arbitrary values then that practice wouldn't, (and as we now know, the market could not support that practice for long), have survived.
The article's link to Ms. Galianni's paper didn't work, but I tracked her down through the faculty listing and found it listed there: Network Effects on The Design of Executive Compensation Contracts
I only scanned the paper, but I found a couple of blurbs that I think illustrate that these Compensation Consultants really are market-force levers, not arbiters, and that it is the result of market forces that give them the power you inferred with your linkage.
"Compensation consultants, in their capacity of independent professional advisers, represent a source of both technical expertise and legitimacy for the deliberations of the board with respect to the design of executive compensation . . "
"Nonetheless, developing individualized solutions for each client entails higher costs and requires greater resources, which may not be equally available to all consulting firms, leading compensation consultants toward proposing popular models of compensation to their clients." [I would say these are all market force factors, and their inclusion in the process supports a market-determined opinion]
The rest of her paper goes on to support and reinforce your point about the influence of Compensation Consultants as an arbiter of CEO pay packages, but in most cases, (that I scanned), her supporting information was time-and-again an explanation of market-force effects on those decisions.
I understand the point of your comment, but I think it was misunderstood that I was saying CEOs set the ranges when in fact I mentioned Markets as the arbiters of the ranges.
Maybe it was my 'If you' question to My Esoteric that caused the misdirection. My point with that statement was to question the foundation for his arbitrary determination of "50 to 100 times" range.
GAI can argue that anything is a "market-determined opinion." Of course, there will be a nice-sounding job description for a Compensation Consultant, that doesn't mean that is what they are actually doing.
Even the commenter you quoted is acknowledging the role that the Consultants really play. He or she is just making the case that they could handle it differently: "Then these and other considerations need to be considered, employing consultants who go by one all may not be the right strategy. This can result in lopsided compensation setting off a chain reaction among other employees."
The one all strategy in better with the boards of directors and executives; just as the maker of the mortgage sets the of the house. Seems a lot like corporate crony oligarchy forces than anything resembling fair determination of a labor's worth, which the free market is supposed to do.
Basically, I'm sticking to CEOs are vastly overpaid and the market is not determining their wages and benefits and bonuses. I do appreciate your tracking down the actual study. I don't pretend to understand all the components she uses, but even if these "market forces" are genuinely behind the decisions, her abstract does state this:Finally, I show that the market responds positively to compensation similarity, although it is associated with excess CEO compensation." So, is the market just wrong according to this study? Maybe I'll look a bit more when I have some time. I just don't really believe that anything close to a free market exists to begin with."Seems a lot like corporate crony oligarchy forces than anything resembling fair determination of a labor's value, which the free market is supposed to do."
Damn! Good point hard sun. And a near-mortal blow. I have to agree with you.
But, just to show my stubborn resiliency, aren't those "corporate crony oligarchy forces" also market levers - part of what we think of as the free market of capitalism?
I will trade you; I agree that the "free market" we all think is the final arbiter in capitalistic endeavors is not truly a free market at all. And probably never has been. But it is the ever-changing market that we do business in. All you have to do is agree that I never introduced 'fairness' in any of my market discussions. ;-)Hmm..well, I guess I kind of have to agree that the "corporate crony oligarchy forces" are part of the market levers as they are making determinations that affect the market.
And, yes, you never specifically introduced the concept of fairness, I think that was Esoteric who used that word. While admitting it's not overtly "fairness" you are discussing, I can go back to your statement in reference to sports stars and celebrities: "Their wages are determined by the market. I think that is the way it should be."
To me, if you think that is the way it "should be" than you likely think that it's fair...but not impossible to say otherwise. BTW, I agree this is the way it "should be" when it comes to sports stars and celebrities, as this seems more in line with the traditional supply/demand of the market. I mean, we know successful sports team owners and movie producers rake in the cash, so it's only "fair" that those who are on the field and in front of the cameras do so too. They are able to do so because of the traditional market forces.
From my standpoint, and from what I know, CEO compensation packages don't quite conform to the market in the same way an NFL coach and player's do. For example, I never hear of an NFL executive or coach getting a bonus despite their team having a losing record. But, I think we are all familiar with the lavish bonuses CEOs can get even when the corporation is tanking.
The market forces, and rules, of the corporate executives, are not the same in many ways. I love the free market theory, but just think humans are incapable of operating it on a large scale.I think your perception of the "wrongness" of CEO Golden Parachute" packages might just a perception of degrees. Like sports' packages, and generally speaking, more incentives involve success than failure. That $100 million Golden Parachute might have been a $500 million package if the CEO had been successful.
But even so, those packages exist because there are buyers for them. Regardless of the influence of Compensation Consultants, (or sports agents), if the Corp. Boards didn't accept their cost, (the market valuation), then they wouldn't exist.
It is no different from the 1960s' market that didn't support, (the values), packages on the scale they do today. The markets just changed.
Of course, it is possible to say "That's not fair," but that's life. It is still one side of a deal accepting the other side's terms - the simple definition of "the market."
To say the two are not the same, or a valid comparison, can only be because you are comparing different segments, (sub-markets), but the concept of market valuation holds in either case.
GA"I think your perception of the "wrongness" of CEO Golden Parachute" packages might just a perception of degrees. "
I still think my perception is correct, and I don't think "wrongness" was the word I used. Also, I didn't think we were talking about golden parachutes, but actual compensation packages. Golden Parachute definition: " golden parachute is an agreement between a company and an employee specifying that the employee will receive certain significant benefits if employment is terminated."
"But even so, those packages exist because there are buyers for them."
Of course this is true, and I never stated otherwise. My point here is that the "market levers" acting on CEO salaries are just not the same as those for the majority of interactions in our market. I think you're stating the same thing.
"Of course, it is possible to say "That's not fair," but that's life. It is still one side of a deal accepting the other side's terms - the simple definition of "the market."
Exactly. Like I said, this is akin to when you stated that sports and celebrity wages are determined "as they should be." You are stating that is fair, by implication, means you think there are levels of fairness in the market.
"To say the two are not the same, or a valid comparison, can only be because you are comparing different segments, (sub-markets), but the concept of market valuation holds in either case."
This is exactly what I stated with this: "I guess I kind of have to agree that the "corporate crony oligarchy forces" are part of the market levers as they are making determinations that affect the market."
Anything can be said to be part of "the market" but that doesn't mean we can make valid comparisons between all market forces. This is why we have terms like market valuation, which are entirely different than things like "open market " or "fair market ."
Thanks for reaffirming my views on the differences between executive compensation determination and the actual of labor.
Edit: Maybe check out this Quora answer about executive pay. I think this, in particular, is telling: "The company may be failing. But, the failure might be even worse without that particular executive." So, what other occupation, or labor, gets that sort of treatment. Well, you see the Cleveland Browns did win one game this year, but they would have likely one zero games without the current head coach. So, lets give him an extra 0 million to come back next year.
And, the guy on Quoara, answering this, certainly seems to be going out of his way to defend executive salaries. It's self-defeating for anyone who is not an executive to support the way executives are compensated.
Who didn't see this coming from Joey. If you're not believing the Fuhrer's propaganda, you're against the Fuhrer.
Today, the unimpeachable, independent, and unbiased Horowitz effectively called so-called AG Bill Barr a Trumper (liar). AND HE IS RIGHT!
Wilderness, I think the thing that inspires the most wonderment about our liberal fellow-travelers is not their vitriol, but the sort of parallel universe thing they've got going.
A recent example: James Comey tweeting that the IG's report vindicated him--to which Horowitz responded, "I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this FISA."
It's the weirdness.
Comey and other liberal public figures--and just about everyone you talk with on the Left--seem bent on emulating that chess-playing pigeon that, "knocks over all the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won the game.”
The imperviousness to facts, reason, and objective reality gets to where it buggers the imagination. (It is always important to try to work buggery into the conversation.)
But I think the factor that is most noteworthy about liberals is that--in my experience, at least--they are INVARIABLY government employees/retirees, or get their income either directly or indirectly from government. They are--literally--on the payroll.
Occasionally you'll run across one who vehemently denies this. Awhile back I was posting back and forth with a liberal on Facebook who insisted that, being as he was a professor at a private college, he was not dependent on government funds. So I had to point out to him that his "private" college had a whole department devoted to getting those government bucks--and that it probably could not exist at all without them. Should the flow of government bucks to these institutions be cut off, the learned professor (Language Arts of some kind) would have been seeking some far more precarious--and far less lucrative--form of employment.
This is at the root of much of the difficulty that conservatives face in seeking reform, especially of an economy that consists almost entirely of racketeering--education, health care, and finance being prominent among these. When health care amounts to about 20% of the US economy, rooting out the corruption would put about fourth-fifths of those so employed out of work. Direct government employment accounts for nearly 20% of the labor force, including federal, state, and local. A reform of the public education system, K-PhD, would put at least half of those thus employed out of work. (I would advocate for shutting down the entire public education system.)
Then you have the retirees. Almost all public employee pension systems are insolvent, except maybe at the federal level, where they can just print the money. Many of these people have the uneasy feeling that, when this blows up, they are going to need a Democratic president and Congress, because Republicans are unlikely to bail them out. Some of these pension plans are so underfunded that their only realistic choices are either to make massive cuts in retiree pensions, or wait for the whole thing to crash and burn, in which case retirees may get nothing at all.
This, I think, is a pretty good summary of where most liberals are coming from. For most, the threat they feel from conservatives is, quite literally, existential. That will get you hopping mad.Blue: You said this, "This, I think, is a pretty good summary of where most liberals are coming from. For most, the threat they feel from conservatives is, quite literally, existential. That will get you hopping mad."
As a stupid liberal, please elaborate on what you mean by that statement, especially the existential part."A recent example: James Comey tweeting that the IG's report vindicated him--to which Horowitz responded, "I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this FISA." - Given what Horowitz said about the mistakes made at all levels of FBI management, I can't disagree with your assessment.
But the bottom-line, which is what I think Comey was referring to is that there was no political bias in starting the investigation and that [it was properly predicated[/b]
Did it vindicate Comey from mistakes that he made? No. Did it vidicate Comey from the Trump and Republican charge of bias against Trump? Absolutely
Comey is hardly liberal, lol - he is a die-hard Republican; unlike you, he is not, however, a Trumpican.
"But I think the factor that is most noteworthy about liberals is that--in my experience, at least--they are INVARIABLY government employees/retirees, or get their income either directly or indirectly from government. " - WELL THEN you would be wrong. While I was an independent, probably 80% of my peers were Republican. One survey of federal employees found 44% said they were Democrats, 40% said they were Republicans, and the rest said they were neither, but leaned Right. So much for your stereotype.
"Almost all public employee pension systems are insolvent" - INTERESTING claim - Prove It.
Yes, I think conservatives, especially the 21st Century version, are an existential threat to our way of like. The first piece of evidence is their blind faith in the almost-a-dictator TraitorTrump."almost-a-dictator TraitorTrump."
Nice description for a man that won a quite legal election. Or was it just another name calling episode?
(Before you begin screaming about Russian interference, remember there is not one iota of evidence that they had any effect at all on the election that put Trump at the helm.)You forget, the Russians put him in power, common sense says so. After Clinton and Comey set the stage letting Trump get close, the Russians, with help of Paul Manafort and the polling data he provided pushed him over the edge.
Remember, he won by less than 90,000 votes over three states. Remember that Mueller documented a massive effort by the Russians to target those states, plus Minnesota which Trump almost won. Is it unreasonable to assume this well-funded, years long propaganda campaign (advertisement by another name) to put Trump in power was able to persuade about 30,000 voters (less than 1%) in each state to either vote for Trump when they otherwise weren't going to OR get Clinton voters to not vote or vote for a 3rd Party.
Since Cheerios advertising is quite effective, it is not much of stretch to believe the Russians could work their magic through fake rallies, Facebook, Twitter, and many other media platforms.You need to adjust your tinfoil hat, its slipping over your eyes.
Hey, nobody peddles conspiracy theories quite like Ken does. Or hates the Chinese like he does. What's that phobia called? Sinophonia, for those wishing to call it for what it is.
I wonder if Ken and Jacklee see eye to eye, Val? Where is Jack anyway? He's normally on here promoting the latest Rush Limbaugh conspiracies. I hope this Impeachment stuff hasn't got him down.
I like Jack, even though he pisses me off sometimes. But then, this is what makes our country different from others. We can argue and debate without actually committing murder.
LOL The Russians did not put Trump in power. You and I both that is nothing but a talking point from liberals willing to lie through their teeth to foment dislike of Trump; there isn't a single piece of evidence that Russian work had any effect at all.
Once more your active imagination is convincing you (who is already convinced of wrongdoing of anything remotely connected to Trump) without having evidence. Just opinions.So the Russians releasing the Hillary e-mails at the same time as Trump's Access Hollywood tape admission that he sexually assaults women had no effect to dampen that bombshell. I cannot believe the depth of Trump supporter idiocy sometimes.
Fair enough: I can't believe the idiocy of Trump haters either. Any assumption or opinion they might have denigrating Trump is automatically factual and truthful; no evidence needed.
Just go on and keep denying the obvious and claiming false motives of others. It makes you sound really smart. I'll join you in making an assumption of your motives that you must obviously support those who like to sexually assault women and make racist statements. If we oppose Trump, it must be hate. And if you support him, it must be that you like those things. Sound right or do you want to leave the accusations of motives behind?
Wilderness and Ken: If Trump and company are innocent, why don't they come forward and defend the charges of obstruction of congress and abuse of power? Don't you think if you were charged with some violations that you didn't commit, wouldn't you try to defend yourself?
Instead, what they are doing is waiting for the trial where McConnell said he will put forth a motion to get 51 votes to acquit Trump and company without going to trial. And if that doesn't work, he will get the 2/3 majority vote and have him acquitted that way. So Trump and the GOP don't care if they haven't honored the system of checks and balances.
They have found a way to work around the system by refusing to appear. Trump will boast about being vindicated and will continue to do what he does best, lie, exaggerate, create conspiracy theories, open-ended investigations, and operate above the law as king and dictator.
It will be a sad day for the constitution and the framers because they have found a way to break the constitution by not honoring their oath of office without being held accountable. I don't think the framers took that into account. They expected the president to play by the rules, not circumvent them. In Trump's own words, sad...really sad. Ultimately, America will pay the price.I wouldn't waste my time, and I wouldn't let them waste any of my Administration's time, if at all possible.
I would care less what the OPPOSITION PARTY led investigations, which are ALL based on fabrications and false information want.
I would make clear as possible to the people of the country, that this was a 'witch hunt', a form of 'coup', made by the very criminals I was elected to 'clean out' of DC.
And I would let my actions speak for me, more jobs, better wages, less war. Good stuff, the important stuff.
The 'system of checks and balances' are the people. If they don't want Trump as President, they will vote him out in 2020.
The Democrats in the House, and the extremists that despise him and want him out, can go 'pound sand' until then.
Here is something you may like... the results of the recent UK election, you can expect similar for the 2020 election here because the Democrats are failing the people that badly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hov5zI3QL0M"I wouldn't waste my time, and I wouldn't let them waste any of my Administration's time, if at all possible." - AND THAT, of course, is a cop-out
When the probability is 99% that Trump broke the law, he has every reason in the world to cover up his crimes - which he is doing WHILE he is STILL breaking the law today!
How does Trump deny asking Ukraine for dirt on his political opponent when even today his hatchet-man, Giuliani, returned from Ukraine meeting with corrupt Ukrainian and KGB-trained officials digging up fake dirt on the BIdens and the non-existent DNC server.
Exactly how naive, blind, and brainwashed are you Ken??
Clearly I have not attained your levels in those categories as of yet.
Perhaps, if I give it some serious effort, I can one day get there.Just as I thought, you prove to be totally naive, blind, and brainwashed.
It just amazes many here that Trump defenders side with the guy who has over 13,000 provable false or misleading statements since he took office, as if he should be some bastion of truth. The guy who committed fraud with his university and his charity. He has his base so disconnected from reality in a very cult-like manner, that they do not believe anyone but him or his propaganda network.
And who does he side with, anyone who furthers his business interests. He excused MBS when he had Kashoggi murdered, repeated the Saudi's defense when they murdered soldiers recently in Florida, takes Putin's side over all his intelligence agencies as well as promoting a pro-Russia conspiracy theory to deflect their interference in the 2016 election.
Do you not honestly see those actions in that last paragraph as things that should concern our national security? Do you not understand his many crimes - from campaign finance, to fraud in using his organization to refund Cohen when he ordered him to payoff McDougal, to misusing his charity, to profiting off of the presidency, to obstructing justice to protect Russia, to soliciting Ukraine to interfere in 2020?
Because they are clear as day - so naive, blind and brainwashed certainly apply if you think the resistance to Trump is solely based upon people not liking someone who brags about sexually assaulting women or being a racist.". . . repeated the Saudi's defense when they murdered soldiers recently in Florida . . ."
I hadn't heard about Pres. Trump repeating the Saudi's defense, or insensitive comments before I read your post, Valeant. So I went looking.
WaPo had that "insensitive" headline but since I am not a subscriber I couldn't read their story. So I went looking for his comments. I couldn't find any I would deem as a Saudi defense or insensitive.
You could help me out, and support your charge, if you pasted those insensitive comments for all to see. Until then it just looks like you are repeating non-credible blurbs like those found in the NationalView.com or the anti-Trump comments on his twitter feed.
If your charge is just vitriol then imagine how that reflects on your other charges.
GAReread my post Gus...I never claimed 'insensitive comments,' that's your wording, not mine.
Here is the statement confirmation of Trump echoing the Saudi defense: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/0 … ing-077222
How about before you go accusing me of stuff, you read my posts more carefully?I did read you post Valeant, and I did give you the benefit of the doubt, (and myself, since I wasn't up to speed and may have missed something). The post you read is much less accusatory than its first draft.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice and read my post before you go claiming something which wasn't there.
There were no quoted words of yours, only a repetition of one set of words you used. The "insensitive" came from the WaPo article, and I stated such. It wasn't attributed to you, but, I can understand that since it followed your words; "repeating the Saudi's defense" I can understand why you thought I was attributing them to you. My mistake.
How about a fresh start? You can explain to me how the comment you linked to amounts to a "defense."
Here it is:
"King Salman of Saudi Arabia just called to express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people.”
Surely that isn't the comment you are referring to as repeating the Saudi's defense"? Where is the "defense" part?
Until you can provide that I will maintain my first impression.
GAYou want to come at me with words like insensitive, non-credible, and vitriol - well, them's fighting words.
The lone wolf defense, much like every defense of mass shootings in this country. Isolated incident, nothing to see here.
And while Trump dislikes all other Muslim countries, he's fine with those he has business interests in such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia. If you're scoring at home, that would be the third time the Saudis have attacked America (9/11, Kashoggi, and Florida).Valeant, we must get this straightened out.
What is your "lone wolf," (this time I am using your words), comment? It wasn't in the wording of Pres. Trump's response. Is that inference what you are calling his "defense" of the Saudis?
Do you think your closing comment has any merit regarding the discussion of Pres. Trump's repetition of the Saudis' defense.
If that is the gist of your explanation, then yes, I do see your comment as vitriol. And if that is a fighting word, then you should be able to defend your use of the comment that started this 'fight'.
To be clear, from what I know from the public media presentation of the details, this was a "lone wolf" incident. Do you have reason to believe it was a Saudi-planned incident? Do you have reason to doubt the sincerity of the Saudis' response:
"The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people.”
" . . . The Kingdom expresses its deepest condolences to the families of victims, and to the American people," said Prince Faisal bin Farhan, the country's foreign minister. "We salute the bravery of those who neutralized the threat and saved lives."
Do you have more information than that to support your condemnation?
GAGus, you are all over the place. The defense the Saudis offered was the lone wolf defense. My statement was that Trump repeated that publicly, prior to a full investigation, which I see as a defense of the Saudi king. That, along with his absolution of MBS in the Kashoggi killing, and his kowtowing to Putin is a clear sign of a compromised president and a national security risk.
Geesh Valeant. If I were one of a couple other, (unnamed), posters, I would admonish you to stick to the topic.
Kashoggi and Putin have no place in our exchange except as deflections for you to use.
All the details I have seen do point to this truly being a "lone wolf" incident. Unless you have information otherwise, for you to use that as a denigration is just what I first called it - a vitriolic claim intended to support an unsupported claim.
If you can provide legitimate support for your claim then I will freely apologize and admit I was wrong, but I am confident, at this point, that you can't do that.
I am not the one that is "all over the place." I haven't introduced Kashoggi, Putin, and any "defense" into the conversation. That has been all you.
Stick to the original point. What is the Saudi defense that Pres. Trump repeated? What of the two quoted, (is there more that I haven't seen?), responses amount to a defense?
GAGus,
Again, go back to the original post. I brought up Trump repeating the Saudi defense as a matter of national security, as he tends to side with Putin and the Saudis due to his business interests. Taken as a whole, it's not hard to see that he is compromised by his interest in making money versus what is best for the country. Hence the Putin and Kashoggi points, that seem to get lost in your understanding that Trump has major conflicts of interest that affect his choices.
The point with the Saudis was that he was repeating their defense, the one of a lone wolf - aka, isolated incident - prior to there being a full investigation into the matter. He had bought their version before there was conclusions by the investigators. I see that as an issue that falls under similar national security issues.
Valeant said " repeated the Saudi's defense when they murdered soldiers recently in Florida,". I can't go along with that one either (but I do the other two). The Saudi's didn't murder the soldiers in FL, "a" Saudi did which is entirely another matter. Now IF the Saudi's had come to this guys defense, they Valeant has a point. But they didn't.
They and Trump DID, however, defend MBS' murder of the journalist.Thanks Scott. The President's response to the journalist's murder, even though a secondary issue, does taint almost all other Saudi-related issues.
But, that shouldn't be used as a justification for purposeful misstatements.
GABoy, I type too fast, or it was midnight. I just reread what I wrote and am embarrassed by the large number of typo's and poor grammar.
"The 'system of checks and balances' are the people. " - YOU KNOW less about the government that TraitorTrump does. Spoiler alert, the System of Checks and Balances are the ones our founders built into our Constitution.
You know, the ones the Republicans are throwing to the curb to save their jobs.I bet you are applauding like crazy and saying "Go Trump" as he denigrates Greta Thunberg, the disabled climate activist.
He certainly loves to go after people with disabilities, doesn't he. Just like him and his supporters.
This is just a sign that you have no interest in debating or considering other sources of information and perspective.
You (And Esoteric and Randy) either have an agenda, or have already determined Trump to be the 'sum of all evils' he is accused of being.
And like you accuse 'Trump supporters' of being, you do not want to acknowledge or accept any of the wrongdoing done by Clinton and many others.
However if I am wrong, and you do have an open mind and are willing to consider other opinions and perspectives of recent events regarding our election and Trump, feel free to watch the video below which will articulate a viewpoint very similar to my own:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4Gkm77usT0In case you were wondering what trump does all day
Yesterday he tweeted 123 times , so let’s give him 6 hours to sleep that would mean he tweeted on average 6.8 times an hour, this is what the President does all day - unless he’s golfingYes, at least I have determined Trump to be the sum of all political evils. This results with three years of critical analysis from reading, research, and observation.
Something you refuse to do for some reason. I bet you would max out the the Right-wing Authoritarian Followers survey. Experiments have shown that otherwise rational people WILL suspend their natural intelligence in order to follow their chosen authoritarian leader. (See Milgram)"This is just a sign that you have no interest in debating or considering other sources of information and perspective." - NO, Valeant is just stating the obvious. You can't debate somebody who lives in an alternate reality as you do.
In your world, Lies are truth while real Truth are Lies. In your world if Trump says 1+1 = 0, that is the gospel and no amount of evidence and proof will convince you otherwise. In your world, you believe Trump when he says don't ever believe what you read or hear - UNLESS it comes from him. And you obey.
O: If you believe that cr*p, I've got a bridge I can sell in you in Brooklyn.
Deleted
Raskin debunks Trump as an anti-corruption advocate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v3rtduTQjEAnd I know where Dan gets his accusation of hate...he's being fed it by Trump. So then he comes on here after being brainwashed by letters like this one from his cult leader, unable to discern the truth from the reality he's being fed. It's sad that he is in a cult. This was sent to a buddy of mine and he posted it online for all to see.
This is what scares the hell out of me and makes me so glad that I am old so that I won't have to see the destruction of American democracy.
Right now, most of the Republican Senators are as corrupt as a TraitorTrump. Anti-American Mitch, who usurped a presidents power to appoint a Supreme Court judge, is working with the White House to fix the outcome of what the founders had hoped would be a fair trial of the President when impeached.
If the GOP fails to convict an obviously corrupt, unAmerican Trump, then this guaranteed to happen in future when America mistaken elects a Republican president and a Republican led Senate:
The president will destroy the independence of the justice system as Trump as done with the appointment of Bill Barr - the Senate won't stop him or her
The president will destroy the FBI by appointing another J. Edger Hoover to run it - the Senate won't stop him or her.
The Judiciary will return to the days when they struck down all laws aimed at giving non-whites civil and voting rights.
In short, with a Republican president and Republican Senate, America will be no different than Putin's Russia."Traitor Trump"
"Corrupt" (Trump)
"unAmerican Trump"
But you only hate the actions, not the man you label with every loathsome name you can think of. Right!
Of course, now he's a cult leader now, too, brainwashing via letters no one has seen. Must have the powers of a Demon from Hell, too, right?It seems very important to Trump supporters to believe those who criticize Trump do so primarily because of hate. That belief allows them to think it is not Trump's actions, behavior, or policies that are so abhorrent, but the person who decries them.
So transparent.It's not the point of hating they're really making, Peter. It's the accusation they're using as an excuse for why Trump is being impeached. We all know what a great person he is. Honest and humble to a fault. Just ask him...
yeh, I know. Besides the accusation of hate people are also accused of being Political Correct if they don't agree with extreme right-wing tweets.
Because freedom of speech is holy. and if you don't allow it you are an hypocrite.
It seems that the discussion is not about the content but about the behaviour and cloths the messenger wears.
The day in January 2020 when the unpatriotic Republicans vote to sell out America by keeping the most corrupt politician in America's history will go down in the history books as
A Day of Infamy WORSE than Dec 7, 1941And this is the real point, isn't it, about Trump supporters
"That belief allows them to think it is not Trump's actions, behavior, or policies that are so abhorrent, but the person who decries them."
Let's look at some of Trump's actions that Trump supporters don't care about.
They don’t care that Trump was a known racist from way before he was president. Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019. See the Central Park 5, the lawsuits and fines resulting from his refusal to lease to black tenants, the 1992 lost appeal trying to overturn penalties for removing black dealers from tables, his remarks to the house native American affairs subcommittee in 1993. The man sees and treats racial groups of people as monoliths.
He has had 6 bankruptcies, showing a man who had failed to make money running CASINOS, would you hire him? He is a very poor businessman. This is a man it has been estimated would have been worth $10 BILLION more if he’d just taken what his father had given him, invested it in Index Funds and left it alone.
A judge has finalized a $25 million dollar settlement in the Trump University class action lawsuit, paving the way for thousands of former students at the now-defunct real estate seminar to get some of their money back.
While being married three times, he committed adultery many times. He likes to grab them by their pus*ies.
He pretends at Christianity to court the Religious Right but fails to live anything resembling a Christ-Like Life.
His zero tolerance policies have causes the separation of thousands of children from their parents. He still hasn't built his stinking wall that is supposed to protect us from all the evil from coming into this country and take our jobs and rape our women.
Trump the candidate called sixteen GOP opponents every derogatory name in the book as a defamation of their character.
According to the Fact Checker data base, he has made 13,435 false or misleading claims over 993 days.
His Trade wars make us pay for the Tariffs he imposes on imports. The 32 billion that China is supposed to pay, we pay for it. He doesn't even know how tariffs work. He has put farmers out of work that we now subsidize and caused importers to go elsewhere for goods and services, never to return to us again.
He is damaging our relationships with our best international friends while kissing up to nations that do not have our best interests in mind. He is making us weaker as a country, not stronger by kissing up to Putin and Kim.
He is systematically steamrolling regulations specifically designed to keep a disaster like the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis from happening again.
He denies scientific fact and claims that climate change is a Chinese hoax.
He takes credit for things like the economy and the stock market that he didn't have anything to do with. Prior to taking office, he claimed the unemployment rate was at 42%. Immediately after taking office without him doing anything, it dropped to 4.5 %, but he boasted about how great he made the economy.
He’s a blatant hypocrite. He spent 8 years bitching about Obama for his family trips, or golfing, or any time he took for himself, and what does he do? He golfs every weekend and we pay for it big time with Air Force One and his entourage.
When questioned about people who he has been seen on video with and in photos, he suddenly develops amnesia and says he doesn't know those people because he doesn't want to be incriminated by their association.
He has successfully divided this country into an us and them mentality by claiming real news as fake news and the enemy of the people while conspiring with the hosts of Fox News and other right wing propaganda outlets to even further divide the country.
This is just a few of the actions I have listed here as to why I don't like Trump. I could go on and on. But by the same token, these actions mean nothing to Trump supporters. They simply don't care and just look the other way because he has brainwashed them. His rallies are a disgrace to the office he holds as president of the United States of America.Just one disagreement. I don't think they are brainwashed. I think they have made a conscious decision to look the other way because they view Trump as the tough guy who will save their way of life. Like a mercenary or a hired gun, a guy who does bad things but now is on their side.
Just my take on it.Well said. The things above have nothing to do with hate.It simply has to do with reality. I always distrust people who talk about hate and love in relation with politics and nationalism. It's voting with your underbelly not with your brains. But everybody is hyped up by social media and superficial news items. We are not given time to think and look at the bigger picture.
This thread and these comments have deteriorated into what the Left has remaining... insults, superfluous petty issues and labeling of those who do not agree with progressive political beliefs.
There is a denial obvious in these 2500+ comments so I will not belabor what anyone can for themselves see.
The results... the reality is there for anyone to see.
The American economy is doing better than it has ever been.
Jobs are available for anyone who wants to work.
Millions are employed that were not 3 years ago.
Wages are rising, we are working to extricate ourselves out of wars rather than starting new ones. All this while he is taking on the tough challenges no other politician would... like China's free reign, and the unfair trade agreements we had with nearly every other country.
The man has a job to do, and he is doing it, and America is benefiting.
That is what matters.You tell 'em, Ken. Who cares if he's a corrupt, lying, arrogant POS? He's our corrupt, lying, arrogant POS.
And I am forced to point out that There you go Trumping again
The REAL TRUTH is in the REAL WORLD is that the Trump economy is doing no better or worse than the Obama economy with one exception. At no point was the Obama economy on the brink of falling into recession as is the Trump economy.
This is what I mean when I say in YOUR WORLD, 1 + 1 = 0 while in my world 1 + 1 = 2 or 10, depending on what base you are using, but never zero. Why do you keep insisting falsely that it equals zero??
"Jobs are available for anyone who wants to work." - MAYBE, but "Jobs are available for anyone who wants to work." at the end of Obama's term - so what is new?
"Millions are employed that were not 3 years ago." - DUH! What a meaningless measure since we haven't had a recession like his previous Republican counterpart left us.
"Wages are rising, " - YES THEY are - and they were rising just as much under Obama - so what is your point???
"we are working to extricate ourselves out of wars rather than starting new ones." - YEAH, AND abandoning and murdering are allies while he is at it. Boy, that is something to brag about. (Of course he wants to get into a war with Iran, so what about that?)
"and the unfair trade agreements we had with nearly every other country." - AND THERE you go Trumping again.
Oh yeah, what about this miraculous Phase 1, lol, trade agreement. Assuming he doesn't reverse himself again, what does it really accomplish?? Here is the only think we KNOW it will do, if signed:
- It will put us back to where we were a year ago. China will start buying American goods, which they had done before and Trump will graciously postpone new taxes on Americans (tariffs) and reduce some taxes (tariffs) on Americans that he has already hurt us with.
Boy, he really does great deals, doesn't it? - NOT
YES, the man has a job to do. I sure wish he would do it rather than tending to his own personal business and aggrandizing himself from the public trough.It has become clear to me that there are two political lenses that we use for viewing Trump. Republicans are all about the great job he is doing with the economy stupid. While democrats are focused on a presidents moral character while in office. Trump has no moral character and to me that is more important than jobs.
His lack of moral character goes against everything that I have been taught. It seems to me that a president without moral character cannot be trusted as evidenced by all his lying, changing his mind, huge turnover of staff, and conspiracy theories that are debunked. To me if the president cannot be trusted then jobs mean nothing. Personally, I cannot see how he could be my president for another term.
Taking credit for things that he didn't do and blaming others for his mistakes goes against my moral fiber. How he has divided this country into a us and them mentality with his constant pounding of enemy of the people and fake news is disgraceful.
If you ask coal miners and steel workers that are out of jobs, the economy isn't that great. If you ask farmers that have been put out of business because of his tariff policies, the economy isn't that great. The unemployment rate may be low, but the labor force participation rate is at 67%. That means 33% of the work force that could be working are not working. That is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics... Hey who cares, Trump is doing a great job, right?
I have to say, you have explained your dislike for President Trump in good detail. You have every right to have your views. These kinds of comments are prevalent on many internets chats. They have been for over three years.
Perhaps, it time to realize there are two sides to this issue. Many Americans voted for Trump, and see him very differently from how you have depicted him. To defend his agenda or job performance has become so repetitive it just seems a waste of energy.
Perhaps, once again we let our votes speak. I mean ultimately, in the end, that's what will occur. There is no reason to label those that approve of Trump's presidency as being Brainwashed. We could say the same of those that dislike him. It seems you are taking a lot for granted to judge so many others?Yes, after all, Trump never judges people. That would be naughty....
I was just pointing out perhaps there is no reason to label a group as brainwashed? After all, we all are individuals, and need not be put into a "basket of brainwashed individuals
It just seems very unfair to judge mere strangers?.Sharlee: Read this and tell me Trump is telling the truth. These is typical of Trump, the GOP, and Fox New brainwashing techniques.
https://apnews.com/83decd8619506bcd71cc170f899cd7ebSorry, I can't respect the source. AP is a leftist outlet, much like CNN. One can never find anything positive in regards to the GOP or the President. They lack sources and are mostly opinion articles, picking and choosing words they use carefully leaving out true context. This is a wonderful brainwashing technique. AP uses the very techniques from the article you posted?
I have said in the past there are several non-bias News outlets online that seem to be nonbias. I tend to search out my news carefully. I like my news straight, with names and resources upfront.Sharlee: Everything that you just said can be applied to Fox News. Look, I'll show you how.
Sorry, I can't respect the source. Fox News is a right wing outlet, much like Breitbart. One can never find anything positive in regards to the Dems or the their side of congress. They lack sources and are mostly opinion articles, picking and choosing words they use carefully leaving out true context. This is a wonderful brainwashing technique. Fox uses the very techniques from the article you posted?
"I have said in the past there are several non-bias News outlets online that seem to be nonbias. I tend to search out my news carefully. I like my news straight, with names and resources upfront."
So you have stated that everybody is an individual and you don't like to be put into groups, however that is precisely what Trump has done by labeling his opponents with derogatory names; calling the real news the fake news and the enemy of the people; dividing this country into us and them groups
You say the Associated Press is a leftist outlet. Trump's tweets and his disgusting rallies are his outlets of lies and false accusations. But that is O.K. because he has brainwashed those people into believing anything he says.
You won't even allow yourself to believe the article I just posted, even though it is from a reputable source. The problem is almost everything Trump does and says is documented in one form or another, but Trump will deny and attack those who try to present the truth and the facts.
He suddenly gets amnesia when he accused of knowing certain people who can incriminate him and what do Trump supporters do? They look the other way, because he and Fox New have led them to believe he is doing such a wonderful job of being president, when in fact, he and Fox News have done more to dis-unite this country than any other president.So, what you are saying is that you are so brainwashed that you think AP is making up the Trump quotes.
With that Shar, you just lost any respect I had for you as a credible, thinking person.No, what I am simply saying I don't respect the website AP. I think I gave my reasons very clearly? As I said they take parts of his statements and leave out some to suit the context they wish to push.
I am sorry you have lost respect for me...Since you don't respect the AP website and the AP website quoted Donald Trump, it goes without saying you suspect the AP website made up those quotes. Why else wouldn't your read them?
Donald Trump's all-out assault on the free press has taken its toll. Across the board, trust in major news outlets has declined regardless of whether you are Democrat, Independent, or Republican.
According to a recentish Morning Consult poll this downturn started in 2018. Other polls substantiate these findings, however.
Among ALL Adults; the most trusted news outlets are ABC, NBC, and CBS. They all start out around 65 to 68% in 2016 and trail down to 60% to 63% in 2019
Next are the NYT and WSJ, both of whom started at about 64%. The WSJ ends up at 58% while the NYT (after fierce assault from Trump) ends up at 52%.
After those is CNN which begins at 60% and ends at 53%
Following CNN are Fox and MSNBC. Both start at 55%. Fox drops to 52% while MSNBC bottoms out at 49%
Most surprising to me is NPR, this may have something to do with low viewership but it starts at a low 51% and trails off to 49% as well.
Things change somewhat when just Ds are considered.
ABC, NBC, and CBS lead at 78% going up to 80%
CNN and NYT are next beginning at 77% and dropping to 74% or 73%, respectively. At least for CNN, I think they rate lower because their news is more balanced.
The WSJ and MSNBC both begin at 69% and at roughly 66%.
NPR comes in at 60%
And, as expected, Fox trails badly at 45% going down to 44%.
Except for NPR each curve initially rises through 2018 before falling off sharply in 2019.
FINALLY the Republicans:
Also as expected, Fox leads the pack, but not as high as the other outlets do for the Ds.; Fox moves from 73% to 70% (probably because they started criticizing Trump a tiny bit.)
The WSJ starts at 65% and drops to 50%
ABC, NBC, and CBS go from 58% to 49%
The NYT and CNN go from 52% to 32%
MSNBC starts at 48% and drops to 32%
Finally, NPR goes from 46% to 40%
It is interesting that Ds and Independents put a lot of trust in the three major broadcast networks while neither like Fox much at all.
Both groups find CNN more trustworthy than not, with the Democrats having a lot more faith in CNN than Independents.
(While there was not "Independent" category, because the number Ds and Rs are roughly the same, by comparing the three charts, one can make very educated assumptions about where Independents fall. I can do the math for you if you wish.)
Since AP is a feeder to all of those networks, including Fox, then one can intuit that AP is fairly well though of over all."Since you don't respect the AP website and the AP website quoted Donald Trump, it goes without saying you suspect the AP website made up those quotes. Why else wouldn't you read them?"
I think I said they quote Trump, but it is clear they manipulate his content by leaving important before and after statements. This kind of reporting is not a fair representation of the News. It's hard to find any media outlet that has not adopted this form of reporting. I like to check youtube for most of Trump's interviews or press conferences, and just watch the ones that give a full video of his interviews. It not only provides all of what he said but his demeanor.
Do you not find it odd that one can not locate even one positive article on Trump on AP? This should be a true signal that perhaps they show a bias? Even CNN tosses in a positive story now and again."I think I said they quote Trump, but it is clear they manipulate his content by leaving important before and after statements. " - HOW is it clear. They were long quotes, not sound bites.
Tell me a positive article I ought to find. What positive thing has he done that they should have reported on but didn't?
Once you give me one, I will find it on AP.Our record-breaking economy due to Trump's tax breaks, Our military is now able to get speedy cere or walk into any hospital in the USA for treatment, the drastic number walking into our country illegally, his signing just last week his week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would cut federal support from colleges that permit anti-Semitism. His trade bill with Mex/Can, and he has the first phase of a China agreement. He obliterated ISIS...Pison reform, I could literally go on and on... He has solved many of our long growing problems.
One only has to make themselves available to better media outlets to read his literally daily accomplishments Sad to see many either don't have any idea of his accomplishments or choose to ignore them.
He is making things better chipping away at problems that have been ignored. That's why he will win in 2020. He is fixing instead of making excuses or apologizing.
If you look hard enough you might even find he affected your life in a positive way? He has touched my life, as well as my children's lives in very positive ways.Why do you keep Trumping, Shar. "Our record-breaking economy due to Trump's tax breaks, " - Simply put, we do not have a so-called "record breaking" economy. How do you conjure that false statement up? We haven't had a record breaking economy since Clinton, at least in terms of GDP. If you consider the longest span of modest growth since 2010 (eight years of Obama and three years of Trump) then have at it - but please don't attribute it to Trump.
Your comment about VA care is almost total misinformation. In fact, I could do those things before Trump. What Trump did was open up a couple of new avenues but nothing breathtaking.
What you mean like lyin'Brietbart and FakeFoxNews?
"His trade bill with Mex/Can," - Yeah, let's talk about that. It was nothing more than a tiny improvement over NAFTA and was DOA in Congress until the Dems were able to put some teeth into worker protection. Now the Mexican's are balking.
As well intended as his EO is, I doubt that it is legal.
You did name one positive thing Trump did on his own, the EO. Here is where AP reported on that. https://apnews.com/a082e791f52ce5759e801df94150eb59
While Trump is "chipping" away at fixing a few problems, he is leaving a trail of destruction in his wake.
How do you know if the videos on youtube haven't been edited? Do you check the source to see tif heir other videos are slanted to one side or the other? I don't use Yotube very much for my info on politics.
If I am checking put Trump videos on youtube I watch CSPAN, ANC, CBS, NBC. I would trust they would never alter the news on a video? Plus as a rule, these networks run most of his interviews or speeches in full.
They may not alter them, but they certainly edit them strongly. Perhaps not an entire speech, but you can bet that sound bites are carefully chosen, and usually to promote a bias one way or the other.
Fox News Polls
Trump Approval
Strong App Some App Strong DisApp Some DisApp
2017 - 2018: 28.5 14.2 (42.7%) 43.9 8.1 (52%)
2018 - 2019: 26.9 17.8 (45.7%) 43.8 9.8 (53.6%)
Trump Trade will help US?
2016: Yes - 62% and No - 31%
2019: Yes - 42% and No - 48%
Trump Impeach Only:
Dec 2019: Yes - 59%
Jun 2019: Yes - 55%
Trump Convict:
2019: Yes - 50%
2018: Yes - 39%Not sure what this has to do with media editing their videos?
I agree any media network can leave out much of an interview, I prefer to see any interview in full.
"Even CNN tosses in a positive story now and again."
Yes, all last week Gloria Borger sounded like a Republican, and they had a number of commentators on who were former Bush employees or aides. I was thinking that perhaps Borger should consider moving over to Fox.Do you feel CNN should be inclusive, reporting only one parties views? In a way, at this point, it might be a good idea to have networks cater to one or the other party. Might cut down on frustration. At this point, all major media networks have dug in and promoted their party of choice.
Sharlee: Have you ever watched CNN? If you have, I'll bet you it was just for a moment where you saw someone who was not in support of Trump and then you turned it off because you had confirmed your bias.
The truth is CNN is very inclusive. Most of the shows, including Chris Como's show always have guests from the other side who debate in a point-counter point format.
Fareed Zakaria's GPS always has notable people, like heads of state and ambassadors who represent other countries including Russia, Turkey, and others on his show. He presents the truth in an un-biased format.
I have watched Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin. They always leave important stuff out of their "weasel worded" broadcasts. If they have guests on from the other side, they use them as political pawns to ridicule their view points. It really depends on the political lens we are looking through and where our biased is focused.
Here is a truth. Hillary won the popular vote. Trump only one because he won the electoral college votes. Hillary did not concentrate on those states because she thought she had them wrapped up.
That's why Trump only does his disgusting rallies in those states that can swing the electoral college votes. It turns out those states are the ones where the coal miners, steel workers, and auto workers are still out of work.
But he has convinced them to rally against their own self interest, because of MAGA...sorry to say, he has brainwashed his audiences. Trump uses his Twitter Sphere as his megaphone to not only presents his policies, but his lies and misinformation that he picks up from Fox News. In which some of them do become his polices.
The problem is they are called "shows." Nobody presents the pure unadulterated "news" anymore. That goes for both sides of the political spectrum.
I miss the days of Walter Cronkite and the Huntley Brinkley report. That was before Reagan removed the fairness doctrine and Rupert Murdoch came on the scene with Fox News. That changed the entire news industry into what are called "fair and balanced with talking head panels"
Actually, they should be called "unfair and unbalanced." Of course, there is also the internet where one can find information to fit their confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance values and beliefs in the click of a mouse.
So where is the real truth when we have a president who has lied and misled the public over 13,000 times in his 3 years in office? Isn't the president supposed to be setting an example for his people?I appreciate your view and agree with some of your points. It would seem repetitive to continue debating Trump's win or his personality flaws. He certainly has many, but his job performance outweighs these flaws in my opinion.
In regards to Hillary winning the popular vote that is a fact. t's also a fact America has a system that has worked for a very long time, the electoral college. Trump won due to this system, that's a fact.
I must ask, do you think Trump will win in 2020? With all that has been thrown at him, do you think he will win? If he wins once again will you think once again he is an illegitimate president due to winning by electoral college?Sharlee: Thank you for your reply. I think there is a good chance he will win in 2020 and yes it will be because of the electoral college votes, not the popular vote. The electoral college has existed since colonial times since there were 13 small states. Have you noticed that Trump campaigns mainly in only those states. That's because of the winner takes all rule.
If the majority votes are for one party, they get all the remaining votes for both parties. That might have worked for the states back then, but it is not equitable anymore, since we have large state populations with more representatives. It takes 270 votes to win.
If he wins the electoral college votes again, he will be a legitimate president barring any influence or tampering by foreign governments. But I will respect the office, but not him as president. I don't believe his character will ever change and that is most important to me, not his perceived performance.
In my values and belief systems moral character is necessary for trust and to me he is not a person to be trusted. I'm sorry, but I'm not able to look the other way with all of his lying and promotion of violence, attacking those that don't agree with him with revengeful hate. I believe how he has divided this country will hurt the country in the long run, notwithstanding, his performance. What has he done to unite the country?I appreciate your taking the time to explain not only your views but how you feel. The country is very divided, and I see no end. I think the divide will be around a very long time. Trump stirred many people's emotions. Some are glad for an awakening, some are very upset by such a president that is like no other in is demeanor. And the radical way he governs. It could also have a lot to do with many experiencing a growing dissatisfaction with our government, unhappy with the status quo. I felt the government was stagnating, and seemed incapable to solve problems that truly needed solving.
Fortunately for me, I am not as pessimistic as you are, so long as Biden is the Democratic choice. Any other and you may be right.
You keep saying "but his job performance outweighs these flaws in my opinion." and I have to keep asking "what job performance"? I will go through the list - again.
- All of Trump's "big deals" with foreign nations have flopped save for NAFTA 1.1. The Dems fixed that one.
- He has made enemies of our allies
- He has sucked up to our enemies
- He has committed treason, as I show in a different hub, by putting Russian interests over Americas while Russia is actively attacking America
- He has made America the laughingstock of the world
- He, Bill Barr, and the Senate Republicans have conspired to almost turned America into a third world dictatorship. If he isn't convicted, they will have succeeded
- His policies have led to the death of many people.
Need I go on?
"Most of the shows, including Chris Como's show always have guests from the other side who debate in a point-counter point format." - and not the wooses that FakeFoxNews puts on to lie down and let Hannity roll over them.
" It turns out those states are the ones where the coal miners, steel workers, and auto workers are still out of work. " - WHO ARE losing jobs in this full-employment economy
One of Trump's talking points is fading as well. All of the recent rise in job growth (Obama had a similar rise between 1/14 and 8/15) has stopped; it stopped in 1/19.
I hate two things about CNN -1) their sensationalistic and often misleading headlines and 2) their inability to tell time. I have never seen a channel where "in a few minutes" really means two hours.
Actually only one major outlet has dug in and promoted their party of choice - FakeFoxNews.
I think this might be an interesting point to make regarding the theme of your exchange:
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, newspapers and pamphlets were the way folks got their news. And during those times, both newspapers and pamphlets were extremely partisan - as in organs of the party affiliations they supported. It would almost be fair to say there were no 'unbiased' major publications.
So to your point of a way to "cut down on frustration," I think a better choice would be to look for confirmation from opposing sources. Nothing is better than comparing 'Did to's' with Did not's' to find the truth of the matter.
GAThat would be true. If I remember right, an "unbiased" press didn't really come into existence until maybe the 1890s with the repurposing of the NY Times "with the goal of creating a dignified newspaper that would provide readers with important news about the economy, politics, and the world rather than gossip and comics. " (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/amgov … the-media/)
And I was pointing out you want others to not be like your chosen leader.
When, as PeoplePower said, a group that cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction, then they are known as brainwashed or worse.
It's like when Trump admitted he tried to extort Ukraine and people still don't believe it. They seem to take the oddest times to not trust his own words.
"Perhaps, it time to realize there are two sides to this issue. " - THERE is only one fact, not alternative facts as Trump's female mouthpiece wants you to believe. In base 10, 1 + 1 always equals 2. It does not equal 0 if Trump says so and to which you will probably respond, there are always two sides to the issue.
1. Does the House have "sole authority" to conduct impeachments? YES - do you think there is another side to that? (Trump does)
2. Does the Constitution authorize the House to issue subpoenas to gather testimony and documents. - YES - do you think there is another side to that? (Trump does)
3. Did the House exercise its Constitutional power when issuing subpoenas for testimony and documents relevant to the impeachment? - YES - Do you have an opposing point of view? (Trump does)
4. Did Trump stop the production of witnesses and documents which the House legally subpoenaed without reasonable explanation. - YES. Do you see another side to that? (Trump doesn't, he just did it.)
5. Did Trump go to court to argue that he doesn't have to produce the witnesses and documents. NO! Do you have another side to that issue? (Trump did it and not has even asked for permission yet.) If he felt so strongly, why didn't he go to court to quash the subpoenas??
6. Does the House have a legal obligation to go to court to enforce their legal subpoenas? NO, they should not have to court to enforce a legal subpoena.
-- Question: is it an issue that Trump is violating to the law by ignoring a legal subpoena; No, it is not an issue that he is breaking the law, do you somehow see it differently?
-- Question: Is it an issue that the House is somehow breaking the law by not going to court to force Trump to obey the law? No, it is not an issue in my mind. Is it in yours?
-- Question: If the House is required to go to court to enforce a legal subpoena, doesn't that naturally give the Court a "partial power" over impeachment rather than the House having "sole" power? Where in the Constitution does it say (or even imply) the Courts have "partial power over Impeachments"?
7. Obstruction: By not providing Congress with the testimony and documentation they require to do their job, isn't that by definition obstruction of Congress. Is there another side to that issue?
As to Article II: Obstruction of Congress, exactly what other side of the issue do you see?You have strayed off subject... I was addressing the "brainwashed comment"Just my opinion on the subject of labeling. I have no intention of debating the impeachment or the articles of impeachment.
From day one I expressed where this would all end... In the Senate being voted down. It seems you are expending a lot of energy on the subject. From the first day, the impeachment had one outcome, and common sense provided that outcome. The Senate majority solving the problem with a vote.
It might be time for the Dems to move on to the next "let's get Trump"? Better yet they should spend their time looking for a good presidential candidate, instead of chasing losing battles.
The impeachment is all but over...So, because the Senate Republicans are cowards and love their job more than they love their country will not vote to convict, you think the House should not do the right thing and impeach an obviously corrupt president who is demonstrably a Clear and Present danger to America and the 2020 election.
At least history will record one Party defended the Constitution while the other pissed on it."At least history will record one Party defended the Constitution while the other pissed on it."
Exactly.This is your opinion. You must realize many Americans continue to support the president. In my opinion, I don't feel He has not disrespected the Constitution and is working hard to make America a better place to live. I guess we must agree to disagree...
I am sorry Shar, There are three types of Trump supporters, the 3rd one of which are becoming fewer and fewer.
1. There are those who are like Trump and see in him a kindred amoral spirit
2. There are those that call themselves conservative that are blind and brainwashed, which is where I put you.
3. There are those who call themselves conservatives, dislike Trump intensely, but don't want to rock the economic boat. Morality, ethics, American values are not of particular interest to this group - just money.
Yes, I hate the fact that Trump is a traitor.
Yes, I hate the fact that Trump IS corrupt
Yes, I hate the fact that Trump is unAmerican.
I hate the things that dangerously mentally ill Trump does to make him all of those things.
But, because of his illness, I don't hate him personally - he simply can't help himself.I don't have to hate somebody to properly describe them do I? Yet those labels are appropriate and refer to his actions, don't they? Minus those actions, I wouldn't refer to TraitorTrump that way, would I?
Do you disagree with any of those descriptions?"Minus those actions, I wouldn't refer to TraitorTrump that way, would I?"
Actually, I believe you would. Normally people to not look for, and use, the most disgusting and degrading adjectives they can find to call other people...unless there is a pretty deep seated hatred there. A simple statement of dislike is sufficient...unless there really is a hatred present.
Do I disagree? Well, Trump does not come even close to waging war on the US, or aiding our enemies in actions against us. Not a traitor, then, although YOU will apply the label out of hatred.
Corrupt - no more so than the rest of our legislature. As the term is a relative, not an absolute (or we would ALL be "corrupt") it becomes an opinion, not fact. Because your opinions are based on that deep hatred, I'd disagree simply as a matter of principle.
unAmerican? No more so that the liberals that wish to destroy the country with socialism, or that exhibit no respect at all for the most powerful office in the world. Again, this becomes opinion and I would have to disagree with pretty much any opinion you offer - see above for reasoning.Bush took us into an unnecessarily war that cost thousands of lives and billions in treasure. Until Trump, it was one of the worst things a President ever did to America. He was a terrible president. [b]Nevertheless, I never doubted his loyalty to America.{/b] He just did stupid things. In fact, based on his actions just before leaving office and since, he has gained a measure of respect in my eyes that he lost earlier.
There is a reason real Republicans Bush 41 voted for Clinton.and Bush 43 didn't vote for fake Republican Trump. They knew how evil he is.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago
0The real motive revealed. A bunch of crybabies want to overturn an election.
With regard to your comment about discrimination against blacks in housing, here's what happened. Fred Trump (Donald's father) created a rental company, ran it for decades, and by 1973 it managed 14,382 apartments. By then, 17 African Americans had filed 15 complaints of discrimination in the application process. Also, four “testers” were sent to five Trump properties. They found that four rental employees discriminated. So in 1973, the Department of Justice filed a complaint against Fred Trump, Trump Management, and its new president, young Donald. At properties operated by them, almost 4.5% of tenants were black. One building had 40% black tenants. But five buildings had none. By 1974, the DOJ had collected accusations (formal, informal, and hearsay) by 43 accusers (named and unnamed) against 38 employees (out of hundreds) of Trump Management in 20 properties (out of 39), during 14 years. Three of them blamed Fred Trump. None of the 43 accusers blamed Donald Trump; there’s no evidence that he created or carried out discriminatory policies. In 1975, the Trumps began policies of affirmative action renting, to reach 10% black occupancy. By 1977, they exceeded this requirement. Finally, the DOJ closed the case for “lack of evidence” or new complaints. Here's what happened: http://www.newstandardpress.com/did-tru … ck-people/
With regard to the rape of the Central Park Jogger, the thinking was not just Donald Trump alone but the police who conducted their interrogations. Here's the story here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case.
With regard to the separating of children from their parents at the boarder, the law was implemented before Trump became President. The president signed an executive order in June 2018 reversing the policy, promising to keep families together. A court order then ended separations and required families to be reunited. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44303556
All being said, although I am not a fan of Trump the man, even some Democrats and The New York Times admit he has accomplished a lot in his first term. And though I have more to say with respect to each and every statement you have made in your comment (i.e., climate change is a solar event, for example, not something that can be rectified by lessening the population), I don't have the time. But success of the Trump economy has the Brits protesting "We want Trump" so it is having a reverberating global influence. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic … 40956.html"With regard to the rape of the Central Park Jogger, the thinking was not just Donald Trump alone but the police who conducted their interrogations. " - BUT THE difference is, the police saw the error of their ways - Trump still wants to hang them.
"The president signed an executive order in June 2018 reversing the policy, promising to keep families together. A court order then ended separations and required families to be reunited. - YES. Trump did that, but only because he was forced to, not because he wanted to. AND NO, the law was not implemented before him. Very few children were separated and only for short periods of time. It was Sessions who issued a ruling for Trump that led to the mass separations
TRUTH MATTERS
You will need to prove that even 'some' Democrats and the NYT has said Trump has accomplished a lot
I wonder why Canada has added jobs at the same pace as the US since President Donald Trump took office? Maybe because President Donald Trump is riding a wave that has not much at all to do with him.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/marke … ar-BBY1vd0cynthtggt, I was glad you took the time to refute some of the attacks on Trump--so many of which are either falsehoods, bizarre constructions attempting to characterize perfectly unremarkable conduct as monstrous, and perfectly legal and Constitutional--even Constitutionally mandated--acts as illegal or unconstitutional. In other words, they make representations that are facially not true.
While this is of course just my opinion, most of the time they write as if their contact with objective reality is dangerously tenuous (if you get my drift).
My Esoteric is particularly striking in this department. Here is one of her recent contributions:
- a psychopath?
- a racist?
- a misogynist?
- a bully? (Today he took on another person with a disability, Greta Thunberg)
- a homophobe?
- an Islamophobe?
- a traitor?
To say this falls a wee bit short of adult discourse is an understatement.AND which of those is not true??? Did he not attack Greta Thunberg? I assume you approved of that display of adult behavior.
My Esoteric, this fussing about how Trump "denigrates Greta Thunberg, the disabled climate activist," is one for the books.
Apparently it is against the canons of PC to contradict anyone who can lay claim to being disadvantaged/disabled.
The Left has once again outdone itself in the weirdness department.
Greta is not a "climate activist." She is an exploited child with neurological damage. Placing a child with Aspergers on the world stage to advocate for a political agenda is unscrupulous in the extreme.But TraitorTrump makes a habit of going after the disabled, why is that? Why do you approve so much??
So, are you calling Greta a Trumper??
My Esoteric (sigh):
1. Yes, the Constitution states that the House may impeach a president.
2. No. This is not a Constitutional issue. Congress's power to enforce subpoenas is not found in the Constitution, but is rather a matter of judicial precedent. Historically, the courts have upheld this power. Congress's power to investigate is, in itself, not a Constitutional issue but a matter of political tradition.
It is in Congress's power to enforce of subpoenas is where the complexity comes in. It is lawful for the Executive branch to decline to enforce subpoenas against its own officials, "particularly when an official raises executive privilege or other objections."
So this is not a cut-and-dried issue, but one that should properly be decided by the Supreme Court.
Here is a good link, if you would like to read an in-depth discussion of this issue: https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-co … -Brief.pdf
3. Um, no. Here again, the House's power to issue subpoenas has no Constitutional basis, but rather a basis in judicial precedent.
4. No. Executive privilege (and apparently some other reasons) may be invoked to stop the production of witnesses and documents. The sufficiency of Trump's reasons for doing so is a matter for the courts.
5. It is not up to Trump to take the issue to court. This is the prosecution's decision. They failed to do so.
6. Well, you can say that, in your opinion, the House "should not have to go to court to enforce a subpoena," but in actual fact, they do have to, should executive privilege be invoked. The House can subpoena and Trump can refuse on the grounds of executive privilege, and the House may then take the matter to court. Re your question, "Where in the Constitution does it say (or even imply) the Courts have partial power over Impeachments?" Um, it doesn't, because it is a judicial issue rather than a Constitutional issue.
7. Well, yes. The president has the power, as a matter of judicial precedent to invoke executive privilege in such cases. Again, a matter for the courts to decide. The reason it hasn't gone to court is because the Democrats have decided not to take it to court.
I suggest you read the link above so you can get some clarity about these matters.1. "Yes, the Constitution states that the House may impeach a president." - YOU TRUMPED again!! Tell the TRUTH. The Constitution says the House as the sole responsibility for impeaching the president. Why don't you read the document you are talking about??
2. AGAIN you are WRONG: Many, many, many Supreme Court rulings have declared that the Constitution gives Congress the implied power to subpoena in order to do their job. That is settled law.
From YOUR source:
- As the Supreme Court later noted in a case upholding Congress’s constitutional power to investigate,
- As the Supreme Court has stated: “The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,” (Meaning it flows from the Constitution)
- There can be no doubt as to the power of Congress, by itself or through its committees, to investigate matters and conditions relating to contemplated legislation. This power, deeply rooted in American and English institutions, is indeed co-extensive with the
power to legislate. Without the power to investigate—including of course the authority to compel testimony, either through its own processes or through judicial trial—Congress could be seriously handicapped in its efforts to exercise its constitutional function wisely and effectively.
- The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal
Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.
UNTIL the Supreme Court comes to a different conclusion, Trump is obligated to follow the law, if he doesn't, he is breaking it. He can, of course, as others have done before him, go to court - but he didn't, did he.
4. Trump did not invoke Executive Privilege.
5. That is simply absurd.
6. Trump did not invoke executive privilege
7. Trump did not invoke executive privilege.
It sounds very much to me you want a king to be the executive beholding to no one and that the Congress is superfluous rather than the President carrying out the will of Congress. Well, with Trump, you certainly have that.
So, what I'm saying above is that what you are seeing is the "system of checks and balances" among the three branches of government at work--as intended by the framers of the Constitution. It is consistent with that intent that Trump not allow the legislative branch to ride roughshod over the executive branch.
Your position appears to be that, as TraitorTrump says, Article II gives him the power to do anything he wants, break any law he wants, sell America out if he wants while he is president without consequence.
I am guessing you are in favor of a Constitutional amendment that abolishes Impeachment - it certainly sounds like it to me.
Well, Valeant, when it comes to false, misleading statements, I'd say you win the internet on this thread alone! Congratulations!
The "Russia collusion" horse (I mean hoax) has been dead for many months now, and continuing to beat it merely makes you look ridiculous. It died (the first time) with the Mueller Report, remember? The Horowitz Report drove a stake through its artificially reanimated heart when we learned (as we had already long known) of the massive fraud upon the FISA court.
Said massive fraud upon the FISA court was perpetrated by those sainted intelligence agencies, acting in collusion with several foreign governments. This was done with the express purpose (shown by emails and numerous illegal actions) of overthrowing the 2016 election.
Perhaps the seriousness of this matter eludes you.
For starters, this means that the intelligence community was operating under the express belief that it is they who should decide elections and not the vote of the people--and, should the people vote for a president who did not suit them, they would seek to remove him or, insofar as possible, cripple his administration. And of course, after all these criminal acts had deeply compromised them, they were motivated by fear of being found out and prosecuted.
I don't know much about the Saudi thing, not having looked into it.
The ongoing Putin meme is absolute idiocy. There has never been any foundation for it.
The ongoing meme that Trump "brags about sexually assaulting women" has always been absurd. The "grab them by the pussy" recording in no way expresses anything of the kind. The main take-away is, at worst, that Trump is guilty of impure thoughts. If you had an impure thought once in awhile, maybe your mom would have some grandchildren."Said massive fraud upon the FISA court " - SO, you like Trump are calling Horowitz a Trumper because he found the application to the FISA court, flaws and all, VALID.
The delusion Blue is under is amazing.There's so much in there that's wrong that it's just not even worth a rebuttal. It clearly illustrates the brainwashed accusation.
Here is a piece that explains what is really behind the delusion of Trump supporters. It is well orchestrated propaganda by the GOP and it is used by social media and Fox News to brainwash Trump supporters into everything that Trump says and does is truthful and righteous.
Yes, I said brainwashed, because Trump supporters are no longer able to discern fact from fiction and when the truth is explained to them, they still hold to their brainwashed ideology.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAK6SX7?m=en-us&a … InAppShare
As to the so-called meme (it is fact, btw), it tells you everything thing you need to know about the man. Most people don't give voice to what they think women are good for in public; they keep it to friends and family, not a journalist.
Not sure what the meme about MurderingPutin is, but it is probably well deserved since TraitorTrump has proven many times over that he
loves Russia more than his own country.
Valeant, as far as I can tell, the accusation of racism against Trump is based solely on his opposition to illegal immigration. But keep playing the "racism" card--which, like the "Russia" card, has become more than a little shopworn.
You forgot to mention Trump's homophobia, as proved by his insensitive failure to use the right pronouns.His racism is based upon starting out his campaign with
" “They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Referring at least once to a black supporter as "My Black ..."
Speaking of predominantly black nations as "shithole countries"
One easily gets the idea.
But then if you say/think those same thoughts yourself, then you wouldn't see them as racist.
"Studies suggest that neither the quality of its content, nor its proximity to the truth, has much of an impact on a meme’s popularity. The viral reach of Slender Man and the persistence of the vaccine-autism myth are two well-known examples. What does seem to predict a meme’s perpetuation, at least in part, is its emotional appeal and related physiological arousal. A meme that produces high-arousal emotion, whether negative or positive, tends to be shared with greater frequency."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/memes
Onusonus likes to tickle his oversized amygdala with simplistic memes. So much more arousing than trying to think.Let's get one thing straight. Trump is not going to be acquitted because he is innocent of abusing his power and obstruction of congress. He is being acquitted because the GOP holds the majority in the senate, McConnell is a Trump sympathizer, AG Barr has gone to the dark side, and Chief Justice Roberts will side with the GOP and Trump.
If a dem president would have done what Trump did, they would lock him or her up faster than a Trump New York minute. There you have it folks. When the highest authority in the land is corrupt and the judgement placed upon him is just as corrupt as him, there is not much that can be done to rectify the wrong doings...long live King Trump.So much for accepting a verdict as given: if you don't like it then it was invalid because of politics or because the law has gone to "the dark side".
It is not a verdict by impartial jurors, is it Wilderness. It is verdict from people who love their jobs more than they love America, plain and simple.
In the end though, the House will have done the right thing in defending the Constitution while history will record 1) Trump will be only the third President ever to be impeached and 2) Republicans tore up the Constitution and turned America into a dictatorship.What you're saying is that it will be no different than the House that searched desperately for a "crime", and finding none, made one up in order to affect an election a so improve their job standing.
And you don't like that, do you? Neither do I.Your brainwashed blindness is astounding, Wilderness. You know FULL WELL the Ds didn't have to "search" for a crime - TraitorTrump stuffed it down their and America's throat - and is doing it even as I write this.
TraitorTrump will be only the 3rd President in history to be impeached. He and Nixon, who resigned, are the only ones to have committed real crimes against our national security.
You know it, I know it, the cowardly Republicans know it, and the public knows it. Come November, the Republicans will feel the wrath of a citizenry they screwed over once to often.
With any luck and if God is smiling on America, they will be out of power for the next 100 years.You are right, he will be the 3rd to be impeached, but he also may be the first to be re-elected.
GAKudos GA, you caused me to do some research:
President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached December 19, 1998 in the House, after the midterm election and acquitted January 11, 1999 in the Senate; those events happened during his second term.
The impeachment proceedings were largely seen in 1998 as a political witch hunt, being run by a parcel of hypocrites who were all very likely guilty of the same ‘high crimes’ that they were supposedly investigating and publicly excoriating President Clinton for.
In the end the only charge that was brought was that Clinton had perjured himself during his deposition.
I see a lot of similarity in the current impeachment, we have the majority of one party on a 'crusade' to impeach the President, and they will find something to justify it, no matter the cost to themselves or to country.
I'm sure those Republicans felt they were doing the right thing, just as this Democrat group thinks it is now, well, one hopes that is why they are making this effort... the alternative reason is that they are more corrupt, and have more to cover up, than has been imagined and accused to date.So far, these are crimes Trump has committed:
Felony Campaign Finance - McDougal payoff
Fraud - Trump Organization reimbursement to Cohen of McDougal payoff
Campaign Finance Law - Using charitable funds on a political campaign
Obstruction of Justice - ten counts from the Mueller investigation
Emoluments Clause Violations - making profit every time he golfs at own properties
Campaign Finance - soliciting foreign interference from Ukraine
Obstruction of Congress - Blocking of witnesses and documents
Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. And you see similarity? Time to get the vision checked.Those are accusations, just as Clinton's donations from Chinese businessmen, and Whitewater, and all the other Clinton crimes were just accusations.
It's interesting to see politicians like Pelosi, who has a far more questionable political history than Trump, out there trying to talk about the founding fathers and what they would do... it was a better skit than SNL could have done. Especially when she had to stop from time to time, to make sure her teeth stayed in place.
This would all be hysterical to watch, if it weren't for the scary fact that people such as yourself, and Esoteric here, eat it up like zealots... I doubt you realize just how disturbing your posts are getting, between the insults and rants, why would you think any rational person would give what you type any serious consideration at all?Actually, they are not.
He was named Individual-1 in the felony conviction of Cohen as a co-conspirator - un-indictable due to his position as president.
His foundation was shuttered after the NY Attorney General found a 'shocking pattern of illegality' - her actual words. The $2 million fine was part of the settlement, but his criminality cannot be prosecuted until he leaves office.
The fraud in the reimbursements to Cohen are well-documented.
The Emoluments violations are clear as day as he charges the secret service to use golf carts among other expenses he charges them at his own properties.
And again, over 1,000 former federal prosecutors have clearly stated they could get a conviction on any American not shielded by the office of the presidency for what is already listed in the Mueller Report.
What is truly scary, is how supposedly educated people like yourself can dismiss court filings such as the Cohen sentencing where Trump is named as zealotry. You clearly have dismissed yourself from the same reality as people like Esoteric, Credence, Randy and myself. I would be worried about trying to convince rational people of these arguments, but I know there aren't too many left that defend Trump."The $2 million fine was part of the settlement, but his criminality cannot be prosecuted until he leaves office." - EVEN BETTER, TraitorTrump pled guilty to those crimes vis-a-vis his criminal Foundation.
I can't wait until February 2021, when the Feds and various state Attorney General's come after is ass and throw him (and Giuliani) in a cell next to Cohen.
Try again Ken, your two examples failed miserably.
WHITEWATER - "Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr. The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr) in 2000.[6] Susan McDougal was granted a pardon by President Clinton before he left office."
It had the very unfortunate unintended consequence that "The length, expense, and results of the Whitewater investigations turned the public against the Office of the Independent Counsel; even Kenneth Starr was opposed to it.[48] The Independent Counsel law was allowed to expire in 1999." - HAD the law not been allowed to expire (they need to bring it back) Trump would have been indicted for Obstruction of Justice.
As to the "donation" you are Trumping again. TRUTH MATTERS "The most significant activity by Yah-Lin "Charlie" Trie was a $450,000 attempted donation from him to Clinton's legal defense fund (for his impeachment trials) which Trie allegedly delivered in two envelopes each containing several checks and money orders. The fund immediately rejected $70,000 and deposited the remainder, but ordered an investigation of the source. The investigation found that some of the money orders were made out in different names but with the same handwriting, and sequentially numbered. The fund then rejected the donation entirely,"
While Pelosi has far more political history than Trump (none of it questionable as you Trumply put it), Trump's history of unethical (and as NY will prove, illegal) conduct goes back to his teenage years.
The "teeth" comment tells me you learn from Trump's boorish, bullying behavior very well.
Because rational people believe and understand and agree with what we post. It is you who live in an alternate universe that do not.
In our universe, Trump is corrupt and should be convicted.
In your universe Trump is a god who you want your kids to look on as a role model.
You are more generous than I if you really think the Republicans of 1998 thought they were doing the right thing for the nation, Ken. My opinion is that they thought they were doing what was right for the party and Pres. Clinton's impeachment truly was a political witchhunt that succeeded.
GA
I certainly hope you aren't going to vote for him. If you are not, then there is no chance in hell he will win again.
But in any case, there was a path forward in 2016. It took a terrible campaign by Clinton along with help from Comey (unintentional), and Russia (intentional) to pull it off by the thinnest of margins.
Unlike 2016. many of the people who voted for him then will not vote for him again after they have had four years of his corrupt, amoral, and anti-American agenda.
Women hate him, for the most part now.
Blacks are energized now where they weren't with Hillary
I have no idea where Latinos will come down given they are their own worst enemy and probably won't vote again anyway.
Biden is on parity with Trump in TX, so if he wins the Democratic nomination, that state is very much in play.
Unless things change drastically, OH, IA, PA, MI, and NC are all lost to Trump. AZ and KS also have a reasonable chance of flipping as does GA.
No, unless the world blows up, I do not see a path to victory for Trump, thank God.I didn't vote for him the first time, and I certainly won't vote for him the next time. But . . . I also won't leave that door open to just any interpretation.
I didn't vote for him the first time because he didn't portray what I want to see in the leader of my nation, and he still doesn't.
You folks, (anti-Trumpers), can cite all the reasons you want that he is what you proclaim him to be, but relative to my vote, the only citation I need is that he isn't the leader I want for my nation.
However, if I understand your thought, relative to me being a representative Independent voter, then I think you might be right. It is my opinion that Pres. Trump has alienated more Independent voters than he has gained as base voters. I think he may have solidified many of his deep Red states but may have risked many of the 'barely won' states of 2016.
But I must offer this caveat. If the Democrats offer a far-left Warren or Sanders then I think Trump will gain more voters than he loses. In short, I think this election is the Democrats' to lose - based on their offered candidate.
GAI'm not sure his persona is what alienated the barely won states as much as his policy. The trade war might cost him Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.
That is a fair observation. But, the question now is whether this announced 'Phase One' agreement, (more agriculture and beef purchases), will bring those states back into the fold.
As an amateur observer, I am influenced by the historical evidence that trade wars have never been a winning proposition, but, it is generally acknowledged that we do have serious problems in our China trade relations. So, I have to wonder if this trade war can turn out to contradict historical results. I admit I don't know enough to form an informed opinion. But I do know I won't let my opinion be informed by anti-Trump rhetoric.
GAThis phase one is typical of Trump so-called "deal making", lol. Assuming he doesn't change his mind again and scotch the deal, here is the only solid things that we know are in it.
1. A promise by China to go back to buying some American agricultural products they use to buy.
2. A promise by Trump to not impose some new taxes on Americans, otherwise known as tariffs.
3. A promise by Trump to go back on some taxes he previously imposed on Americans and return to the way it was to some degree.
In other words his negotiating style is to hurt America and then claim a win by removing some of that hurt. Interesting, lol.
I do agree that America must find a different approach to China. The one the West, not just America, chose was to change China's behavior by including them in the world marketplace to incentivize them to do right.
To me that was a very sensible approach. Problem is, it didn't work but it took a long time to figure that out. Now a new approach is needed.
Trump did two things with his approach to China.
1. He ceded the world marketplace to China when he withdrew from TPP.
2. He weakened America's economic prospects by starting what is always a losing trade war.
3. Behind all of that is a TOTAL lack of understanding about basic economics. Mainly -
-- Thinking tariffs are not taxes on the country who imposes them
-- In all but the most extreme cases, trade balances, positive or negative, are just a fact of life; they are neither good nor bad; they are not something to be avoided or sought out - they just are a result of free trade practices.
Set aside Russia and Comey for the moment, it was, in my opinion, Clinton who set the stage for her own defeat. I think had she listened to Bill rather than her campaign manager, she would have won.
Hillary Clinton is not a particularly likable person. Unfortunately, that is where many people's analysis stops. This isn't to say she has the extreme character flaws that Trump has, she doesn't.
She is also, as it turns out, a poor communicator - she couldn't speak TO the people, she spoke AT the people. That was where Trump, as sad as it is to believe Joe Six-pack would even listen to such BS, beat her hands down. In fact, it was his persona that won over so many far-right voters (Ugh)
I believe that thinking is what will drive the DNC to choose Biden, or Clinton even.
And I believe it is why they will lose in 2020.
When considering the Democrats that said "I've had enough" and went with Trump, and the Independents that ignored all his character flaws in 2016 to vote for him... why would they go with a corrupt establishment politician when they didn't the last time?
When considering the young people, and the serious and devoted left, who were energized by Bernie, and came out in greater numbers to support him than they did Clinton... why would they react any differently if they are again snubbed, and given some Democrat in-name-only stooge to vote for like Biden?
I AM a Trump voter from 2016, but I WOULD consider Warren or Gabbard or Yang, non-traditional non-establishment types, people not totally broken down and corrupted by D.C.
But never Biden or Clinton. Never a corrupt stooge that will sell out the American people for their own power and greed.I agree Ken. I was an initial Biden supporter, but I soon realized it was because I had a bit of history with him, (early Boy Scout banquets, Jaycee, (Junior Chamber of Commerce club), and such), and an aversion to the extremes of Warren and Sanders. I no longer think he is the leader we want.
As for Clinton, all I can do is shake my head when I hear the recent blurbs that 'maybe' she will make another run at the presidency. I really hope the Democrats aren't that blind to the American electorate.
My agreement? A Biden or Clinton is not a winning ticket for the Democrats or America.
GAThe question you have to ask yourself is which of the Democratic candidates have a fighting chance in the following states: AK, NV, AZ, MT, NE, IA, OH, TX, FL, GA, and NC?
I would argue that only Biden, and possibly Bloomberg, has a shot at winning any of those states. Klobuchar would have a shot in NV, MT, NE, IA, and OH.
Personally I would like to see a Biden - Klobuchar ticket.I'll take the candidate that can win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as well as having a shot in Ohio and Iowa.
That would be, IMO, Biden, Klobuchar, Bloomberg (Yang is too much of an unknown). I would add in Warren and Sanders, but I don't think they can win Ohio and Iowa. Buttigieg would, at this point in time, lose any state with a large black population (but I do like him as well). Actually, for those states, I need to throw in Bennett as well.
We are quite different in how we some things Esoteric, Biden or Bloomberg?
Bloomberg thinks that he can buy the nomination, ignoring concerns of a growing faction of the party.
Biden, is acceptable, but geez, with times as they are, we have got to do better.
You are content with the status quo, I am not, perhaps that is why you are content with "moderate" candidates.
It takes a lot to dislodge an incumbent, mediocrity won't be the way to victory next year.I can worry about changing the status quo in 2024. The prize, as I see it, is defeating Trump. By putting up a left-wing candidate whose chances of defeating Trump are problematic risks too much - four more years of Trump.
The difference, again as I see it, between the liberal left and for far-left is one of pragmatism. People like me want what is possible and not the whole enchilada which risks getting nothing.
There is a question on a financial risk taking survey. Choose one of the two courses of action. It goes something like this:
1. Investing $100,000 in something that has a 90% chance of a 20% return
2. Investing $100,000 in something that has a 50% chance of a 50% return.
Pragmatists go for choice one, Warren/Sanders supporters go for choice two.
As to "Moderate". I am wondering if you understand the term. The opposite of "Moderate" is "Extreme".
What history shows time after time is that "extremist" get movements moving but accomplish very little and often damage a lot (consider the Tea Party). "Moderates", on the other hand, are the ones that accomplish actual legislation, "extremists" simply piss people off and accomplish little legislation.
Name me a few firebrands, left or right, that accomplished any major legislation from the time our Constitution (created by moderates who would compromise - granted, the English wouldn't consider them such) to now.
Now that I got my mind rolling on history and to put a finer point on it - look at who got the American Revolution going. It was firebrands like
Thomas Paine
John Hancock
Samuel Adams (and the rest of the Boston Tea Party)
Patrick Henry
George Mason
But when it got time to actually write the Constitution it was moderates like:
George Washington
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton (more of a firebrand, actually)
Benjamin Franklin
Samuel Johnson
Robert Morris
and the like.
Patrick Henry and George Mason refused to sign.I am listening Esoteric, but the landscape could experience a sea-change by 2024.
A no change pragmatism is not attractive to the electorate, trying to attract enough votes from Democratic populists while appealing to the "committee" and centrists cost Clinton and the Democrats the election in 2016. The voters picked up on the contradictions that was part and parcel of Hillary Clinton as a candidate.
We need an FDR level of change, is it possible?
I have a preference in where I want to invest that money, I can always get a greater certainty of a return investing in something that I prize and value less. We need a motivated electorate on our side or we simply won't have the momentum to win over Trump's die hard supporters.
Let's just say less moderate. I don't think that presenting bold proposals addressing the questions of our time is extreme. The conservatives will say "extreme" no matter how modest the changes proposed. They are never going to get on board, so why waste time trying to attract them?
None of the men that were considered moderates during the founding of the republic could really afford to ignore contributions and opinions of the firebrands, they just put a little cream in the hot cup of coffee to accommodate and compromise.
So once again, we relent and let the corporates and affluent keep things as they are without any threat. Why do you think Bloomberg is running? We may never get another get another opportunity as the moderates are content to keep everything and everyone in his or her respective places.... We must do better.I whole heartedly agree.
You don't get change by electing a politician who has spent his whole life in D.C. and has been so broken by it, he thinks he's doing the right thing funneling funds from foreign nations through his son.
Congress makes sure they have their own insurance, members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed just five years of service, getting to D.C. means set-for-life, it means getting millions to roll into your bank account if you sell your vote to those who want it... whether that be China, ExxonMobil, or Phizer.
If you want to change that, if you want D.C. working for the people... then we need to keep voting outsiders in, those wanting to make change. Warren hasn't been completely corrupted by it yet, nor has Gabbard, and Yang certainly not.
But Biden has been part of the Washington establishment for more than 30 years.
Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry, then the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (later to be secretary of state), created a international private equity firm. It was anchored by the Heinz family alternative investment fund, Rosemont Capital.
According to an email revealed as part of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, Rosemont described themselves as “a $2.4 billion private equity firm co-owned by Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz,”
Over the period of seven years, as both Joe Biden and John Kerry negotiated sensitive and high-stakes deals with foreign governments, Rosemont entities secured a series of exclusive deals often with those same foreign governments.
Some of the deals they secured may remain hidden. These Rosemont entities are, after all, within a private equity firm and as such are not required to report or disclose their financial dealings publicly.
Some of their transactions are nevertheless traceable by investigating world capital markets. A troubling pattern emerges from this research, showing how profitable deals were struck with foreign governments on the heels of crucial diplomatic missions carried out by their powerful fathers. Often those foreign entities gained favorable policy actions from the United States government just as the sons were securing favorable financial deals from those same entities.
Nowhere is that more true than in their commercial dealings with Chinese government-backed enterprises.
Less than a year after opening Rosemont Seneca’s doors, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were in China, having secured access at the highest levels. Thornton Group’s account of the meeting on their Chinese-language website was telling: Chinese executives “extended their warm welcome” to the “Thornton Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden).”
The timing of this meeting was also curious. It occurred just hours before Hunter Biden’s father, the vice president, met with Chinese President Hu in Washington as part of the Nuclear Security Summit.
For a small firm like Rosemont Seneca with no track record, it was an impressive level of access to China’s largest financial players. And it was just two weeks after Joe Biden had opened up the US-China strategic dialogue with Chinese officials in Washington.
December 2013, Hunter Biden was jetting across the Pacific Ocean aboard Air Force Two with his father and daughter Finnegan. The vice president was heading to Asia on an extended official trip. Tensions in the region were on the rise.
Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden and Finnegan arrived to a red carpet and a delegation of Chinese officials. Greeted by Chinese children carrying flowers, the delegation was then whisked to a meeting with Vice President Li Yuanchao and talks with President Xi Jinping.
What was not reported was the deal that Hunter was securing. Rosemont Seneca Partners had been negotiating an exclusive deal with Chinese officials, which they signed approximately 10 days after Hunter visited China with his father. The most powerful financial institution in China, the government’s Bank of China, was setting up a joint venture with Rosemont Seneca.
The Bank of China is an enormously powerful financial institution. But the Bank of China is very different from the Bank of America. The Bank of China is government-owned, which means that its role as a bank blurs into its role as a tool of the government.
Rosemont Seneca and the Bank of China created a $1 billion investment fund, which later became $1.5 billion, the partnership between American princelings and the Chinese government was just a beginning. The actual investment deals that this partnership made were even more problematic. Many of them would have serious national security implications for the United States.
If you are interested in finding out more, you will have to do your own research, I put this out there just as an example, I will not support Biden, or Clinton, or any of these other sellouts that have been in D.C. so long they think it is their right to screw over the American people to make themselves (and their families) rich.
You will never hear about this in the MSM, all you will hear about is how Trump abused his position by trying to coerce a newly elected president in a foreign country to get to the bottom of Biden's corrupt dealings in that country.
Can't investigate Biden, have to bury it, have to rewrite history so that Trump looks like a raving lunatic or a politician abusing his position for personal gain... and Biden has done no wrong, there is no proof, and if there is proof found, it was fabricated.
It would be funny almost, if this massive effort to cover things up and twist the truth weren't so real, and encompassed so much of D.C. and the MSM.
Trump is a blowhard, a grand egotistical bloviating obnoxious persona, but I guess that's what was needed to take on this massively corrupt system that is so firmly entrenched into almost every facet of America today.
Now we can move forward with someone that will continue the fight... like Warren, Gabbard, or Yang or we can go back to letting the establishment stooges sell out the American people, while corporations and foreign nations like China profit from it, and hasten our nation's decline.Your story leaves out a few key details. One, Li knew Archer prior to the 2013 trip by Biden.
In a separate interview in 2014, Li was quoted by the 21st Century Business Herald, a Chinese-language newspaper, as saying that he knew Hunter Biden through Archer.
Li told the paper that he was a friend of Archer and had asked him to introduce potential partners while in New York in 2012.
“One day, after visiting five or six top private equity firms, Archer, Li and another executive went into a pub in Manhattan. While they were having a cigar and relaxing, Archer suddenly said to Li, ‘hey, do you not think I am the right partner for you?’” the paper reported
In 2013, Li, Archer and others agreed to establish the fund and Hunter Biden joined as an unpaid member of the board, The New Yorker said.
The private equity fund had a target in 2014 of raising US$1.5 billion in total, but the firm began to face problems investing abroad after Beijing imposed draconian controls on outbound investments in 2016 while the US stepped up its scrutiny of China private equity investments.
Trump’s allegations, however, touched on a sensitive issue of business deals between US political elites and China, which also includes Trump’s own family members, the Bush family, and relatives of US Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. Why no investigations into them, though? Oh yeah, their fathers aren't currently running against Trump.You and the Russians elected an inexperienced outsider in 2016 and look how horrible that turned out.
We can be on ideologically opposite poles and share a beef about Congress taking liberties and enriching themselves at taxpayers expense.
There remains questions as to whether Biden actually stepped over line in the same vein as those issues surrounding Trump. Only Warren and Sanders have the conjones to even tackle the idea of cleaning out the nest of vipers in Washington.
Prominent members of the Republican Party as just as deeply embroiled in the corruption, if not more so.
Who is committed to rooted out corruption in Washington regardless of the source? I don't see that in Donald Trump.
I don't have the knowledge regarding much of your discussion regarding skullduggery of our elective official relative to China. I am sure that you have researched in depth, as you usually do.
But, I do know that we cannot expect to compete on the same playing field with a nation where banks are owned by the government and their activity corresponds with the objectives of the Chinese government regarding international affairs.
In Liz Warren, I find someone that will take on the massively corrupt system while not being a part of it herself.I don't believe we are on opposite ends, I just believe at one point you disbelieved the criminal actions of Clinton, and you saw her as the better choice for America.
I feel you have come to realize that there is significant corruption in how D.C. operates and with many of our long tenured politicians.
I think before you were unwilling to acknowledge that, because it would make supporting Clinton much more difficult for you, so you chose to disbelieve the accusations of her great many crimes for the sake of ideals and political agendas you thought she would advance.
I think as well, when Trump is gone, you will realize that without his challenging the corrupt cabal, the entrenched establishment that permeates every corner of D.C. from the halls of the DOJ to Congress, no progress would have ever been possible.
Now whether Trump's reign comes to an end in 2020 or 2024 isn't what matters... what matters is who follows after him.
If it is the likes of Joe Biden it was all for naught, there will be no positive progress made for the people, it will result in the decline of America and the rise of China... which is a very dictatorial Communist state that will impose its will upon the entire world when America can no longer challenge its economic and political might.
If it is the likes of Warren, then there is hope that another step of progress is made to reverse the selling out of America, the people and the Constitution, by those like Clinton, Biden and the Bush family who put personal wealth and power ahead of upholding the best interests of the Nation and the people.
It starts with our leadership making sure we are not dependant on China, ensuring in our future we are capable of manufacturing and growing everything we need here, and with our allies.
What we can't afford, is another President willing to sell out America's interests and let China have free reign to do as it will.Ken, my interest in Warren is not only is she a tested and tireless crusader against the corrupt, but stands as first rate in pursuit of my progressive political values and that hits the ball out of the stadium every time.
I had problems with Clinton's sincere dedication to "the cause", others saw that too, which I think go a long way to explaining why she lost, trying to have a foot in both camps but satisfying neither side. In spite of this, she did not use race baiting as a campaign tactic like Trump did. Anyone that neither shows me nor people like me respect is not going to get my support. I would vote for Lucifer first as having a less unsavory character than Donald Trump.
I did not choose to disbelieve but simply looked at the campaign's of both candidates, although both were soiled in some way, one spoke more to my expectations and aspirations than the other. I don't care for the GOP and conservative doctrine generally and that was more than just a sliver of what Trump represented.
China ascendency has taken place over several years and many administrations. So who was responsible for allowing the economy to currently be held hostage by China."So who was responsible for allowing the economy to currently be held hostage by China."
Congress. The same ones responsible for allowing the invasion along our southern border to go nearly unchecked, for allowing our infrastructure all over the country to crumble, for allowing the creation of a second class citizenry we call "dreamers" and for allowing our government to deteriorate into a batch of squabbling children that can't accomplish hardly anything at all.
Congress is responsible for the operation of the country and for creating laws that promote that, not the president.Exactly WHERE do you come up with such nonsense by saying ""So who was responsible for allowing the economy to currently be held hostage by China." - LOLOL I know, FakeFoxNews
Exactly how is China holding the biggest economy "hostage"? Facts and figures, please, not off-base hyperbole.Who do YOU think set corporate tax rates so high our business couldn't compete with foreign labor, even after transportation costs? Who do YOU think allowed rampant Chinese theft of intellectual property? Should Obama and other presidents have made tax laws themselves?
I asked for facts and figures, not unsupported and mostly false opinions.
In other words, you recognize that Congress has failed and that the president isn't responsible for making laws.
Facts and figures: there are some 535 members of congress, and if you read the Constitution of the US (you can find it?) you will find that Congress is responsible for making laws.Wilderness: Congress is also responsible for oversight, hearings, and investigations, and subpoenas in accordance with — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 1
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” Those powers have become law as set by previous precedent since the ratification of the constitution.
The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”Not sure what any of that has to do with Congress's failures to address illegal border crossings, people in the country illegally, failing infrastructure or even Chinese theft of intellectual property. Can you explain a little further?
We are talking about TraitorTrump here, not your fake grievances about the Democrats.
You made a claim that wan't true. All I asked for was facts and figures to back it up.. All you do is deflect, so one must presume you know you made a false statement.
"Prominent members of the Republican Party as just as deeply embroiled in the corruption, if not more so." - Especially, those Senate Republicans who will vote to not convict.
I appreciate you listening to my arguments and I return the favor.
Consider, while I am not sure you agree, the electorate leans Right in America. It always has and always will. Let me prove my point. The current make up of political persuasions, according to Gallup, is 30%, 38%, 31% for Republicans, Independents, and Democrats respectively.
The Republicans no longer have a moderate or liberal wing, only a far-Right body. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a small conservative wing, a larger moderate wing, and a slightly smaller liberal wing. Independents have always leaned Right, even more so today because that is where the moderate and liberal Republicans went.
Now look at the huge hurdle the far-Left needs to over come to put their candidate in office on a national basis. Sure, they may be able to score an AOC every once in a while, but those are rare.
Do you really think a far-Left agenda and candidate can overcome the Right-leaning bias of Americans?
As to FDR. Trump poses an existential threat to American democracy. He IS a Clear and Present Danger to the continuation of America as we know it. In FDRs time, we were in an economic disaster with zero safety nets for the people, largely due to conservatives. Despite things like Social Security and Jobs programs, FDR was a moderate in every sense of the word. It was FDR who decided to end many of the progressive things he did because he didn't believe in deficit spending. When he implemented these more conservative ideas, he drove us into the 1937 recession.
The difference between FDR and today is that FDR was trying to save America from an economic disaster. The next president today must simply save America from political collapse.
Question, can each of the Democratic candidates do that? I think yes. But which has the best chance of beating Trump given the Right-leaning nature of the American electorate?
As to "A no change pragmatism is not attractive to the electorate, trying to attract enough votes from Democratic populists while appealing to the "committee" and centrists cost Clinton and the Democrats the election in 2016." - I THINK it has been pretty well established that what cost the Democrats the election were the Russians and Comey after Clinton's terrible campaign strategy and lack of voter engagement set the stage. It had noting to do with pragmatism or centrism.
Keep in mind, the Russians, with Trump's help, will be doing it again - so there is that hurdle as well."Consider, while I am not sure you agree, the electorate leans Right in America. It always has and always will. Let me prove my point. The current make up of political persuasions, according to Gallup, is 30%, 38%, 31% for Republicans, Independents, and Democrats respectively."
Esoteric, it has to be the independents that is driving the "lean right" argument that you discuss?
So, to cling to the Bidens and the Bloombergs mean that the necessary changes, as controlling the power of wealth and affluence corrupting politics in Washington is to always remain something we talk about that is desirable, but no one is serious about attaining it in actuality. So with Biden and Bloomberg, we just continue to "kick the can" incessantly. They will say all the right things, but they could not be expected to bite the hand that feed them and gives them life.
I do recall that the Democratic turnout was considerably less for Clinton than it was for Obama just 4 years before. If we could have captured those votes then the outcome in the 3 critical battlegrounds might well have been different.
We may have to agree to disagree on this one, Esoteric. A candidate that does not move the ball down the court just as well be another Trump with a more amicable manner and approach. I see centrist candidates without any novel proposals or direction as just standing in place and the voters we need for a massive turnout, deciding to stay home."o with Biden and Bloomberg, we just continue to "kick the can" " - All I can ask is do you want to have the best chance to get rid of Trump?
Obama was a centrist just like Clinton; but with a personality that appealed to people. Clinton lost the black vote through bad campaigning. If she had listened to Bill, she would have beat Trump and the Russians as well.
"A candidate that does not move the ball down the court just as well be another Trump " - You got to be kidding me, Clarence. That is the Tea Party talking, not a rational actor (sorry, but that is what it sounds like to me). Also, what makes you think that BIden won't move the ball down the court. He certainly will, just not in the way you would like.
What America needs is No Trump, not a failed Warren or Sanders candidacy. Biden can deliver that, Warren probably can't.
Yup, that seems to be the popular belief among the entrenched establishment Democrat minds.
It's why they, backing Biden all the way, are doomed to lose to Trump yet again... those pesky Russians are going to turn the people against Biden!I guess you didn't read what I said, Ken, typical.
I would take a good look at Yang and Bloomberg but neither has the international chops that Biden has which is where we need the most repair work done.
While I think Clinton was by far and away the best choice in 2016, she no longer is in 2020.
BTW, unlike the RNC this election cycle, the DNC doesn't pick the nominee.
Wow...
That statement shows a total, as in 100% complete, out of touch with reality perspective.
The DNC stole the election from Bernie and gave it to Clinton.
The RNC fought Trump tooth and nail, spent more in campaign ads against him than it did later on for him and against Clinton. There was rumors that they were considering ways of giving the nomination to Cruz despite the results, even at the end. That probably fell through mostly because Cruz isn't the most popular guy himself.
What I see with the posts here, is a high level of intelligence and ability to articulate a point, and find reference to support it... but that intelligence, and that ability to pull up polls and opinions (that you consider fact) just has you that much more convinced that what you believe is correct.
The country doesn't hate Trump, or despise him, a percentage of it does, the NY - D.C. - CA regions in particular. The rest will go whichever way the economy leads them, as much as anything.
Biden has no chance at winning this, neither does Clinton, it will take an outsider to beat the outsider and bring in the voters that abandoned the Democrats.
Trump is only despised in your world, with your friends, you will see the Trump 2020 signs popping up all over the place soon enough. While the Democrats can't even get one of their own above 25% support in their own party... and that is because they are sabotaging the good candidates they have, while supporting corrupt & creepy Joe Biden."The DNC stole the election from Bernie and gave it to Clinton." - AS I said many times, you live in an alternate universe. I will grant the the DNC did tip the scales a little, but there was no chance Sanders could have beat Clinton and the results show it. All Bernie's candidacy did was help Trump win. Now don't take that to mean Sander's shouldn't have run, he had every right to, and it doesn't mean the DNC should have put some roadblocks in his way, they did. But the fact is, it only hurt him at the margins and gave you a talking point.
And you are right about the RNC - in 2016. You are very wrong in 2020. They are doing their best not to have anyone else even on the ballot - they don't even want to hold a primary race, just coronate King Trump.
Again, you are Trumping. I don't consider polls fact. I consider polls just what they are, snapshots in time about how people feel.
You can add to NY, D.C., CA the following: WA, OR, NM, CO, IL, VT, RI, MA, RI, MD, VA, and HI.
States Trump is probably going to lose to Biden are AZ, NC, NE, IA, OH, PA, WI, NH, ME, MI, MN, and GA
"Democrats can't even get one of their own above 25% support in their own party..." - THAT JUST shows your BIAS. At this stage of the game, what percent did Trump have?? How about less than 25%, a lot less. So to paraphrase you "While the Republicans can't even get one of their own above 25% support in their own party"Fox News reports half of America supports convicting TraitorTrump.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/15/politics … index.html
1. It is "I think he may have solidified many of his deep Red states " that makes me so sad and afraid that there are that many people who see Trump as good.
2. While I think that maybe, possibly, Warren or Sanders (more her than him) might beat Trump, it is very debatable. My reasoning goes like this for Warren.
- I can only think of CO, ME, MN, NV. NH which Trump could contest Warren of the states that Clinton won. Of those, I think only CO and NV may be flipped. That said, the distaste for Trump is so strong around the country, her far-left policies may not be enough to do her in, especially in ME, MN, and NH, her home turf, as it were.
- Can Warren pick up any states Trump won? I would put WI, and MI in play because the latter two went big for Sanders over Clinton in 2016. I would put PA in play because that is the way the state seems to be trending.
- Can Warren pick up AZ and NC? Not sure, but those would be the only two I think she might have a shot at.
I think I read somewhere that you have soured on Biden. While I have weakened slightly, like with Clinton, his experience wins out. Especially now because of all of the extreme damage Trump has done to America internationally. None of the other Democratic candidates have the bona fides that Biden has in that area.
I do agree this election is for the Democrats to lose by picking the wrong candidate.I have changed my mind about Biden. Not for any glaring negatives, but only because I now see him as too representative of the previous political status quo. I agree that his bona fides give him the experience to handle the job, but they are also the reason I don't think he is the best choice.\
GAHe may not be for you, but can you stand four more years of Trump. The odds of that happening go up tremendously if it is one of the other candidates.
It may not happen, another Democrat might (I hope) win, but what are the odds?I don't vote that way Scott. I have never voted against a candidate, I always vote for a candidate. I only get one vote - I want it to be mine.
GA
How conveniently you ignore that there is exactly the same evidence that Trump called the Ukraine in order to affect the next election and that the Dem's are impeaching him in order to affect the next election. Assumption and an active imagination.
I recognize that you won't believe that, but it remains true; the evidence for one is exactly the same as the other.Of course I won't believe that. Trump, which it looks like you are finally admitting, corruptly attempted (and is still attempting) to get a foreign power to meddle in our 2020 election.
The Democrats, on the other hand is trying 1) to protect the Constitution from a corrupt Trump and 2) prevent him from getting a foreign power to meddle in our next election.
I know you don't understand the nuance of that distinction, but the rest of us do.
I think the magazine is right on with it's comment, and would further to that of the spoken and written word as well. Why else to we use so many loaded words and so often resort to name calling to "make a point"? Everything seems aimed at raising emotions rather than presenting facts: the speeches during the impeachment hearing were fascinating to watch from that viewpoint as nobody (meaning our legislators) had anything to offer, just loud, disparaging speeches intended to "convince" through stirring the emotions.
I agree, it's like accusing others of being "haters" because they don't like Trump's corruption.
Now who would do that? Personally I don't use the label until the name calling starts, denoting a true hatred of our president. Lies might bring it out as well, but never just because they don't like corruption.
Oh, you don't like lies either? Do you get angry every time Trump lies? If so, you're angry most of the time.
Have you ever watched a Trump rally?
Some people like that $hit. It tickles their amygdala.
So much better than pretending to be an amateur lawyer on the internet.
Talk to readmikenow. He's the legendary (in his or mind) legal scholar.
Bet that one really gave you the tingles.Joey doesn't talk much. He'd rather steal some other ignorant schmuck's thoughts and repost them here. This way he doesn't need to think or write.
"Trump claims a photo shows the Bidens playing golf with a Ukrainian company ‘boss.’ But it doesn’t"
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … olf-ukrai/
On the impeachment front, SCOTUS has now undercut one of the two articles of impeachment by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena (as well a the tax case), and, the Supreme Court said, we are going to hear this case.
What this means is that SCOTUS is in effect agreeing with Trump, and saying, "'Trump was right.' You don’t have to comply with a subpoena of Congress unless the court tells you you have to comply." That is, a president's refusal to comply with a subpoena is a matter for the court to decide--which of course also implies that it is always a matter for the court to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Hence, the House can have no expectation of automatic compliance ex a court ruling. Hence, noncompliance is not grounds for impeachment.Yes, it is. Grounds for impeachment. It is "high crimes and misdemeanors, as defined by the Democrat house. Anything they so choose to designate as such, is.
Again you get it WRONG.
As I said, if Trump wanted to challenge the Impeachment subpoenas, he should have done so as he did with his taxes which is what SCOTUS ruled on, BUT HE DIDN'T, did he. Therefore, he broke the law and should be impeached and convicted.
My Esoteric, it is my understanding that SCOTUS is hearing Trump's issue with the taxes, as well as the subpoenas related to impeachment. Hence, affirming that the president has a right to noncompliance with subpoenas pending judicial review.
No, they are not reviewing anything about impeachment, only those three cases related to his taxes which he appealed the release of.
I think there are two House cases and one NY case.
In the House cases, the House sent to subpoenas to banks for Trump's tax records - which the banks asked for. Trump sued to stop the production of those records, which is what he SHOULD have done to stop the production of the documents and witnesses the House wanted for impeachment.
Also, we have Comey and Schiff have both now admitted to the serious abuses of the FISA process.
Why do you insist on Trumping so much, Blue??? Nobody believes anything you say anymore because of it. Just like no serious person believes anything TraitorTrump says.
Scott, your "Trumping" substitutions aren't as cute as you think they are. (at least to me), It taints whatever point you are trying to make.
Compare it to how you would view comments from folks that use the term 'sheeple', doesn't that automatically indicate a bias to you?
If you disagree with Blueheron's opinions, then address them. Using "Trumping" in place of lying doesn't serve you well. But of course, that is just my opinion.
GAI understand your opinion, but Trumping is a special kind of lying, it is pathological lying - something that Blue and Ken do with disturbing frequency. Occasionally, I am talking about a particularly false statement (not a lie), but in most cases it is a repetitive bold-face lie - in other words, a Trump. I try not to use that label to opinions, but I do think it is appropriate, to make a point, when we are talking about a known lie.
"If you are interested in finding out more, you will have to do your own research, I put this out there just as an example..."
This is where the problem comes in for me. When it comes to matters like this, I don't see any way possible for anyone who's not in the know to be truly in the know. I can do research for days on end, and still have no idea if anything I've read is the truth. How is it that some people can find a few websites, or podcasts, and just decide, oh, well these guys are telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth; I now have all the dots and have connected them? Or, I'm going to believe this guy over that guy on how things went down in China or The Ukraine five years ago? The truth is that we have no way of determining what is left out, what is a half truth, etc.
There has always been corruption and always will be corruption. It's all relative. Donald Trump doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to give a about corruption.Damn! Hard sun, I couldn't type fast enough to give you witness. Except, we do have a way of ferreting out the 'possible' truth, and that is when we can compare the descriptions of common points.
For example, if one says it is raining cats and dogs and the other says it was just a drizzling rain - then we have a point of focus that will give us an idea of which one is spinning.
I do agree there is and will always be corruption. What makes the difference is whose ox is getting gored. If the corruption doesn't harm me, then maybe it isn't so bad, but if it does harm me, then how can you possibly be okay with it?
I feel sure it is unnecessary to explain, but I have found that it is the common points of opposing views that generally provide the direction to find the truth of the issue.
GAWell in the case of this particular topic, I do not believe the facts are in question.
The issue is not that it occured, it can be verified easily enough.
Is it OK for the VP and SoS to be meeting with the Chinese regarding matters of national importance, and at the same time their son's investment firm be bringing in billions of dollars from China?
It is interesting that those that make the laws, ensure there is plenty of opportunity to channel funds through family members and charities without restriction.
Being a sellout, being corrupt, may not be illegal, but that doesn't make it right. And that doesn't mean it doesn't have a great cost to all Americans, be it in the present, or the future."Is it OK for the VP and SoS to be meeting with the Chinese regarding matters of national importance, and at the same time their son's investment firm be bringing in billions of dollars from China?" - YES, so long as they weren't doing anything for personal gain like Trump is doing.
Since there is not even a hint of wrong doing (while there is tons of if for Trump), the only conclusion a reasonable person can draw is that your side is simply making things up.
Why do you deal all of the time with conspiracy theories that are no more real than saying the moon is made of green cheese?
"For example, if one says it is raining cats and dogs and the other says it was just a drizzling rain - then we have a point of focus that will give us an idea of which one is spinning." - BUT this difference is, the Republicans don't even admit it is raining.
Things definitely moving on this thread. Yeah. Up is still up and down is down. We can definitely determine who is more believable, but the he said she said get's outrageous, and the way some people seem to be able to determine "facts" based on ignoring all media outlets except a chosen few is just mind boggling to me. They all have it wrong, but Pete's Podcast is right on the money, lol.
I think people should be true to their word and conduct themselves with honor, or at least attempt to do so. So, I think all corruption sucks, it's just inevitable. It is hard to get outraged about corruption that seems not to affect us directly, but the reality is all corruption affects the quality of our nation or our neighborhoods. I respect straight criminals more than the corrupt cops and politicians. I mean, choose a side and be loyal to it at least.
Peoplepower, the difficulty with your premise that CNN and the rest of the MSM is unbiased, is that they have recently been proved to have lied about just about everything related to the issues with FISA court, and actually acting in collusion with the FBI to falsify evidence. Indeed, the MSM haS a very long and proven history of lying about just about everything else. The MSM is very much like Pravda in the old Soviet Union--a State-controlled organ. (Note the revolving door between government employment and MSM employment.)
Blue: Please note the revolving door between lobbyists and congress. Please give me your sources for FISA falsification and MSM being like Pravda.
Please note the symbiotic relationship between Trump and Fox News, especially Hannity and company where conspiracy theories like "the deep state" are hatched.
But the following have been debunked by the Horowitz Report.
1. The FBI investigated Trump to damage his candidacy.
2. FBI officials involved in the probe were anti-Trump.
3. Obama officials denied Trump ‘defensive briefings’ to damage him
4. The investigation was based on the ‘Steele dossier’Obama officials denied Trump ‘defensive briefings’ to damage him.
5. The FBI ‘infiltrated’ the Trump campaign.
Please note that Hannity has a desk in the White House and a direct line to President Trump. On November 23, Trump spoke to Fox and Friends for 53 minutes about the Ukrainian conspiracy.
Do you think he would ever do that on any MSM news show? Fox is Trump's Pravda, not the MSM. Fox is the state run news outlet, where Trump has called the real news, the fake news and the enemy of the people.
You want to talk about the Soviet Union. Fake news and enemy of the people was how they were able to shutdown the real news to the people who did not comply with the Soviet propaganda. I'm sure you've heard Trump use the term Fake News and The Enemy of the People, just like any dictator does to divide the country, discredit the real news and sell their propaganda to the people."Please give me your sources for FISA falsification"
Guess what? It's in the IG report. Now, here is a copy of the IG report. Show me you can read a document. I spy in the document at least 17 different FISA mistakes made by the FBI including falsifications.
Here is a test of your reading skills and comprehension. This goes for those on the left who don't need the media to do their thinking for them.
"the following have been debunked by the Horowitz Report." Those of us who have read the report find the things you posted laughable. It is quite the opposite.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document … ion-ReportSo after Russia hacked the DNC, the FBI erred on the side of national security on someone who had traveled to Russia while working for the Trump Campaign, after receiving reports that Russia had offered the hacked e-mails to another member of team Trump.
And that person (Page) wasn't even with that campaign (by five weeks) when action was actually granted. No one plays the fake victim card quite like Trump supporters.Blue: so you read all 476 pages. Good for you. Here I will make this easy on you,
1. The FBI investigated Trump to damage his candidacy
The report resoundingly concludes that the FBI opened the investigation after receiving a report from the Australian government about George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign staffer, had drunkenly claimed to the Australian ambassador to the UK that the Russian government was offering “dirt” on Clinton to the Trump campaign.
That wine-soaked meeting — and the information that came out during it — is what led to the investigation’s beginning, and not partisan political bias among FBI officials.
The President and his allies have spent years arguing that the FBI and subsequent special counsel investigation were the product of “angry Democrats” who were upset at Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 presidential election. Those concerns, in part, animated the start of Horowitz probe.
But the watchdog found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations,” or that any information apart from that provided by the Australian government was used to open the probe in July 2016.
Horowitz added that because the investigation itself was politically sensitive — it concerned the activities of a major presidential campaign — the government should set in place policies “so that Department leadership can consider these issues from the outset.” But, crucially, Horowitz determined that the probe itself was justified.
2. FBI officials involved in the probe were anti-Trump
Much has been made of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The pair expressed opposition to the President and dismay at his election in a series of text messages, a fact that has been whipped up into evidence of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the Republican party.
Trump allies have used the texts to suggest that the entire FBI probe is an expression of anti-Trump bias, and constitutes an effort by Clinton supporters in the government to take down the President.
But Horowitz unearthed text messages from other, unnamed FBI agents working on the investigation who managed to support the current President while also working on an investigation, professionally, that undermined him, politically.
One pair of agents who were handling a source involved in the Trump campaign exulted over the President’s victory in a Nov. 9, 2016 exchange.
“I saw a lot of scared MFers on … [my way to work] this morning. Start looking for new jobs fellas. Haha,” one agent wrote. “LOL,” the other replied.
“Come January I’m going to just get a big bowl of popcorn and sit back and watch,” the first agent wrote.
“That’s hilarious,” the other, unnamed FBI official replied.
3. Obama officials denied Trump ‘defensive briefings’ to damage him
Horowitz found that the FBI’s official in charge of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, declined to offer the Trump campaign a defensive briefing because the agency had not determined who in the campaign may have been working with the Russians.
Trump allies have long argued that the lack of a “defensive briefing” left the campaign in a uniquely vulnerable spot, less able to respond to co-opting by the Russian government.
Priestap told the inspector general that he did not want to provide a briefing in part out of a fear that someone on the campaign who was working with the Russians could have changed their “tactics” or “otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth.”
4. The investigation was based on the ‘Steele dossier’
One long-held argument has been that the “Steele dossier” served as the basis for the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign.
Horowitz did find that information provided by the dossier’s author Christopher Steele played a partial, but not whole, role in certain FISA warrant applications submitted in the course of the probe.
But the DOJ watchdog established that the investigation itself began weeks before the FBI received information from Steele.
“FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections,” the report reads. “These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”
5. The FBI ‘infiltrated’ the Trump campaign
The report reveals that the FBI had multiple “confidential human sources” who were either in the Trump campaign itself or were somehow in its orbit.
The President’s allies have claimed that the FBI and, by extension, the Obama administration “infiltrated” his campaign as part of a bid to undermine the Trump presidency.
But Horowitz wrote in the report that even though the FBI had access to informants in the campaign, it did not use them.
Rather, the report states, the FBI agents involved were aware of the political sensitivity of their assignment, and limited the lengths to which they were willing to go in handling these unnamed sources involved in the Trump campaign.
“We found no evidence that this CHS ever reported any information collected from a meeting with Trump or a Trump campaign event,” Horowitz wrote, using the abbreviation for “confidential human source.”
2. FBI officials involved in the probe were anti-Trump
Much has been made of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The pair expressed opposition to the President and dismay at his election in a series of text messages, a fact that has been whipped up into evidence of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the Republican party.
Trump allies have used the texts to suggest that the entire FBI probe is an expression of anti-Trump bias, and constitutes an effort by Clinton supporters in the government to take down the President.
But Horowitz unearthed text messages from other, unnamed FBI agents working on the investigation who managed to support the current President while also working on an investigation, professionally, that undermined him, politically.
One pair of agents who were handling a source involved in the Trump campaign exulted over the President’s victory in a Nov. 9, 2016 exchange.
“I saw a lot of scared MFers on … [my way to work] this morning. Start looking for new jobs fellas. Haha,” one agent wrote. “LOL,” the other replied.
“Come January I’m going to just get a big bowl of popcorn and sit back and watch,” the first agent wrote.
“That’s hilarious,” the other, unnamed FBI official replied.
3. Obama officials denied Trump ‘defensive briefings’ to damage him
Horowitz found that the FBI’s official in charge of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, declined to offer the Trump campaign a defensive briefing because the agency had not determined who in the campaign may have been working with the Russians.
Trump allies have long argued that the lack of a “defensive briefing” left the campaign in a uniquely vulnerable spot, less able to respond to co-opting by the Russian government.
Priestap told the inspector general that he did not want to provide a briefing in part out of a fear that someone on the campaign who was working with the Russians could have changed their “tactics” or “otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth.”
4. The investigation was based on the ‘Steele dossier’
One long-held argument has been that the “Steele dossier” served as the basis for the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign.
Horowitz did find that information provided by the dossier’s author Christopher Steele played a partial, but not whole, role in certain FISA warrant applications submitted in the course of the probe.
But the DOJ watchdog established that the investigation itself began weeks before the FBI received information from Steele.
“FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections,” the report reads. “These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”
5. The FBI ‘infiltrated’ the Trump campaign
The report reveals that the FBI had multiple “confidential human sources” who were either in the Trump campaign itself or were somehow in its orbit.
The President’s allies have claimed that the FBI and, by extension, the Obama administration “infiltrated” his campaign as part of a bid to undermine the Trump presidency.
But Horowitz wrote in the report that even though the FBI had access to informants in the campaign, it did not use them.
Rather, the report states, the FBI agents involved were aware of the political sensitivity of their assignment, and limited the lengths to which they were willing to go in handling these unnamed sources involved in the Trump campaign.
“We found no evidence that this CHS ever reported any information collected from a meeting with Trump or a Trump campaign event,” Horowitz wrote, using the abbreviation for “confidential human source.”In addition, regarding those "defensive briefings", Trump doesn't want them. He doesn't want to hear them and he doesn't want to read them
Your report was a wonderful read, PeoplePower, unfortunately facts do not matter to these people.
Since you have obviously read the whole report, please provide the page number (although I know you can't because it isn't there) You are just making it up as usual.
It wasn't hard to find the 17 instances in the Executive summary if you took the time, they are early in the report.
I think the original statement I was responding to was from a Blue Trump:
"Peoplepower, the difficulty with your premise that CNN and the rest of the MSM is unbiased, is that they have recently been proved to have lied about just about everything related to the issues with FISA court, and actually acting in collusion with the FBI to falsify evidence."
Maybe it was a similar one. But in any case I know that the FBI made several mistakes (but only a couple of so-called "falsification" by a low-level lawyer - Facts Matter). What I also know is that to use the term "falsification" to cover all of the mistakes in process that were made is just another form of lying.
I didn't bother asking for sources because the only source is Blue herself.
"... recently been proved to have lied about just about everything related to the issues with FISA court, and actually acting in collusion with the FBI to falsify evidence." - IS YET another Trump from you, Blue.
Exactly how dumb to do you think real people are when you make such obviously false statements as "(Note the revolving door between government employment and MSM employment.)" You know as well as everybody else, the ONLY revolving door is between the current WH and FakeFoxNews.
I sincerely hope those defending Trump have children and grandchildren who behave just like him as he's so admired by their guardians and role models. Don't you?
Still 1,027 who say Trump committed obstruction of justice: https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement … b7691c2aa1
It's up to 857 legal scholars who say Trump should be impeached:
https://medium.com/@legalscholarsonimpe … 18b5b6d116I already mentioned above that the "obstruction of Congress" article of impeachment has basically been shot down.
"The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week....
"Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court....
"It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution."
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/did … mpeachmentBlue: What you have quoted is Attorney Alan Dershowitz's opinion as a supporter of Trump. It is strictly his opinion. There has been no official ruling of shooting down the obstruction of justice charge. The GOP wants the charges to be submitted to the courts, so that it will slow the process down to the point of slow motion and take forever for it to clear the courts.
It could take as long as the next election to settle the charges. That is their strategy to get the GOP senators who up for re re-election to get elected for their next term.""The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week...."
You keep trying to push this false narrative so, in order to get the truth out there, I will repeat the facts of the matter with a little bit of additional information:
1. Dershowitz is a pro-Trump, unpaid, defense lawyer. He defends people like O.J. Simpson and helped get a guilty man off; more than once.
2. The cases before the Supreme Court are ALL cases brought there by Donald Trump fighting legal subpoenas/
3. Congress defended in two of the suits, NY in the other. Critical to your opinion is the fact that the House did not start the legal proceedings, they aren't required to in order to enforce their legal subpoenas.
Bottom line, you and the big D, are factually wrong.
Peoplepower: The three branches of government--executive, legislative, and judicial--were design by the Constitution to be coequal, for the purposes of exerting checks and balances against each other. Congress does not have the power to command the executive.
"The House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch."I repeat what PeoplePower said since you obviously missed it.
"The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”
The judicial branch has LONG AGO determined that Congress may issue subpoenas to carry out those functions. If TraitorTrump wants to fight those previous judicial decisions, he needs to go to court to do so - He Didn't.
The underlying issue with liberals--as exemplified by giving themselves names like Peoplepower--is that their real agenda is that the people should have NO power and the government should have ALL power.
I have pointed out several times that what liberals are, are Statists of the deepest dye. If you examine their express goals, in every instance you will find that the underlying purpose is strip every citizen of their Constitutional rights and their economic freedom, to confiscate their property and their labor, to police minutely their words, to gain total control of their beliefs (through public education and mass media). The goal is complete centralized control.
And that, Peoplepower, is not "People Power." It is tyrannical government power carried to its greatest extreme.
And this, you would have us believe, is to be done in the name of "compassion."I think it was My Esoteric that asked for proof of severely underfunded public sector pensions. While information on this subject is abundant, here's a breakdown by state: https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-fina … ut-survive
As I have also mentioned before, much of the difficulty we face in pursuing governmental reform, when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, is that such a large proportion of the population are on the government payroll--directly or indirectly, in one form or another. Almost 20% of the US population who are employed are employed directly by government at either the federal, state, or local level. Probably another fairly large percentage consists of people receiving government pensions. About another 20% are employed by the behemoth health care industry, which is, in large part, an indirect form of government employment. While postal workers are not classified as government employees, the USPS is heavily subsidized. And so on. (Lots of other industries receive subsidies, government contract, or government-conferred monopolies.)
My experience is that liberals are Statists because, almost to a man, THEY ARE ON THE PAYROLL.Rather than you far-right, agenda-driven source, I prefer a more rational source to debunk your implied claim that most, if not all, public pension funds are in trouble. They are not.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-t … 2018-12-11
Your so-called "statist" claim is just a bunch of malarkey filed through your far-right information sources.
Unlike what O and Shar think, this is why the impeachment. It's not about liking or disliking. It's about his criminality. It's too bad they are too blind or too brainwashed to see it.
No this is about one party wanting sheer power... Very simple, actually, this meme does say it all. This bunch wants to disrupt the country using any means. They have been recognized for what they are and made fools of themselves. The 2020 election will speak volumes. The Dems will not see the inside of the WH for many years.
How does removing Trump and allowing Pence to be elevated get the Democrats sheer power? Yeah, putting a religious zealot into the top office is such a great power grab. Your argument doesn't even make sense when you consider that fact.
The only fools are the people who deny the crimes of this president, or that he's totally unfit for office as so many people, including those who have served in his administration, keep repeating.
So much of the country is ready for this trainwreck to be over and to go back to some semblance of normalcy where we don't protect those who murder journalists, sell out our allies, or be subservient to Russia.
752 historians signed on for impeachment: https://medium.com/@historiansonimpeach … 4ed2277b16
Add that to the 854 legal scholars:
https://medium.com/@legalscholarsonimpe … 18b5b6d116
And the 1,027 prosecutors who see Trump's crimes:
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement … b7691c2aa1
So, that's 2,500 specialists in the field of law, history, and prosecution that all think Trump committed impeachable offenses.I have a problem with one part of your comment, all the rest is your views, and we both know we disagree on.
"How does removing Trump and allowing Pence to be elevated get the Democrats sheer power? Yeah, putting a religious zealot into the top office is such a great power grab. Your argument doesn't even make sense when you consider that fact."
This statement shows your thought prosses with good clarity.
Do you feel you have the right to Impugn another's religion? I was under the impression that liberals respected other's rights to choose and practice the religion of their choice? Not so much when it comes to someone you dislike or perhaps don't respect.
I have to say this is why I always take liberal with a grain of salt. No figuring out their logic. And some wonder about the "great divide"? LOLReligious folk accuse non Christians of all sorts of misdeeds Shar, are these "judgements" simply okay from the xtians and not from others? Church and State and all that....
I have no problem with him practicing whatever religion he chooses. When he's making political policy based upon his religious beliefs, I call that zealotry as he is forcing others to comply to the doctrine of his religious beliefs.
And with your ignorance of Trump's crimes, not surprising that you cannot understand the logic of liberals.Don't have any fear. I understand liberals very well. And like I said, I take them with a grain of salt or I should say give them a pass.
I simply must ask, what policies has Pence set forth?
An example:
Pence advocated for taxpayer money to be diverted from supporting groups providing critical HIV/Aids care to vulnerable people to “those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior”. This has been to refer to groups that provide conversion therapy, which have since been outlawed in five states.
I replied to this post, Shar. Is it not true some Xtians accuse nonbelievers of transgressions they don't accept in their respective cults? This isn't a trick question or anything else you'd normally expect from a "lib."
I guess it would depend on the individual Christian. I have certainly run into Christians that will point out something that is offensive to their personal religious beliefs. Is this Christian like? In my opinion, no it's not.
I agree, Shar. I've never actually met a real Xtian...only those who claim to be.
Yes, the Trump party. That is what he has been angling for ever since you and the Russians put the Manchurian Candidate in the White House.
If you were serious about those accusations you would be asking the same thing about Biden.
Not really, because I know that Biden's action to remove Shokin was backed by at least 3 GOP Senators. I know Biden's son didn't even work for Burisma when the CEO had allegations leveled against him.
Was it a conflict, sure. But the GOP is great about ignoring conflicts when it comes to the President's kids - even when it means protecting murderers like MBS. So pardon us if we don't believe your fake outrage now.
Ah yes, there can be nothing wrong in the doings of Clinton or Biden.
And there can be nothing right in the doings of Trump.
This sums up the positions of Esoteric and Valeant nicely I believe.
Lets consider some of today's headlines:
Latvia Flagged ‘Suspicious’ Hunter Biden Payments in 2016
FBI’s Top Lawyer During Russia Investigation Felt ‘Completely Distressed’ After Reading FISA Report
Support Falls for Trump’s Impeachment and Removal From Office in Another Poll
Horowitz Report, Testimony Provide Historic Condemnation of FBI’s Surveillance
None of it is looking good for the 'witch hunt' efforts the House Democrats are pursuing.Actually, both Clintons were investigated relentlessly by the GOP. What did they end up charging these two criminals with over the course of Whitewater, Benghazi, the e-mails, the foundation? Oh yeah, lying about having oral sex.
How many sham investigations do we need from the GOP to recognize that it's just another smear attempt? Especially when the grounds for implicating Joe Biden, that being the reason he removed Shokin, are so falsely constructed as that action had the support of both Democrats and Republican Senators.
And if you're scoring at home, investigations into team Trump have realized a whole host of convictions.
I notice you decided to not list the sources for those headlines, likely because you know that we'll shred the far-right sources you get your conspiracy theories from.To all you Trump supporters: This sums it up for me.
I am not mad at you that Clinton lost. I am unconcerned that we have different politics. And I don't think less of you because you vote one way and I vote another. No... I think less of you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him.
I think less of you because you saw a man spouting clear racism and backed him.
I think less of you because you listened to him advocate for war crimes, and still thought he should run this country.
I think less of you because you watched him equate a woman's worth to her appearance and got on board.
It isn't your politics that I find repulsive. It is your personal willingness to support racism, sexism, and cruelty. You sided with a bully when it mattered and that is something I will never forget.
So, no... you and I won't be "coming together" to move forward or whatever. Trump disgusts me, but it is the fact that he doesn't disgust you that will stick with me long after this election.Biden, Trump, not much of a difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVfMlUt2K2IThis is a dumb response. Not supporting Trump does not equate to supporting Biden. Biden is not yet a presidential candidate, either, and he wasn't in the 2016 race. And regardless of any of that, Biden's questionable behavior does not mitigate Trump's questionable behavior, nor does it rise to even a fraction of the contemptible level of Trump's disgusting behavior.
Just dumb all the way around.
Even dumber than your Russian-generated memes.Wow, you really put me in a corner with all that name calling. So many facts and figures, you should be a professional lawyer. Sounds like it cuts pretty deep knowing that your front runner is fit for a rest home.
Dude is a gaffe machine.
As a supporter of President Donald Trump, I can honestly say I've NEVER met anyone on the left who I care what they think about anything at all ever.
I find those on the left mentally weak, emotionally needy and lacking in maturity as well as general knowledge of law and politics. When you add the TDS and inability to be rational, I think their opinions are only good for purposes of humor and nothing more.
So, those on the left can say anything they want about me or President Donald Trump and I will find it funny, sad or just plain pathetic."I am a legend in my own mind." The perfect Trump supporter is just like him in many ways.
Talk about mentally weak - the above comment makes Mike a poster child of being mentally weak.
This bears repeating "No... I think less of you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him."
And add to that they applauded Trump for going after Greta Thunberg. He never stops being repugnant does he.
I stopped reading and responding to 'O's ridiculous and meaningless meanderings quite awhile ago. They are not even funny. I recommend you do the same.
It seems many have excepted that the coastal elites should choose our presidents. The electoral college has become very inconvenient, so now they just choose to impeach the people's choice. I call this a government takeover...
I find it interesting that the same people who hate religion, want to ban guns, legalize abortion, abolish the electoral college, and regulate speech are pretending that they are protecting the constitution.
And we find it interesting that people like you don't actually understand at all what people like us want. It's not a ban on guns, it's sensible gun laws. It's not about legalizing abortion, it's the right for a woman to choose. It's one segment that might want the electoral college abolished - which would be like if we said that all conservatives were like the ones marching in Charlottesville. And it's not about regulating speech - it's about that speech being factual and not slanderous as much of the right-wing propaganda tends to be.
You just confirmed everything I said but added flowers and glitter.
If you believe that, you're more disconnected from reality than I actually thought.
What exactly is "sensible" gun laws? Since when have laws ever stopped a criminal from getting a gun? I wonder how many people who say this know the first thing about guns. Here is an article quoting government statistics. In the state of NY up to 60 percent of criminals were able to get guns illegally. So, why put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage?
https://www.politifact.com/new-york/sta … me-rep-fa/
"And it's not about regulating speech - it's about that speech being factual and not slanderous"
Who determines this? In the Bible the book of Leviticus discusses homosexuality. It has been banned from being read on college campuses because they consider it hate speech. It is part of biblical text. It's been around for over 2,000 years.
So, if I get to decide what is hate speech, I'll agree to it. Until then......
Clinton was mine and the "people's choice" in the late nineties, yet, the GOP controlled House at the time was trying to impeach "my choice". Is there any difference?
No, there really wasn't in my opinion.
Bill Clinton at first was standing in the way of what the Republican controlled Congress wanted to do, also, many felt he won the election fraudulently because of Ross Perot pulling many fiscally conservative voters from Bush (due to his 'read my lips no new taxes' campaign slogan, and then came the new taxes).
Bill Clinton was also in a little over his head, and had legal problems of his own from prior to becoming President, charges which still haunt him today.
So in many ways this is a very similar situation. Save the Democrats do not have control of Congress, only the House. Which is why 2018-2020 has been all about impeachment, that is what the #1 issue was for the Democrats, sadly, that is all they seem to care about.
I thought it was BS when they were pursuing Clinton, and the only difference here is Trump is egging them on, its still just BS politicking and a waste of American's tax-dollars at work.So, I am glad that do you see the difference between the two example.
It nuts to say that Bill Clinton won fraudulently. Ross Perot qualified as a bonafide 3rd party candidate with every right to have his name on the ballot. Clinton won fair and square with both popular vote AND Electoral College. Why would I be concerned about what a GOP congress wanted to do? I put Bill Clinton in there as a counter to the Republicans and their agenda.
I don't want to see all this reduced to just partisan wrangling, despite the fact that I don't find Trump palatable in any case. But, if there has been a violation I want the President and those guilty of any wrongdoing held accountable. So, simply dismissing it all will not do. I am not satisfied that the issues surrounding this affair are totally bogus, I will be the first to back away when that is proven to be the case. The Right would not want Trump charged without ironclad proof, most assuredly.Let me clarify, many Republicans, especially those in Congress, felt he would have never won if Perot hadn't run.
That is probably a fair belief for them to have, when you consider Perot's relations and motivations regarding Bush. And that many who voted for him, may have otherwise voted for Bush, if there had been only two serious choices to consider.
We have Billionaires (Bloomberg, Steyer) entering into the fray now to run against Trump as a Democrat... their problem is they won't accomplish their goal of getting Trump removed from office trying to be a Democratic nominee, they need to do as Perot did and run as an Independent to pull voters away that do not want to vote for Trump, but won't get behind a (whichever wins out) Democrat either.
Unfortunately that is not the world we live in anymore, where we can get clarification of facts and evidence that all sides agree upon.
This will not come from Congressional hearings or the MSM.
If I had to stake myself to an opinion on the matter it would be that Trump is no more, and no less, guilty of corruption than Biden and less guilty than Clinton.
The one key difference being, Trump's crimes prior to becoming President never put our National Security at risk, never compromised the interests of America, never sold out what was best for the American people for a billion or two funneled into their kid's business or charity.
So therein lies the big difference between Trump and Biden or Clinton.
And Trump asking a foreign President to investigate those criminal acts by Biden I see as part of his duty and obligation to America, no matter how off-handed or un-diplomatic the asking.
The difference lies in the perception that the MSM and Democrats have tried to create... they are trying to say Trump asked the Ukraine President to create/fabricate charges on Biden's activities.
I don't think that is the case. I think it is clear that Biden is a corrupt politician that funneled billions through his son's activities and now they are pursuing Impeachment because he is exposing these and other illegal activities (or what should be illegal)... and if he is allowed to carry on with it, he will ruin the whole corrupt system in D.C. that both Congress and the Executive Office has been able to take advantage of for decades.
The main difference is that Clinton committed no impeachable crime. The crime he did commit should have been handled after he left office. But that wasn't good enough for a vengeful Republican party. No, they need to try and impeach him for nothing.
TraitorTrump, on the other hand, as committed real crimes against the nation and should be, if we actually believe in the Constitution, impeached and convicted. But the conviction probably won't happen because most Republican Senators have forsaken the Constitution in favor of saving the leader of the Trump party and their jobs.The first paragraph is completely reasonable.
The second is a load of crap. And somewhat related to the matter, Trump has made people far more aware of the fact that Biden DID compromise National Security, and DID do it for monetary gain, through the services of his son.
Now if any "legitimate" news source lays out for the American people just how much of China's inroads into our military secrets were due to the actions of Biden (and others, but the others aren't trying to get back into D.C. to do more damage) ... well, Trump's actions would look well justified in that case, and they can't have that.
The effort that has gone into covering up the treasonous actions of Biden and by extension Clinton and all the rest, is impressive, and sadly it seems to have been quite effective if you take what the media presents at face value.
I do not. I do not believe the polls and positions of the media are any more accurate than what those in the UK showed prior to the latest election, which was an overwhelming referendum in favor of Brexit.
But we will see in November 2020... the impeachment will not have a negative impact on Trump either way, it can only make him more popular and more of a martyr in the eyes of his supporters.It is THIS that is a load of your conspiracy theory crap. " And somewhat related to the matter, Trump has made people far more aware of the fact that Biden DID compromise National Security, and DID do it for monetary gain, through the services of his son." - How can an obviously smart man like you believe clearly FAKE NEWS like that??
Of course you do not believe the polls, it only makes sense - they don't support your conspiracy theories or worldview.
You appear, Ken, to be as paranoid as Trump is. Truth will never sway you, sad.Senators must take this oath ""I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."
McConnell and Graham will have broken this oath the moment they take it (in other words, "So help me God" means Nothing to them)
How many Republicans will actually take that oath, and God, seriously?
What is wrong is there were facts a fact witness that claimed she had sex with the president. The president lied ..."I never had sex with that woman"... The factual proof is the difference And by the way, I voted for Clinton too. I approved of his impeachment due to evidence. He himself lied.
When the Dem's set some actual proof forward I will be already to shout impeach 45! I am not talking innuendo, opinions "he may have committed a crime... I need facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luLpdr4n8m4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmjTMNvH6eISo Mulvaney giving a public interview that stated they tied the aid to investigations wasn't proof to you. Trump saying that he wanted the investigations, including one from China, on national television is not proof to you.
Zelensky asks about Javelin missiles and immediately Trump says he 'needs a favor, though,' and then proceeds to ask for investigations that will help clear Russia in 2016 and then one to smear Biden.
Now, remind us how many witnesses Clinton obstructed from Congress. So perjury is impeachable in your eyes, but obstructing justice so that the truth cannot be exposed is fine. Just like it did in the Mueller Report, you are fine obstructing justice.The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions. In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first president since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.
"Bill Clinton
The Clinton White House was mired in two major scandals involving Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. During these investigations, President Clinton used executive privilege 14 times, which included protecting First Lady Hillary Clinton from testifying during the Whitewater hearings and protecting himself from testifying in both cases.
His executive privilege claims, as well as his attorney-client claims in the Lewinsky investigation, were challenged in federal court. Citing U.S. v. Nixon, the courts determined that the prosecutor’s needs outweighed the confidentiality of executive documents and discussions. This ruling was not appealed to the Supreme Court, as the White House sought to avoid a headline-grabbing legal loss.
Clinton was eventually impeached by the House but not convicted the Senate, allowing him to finish his second term."
Nobody can beat he Clinton's at grift... Great article, check out Obama and his uses of executive privilege.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/whe … -privilegeEven if Trump said it, it wouldn't be enough proof for Trump supplicants - Oh yeah, right, HE DID, twice, right on the WH lawn in front of cameras and everything.
While lying to a grand jury is a crime, it was not an impeachable crime because, unlike Trump, he did not abuse his power that jeopardizes America's national security.
The proper course of action was to try him for it after he left office. Just like Trump will tried for all his other crimes starting in 2021.You are wrong Clinton was charged with two articles of impeachment -- one, lying under oath to a federal grand jury and two obstructing justice. After a five week Senate Trial the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. The president was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority.
Let me remind you there is no proof or conviction of President Trump abusing his power or jeopardizing national security.I would think it prudent to see what the Senate does with their vote.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his … -impeachedI am well aware of what Clinton's articles of impeachment were, I'm surprised the Republicans didn't pile on ten more for good measure.
Again, my point was that, UNLIKE TRUMP, the articles were bogus - trumped up as it were. What Clinton did was not an impeachable offense, not that the Republicans cared. Even the Republican law expert who said that it is too soon to impeach Trump and that the Ds had the "thinest" of proof agreed - he opposed Clinton's impeachment.
Now why would a partisan think that? (Note, the other three Constitution experts, one clearly a partisan D, thought there is plenty to charge Trump with.)
Valeant, I am not seeing why you would object to aid being tied to corruption investigations. This would be Trump's duty per his Constitutional mandate to see that the laws are enforced, as well as his fiduciary duty. Publicizing such matters is important; the people should be informed.
No obstruction there--especially in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld Trump's right to judicial mediation.That might not have been a problem had he not already authorized aid to Ukraine twice previous to Biden announcing his candidacy. Where were the corruption investigations in those instances? The motive was clear.
And I love it when you quote Zerohedge and their founder that's from Bulgaria and was charged and banned for insider trading. You keep promoting that content from criminal foreign sources."Valeant, I am not seeing why you would object to aid being tied to corruption investigations. " - THERE you go Trumping again, Blue.
What is the Trump? The Trump is your statement the aid was tied to investigating corruption. It Wasn't.
Trump had no interesting investigating Ukrainian corruption, He told Sondland that
Kind of sounds like you are pro-corruption and deeply fearful of an informed populace.
For those who are not keeping up here's the latest tidbit:
Headline: In Stunning Public Rebuke, FISA Court Slams FBI, Says Worried About 'Other Warrants'
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court slammed the FBI on Tuesday in a rare public statement over the agency's handling of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page's warrant application and subsequent renewals, according to the Wall Street Journal.
"In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes," reads the statement.
The punchline: "The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the OIG report, was antithetical to the hieghtned duty of candor" required by federal investigators, adding "The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable," wrote the court, which called the recent watchdog report from the DOJ's Inspector General "troubling."
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fis … -statementNo question the FBI FISA procedures need to be reviewed. FBI Director Gray is doing just that. Former FBI Director Comey says, after a bit of contrition, says the same thing. What they are talking about, of course, is process.
Bottom line, and contrary to what Blue is trying to imply - the FBI did not use political bias or any other bias in putting together the FISA application.If not bias, what do you think might have been a motive? Surely competent FBI personnel would not make that many, or those kinds, of "mistakes" - the only alternative was that it was done purposefully. Why, then, if not bias? Could it have been done on the order of higher-ups, and done to keep their jobs? If so, who was that "higher-up" that was biased? Was it (whisper quietly) President Obama?
There has to be a total of 17 Dems in the house who vote for Trump in order for him not to be impeached by the house. The chances of that happening are going to be pretty slim. Therefore, Trump will more than likely be impeached by the house. However, he will not be removed from office by the senate, because McConnell and company said they will act consistent with the White House agenda.
Trump hates to lose, but based on the scathing letter that he wrote to Pelosi, the house impeachment will really affect his legacy as president. Even though it is just the house impeachment, he will go down in history as an impeached president.
There is talk of the house not impeaching him at this time. Based on his defiant nature, they will let him hang himself with more violations of the constitution and then impeach him at a later time.
He can't help himself because he says Article 2 of the constitution gives him the right as president to have unlimited powers and do and say whatever he wants, just like any other King. He is his own worst enemy, even though he blames others for his wrongdoings. Long live King Trump.You need to ask Horowitz that. He was clear and emphatic there was no bias no matter how much you want to believe there was.
Unlike your hero, Obama didn't interfere with DOJ or FBI operations. He acted as a president of a democracy is supposed to act and not like the dictator Trump wants to be.Well, I don't know - I've seen posts over and over insinuating that if I cannot give a motive for Trumps Ukraine call then it just had to be to fix the election. Some, I believe, from you though I could be mistaken.
Does the shoe not work on the other foot: if you cannot provide me with an acceptable reason outside bias then it just has to be bias? Or is it only Trump haters that get to make up their own reasons for actions by others?Why not? You're calling me a liar, along with everyone not on your "hate Trump" bandwagon.
"hate Trump" bandwagon.
You don't have an excuse for the moron so you use the hate charge. Try wondering why you believe people hate him, Dan. Perhaps give us a few reasons why in the process. Is it because he's so brilliant and honest?Not many people will hate such an obviously disturbed person. Instead, we pity him. He is an angry, insecure, miserable man who is not capable of normal human caring and compassion. A man to be pitied.
Did you see the letter he wrote to Pelosi? It will go down in history as evidence of the time America elected a dangerously mentally ill president.I cannot give reasons, for unlike you I cannot read minds and know what you are thinking, but can come up with possibilities, any of which might be true. Or false.
Intolerance of anything different than you are.
Spilt milk, mad of an election you lost.
Demand for changes he won't make.
Party partisanship at the grass roots level.
Inability to look beyond words and into actions.
Wrong concept of what the country needs.
Do you need more possibilities?You see, Wilderness couldn't give any reasons to actually like Donald Trump.
I call you a liar when you lie. Isn't that the way it's suppose to work?
An acceptable reason is that Russia, a hostile foreign government, attacked the DNC, while Trump's campaign was having over 100 contacts with Russians. That's not bias, that's national security. Any argument to that is accepting that it's ok for foreign governments to attack us.
Or you could call Comey full of it, and say he and CIA's Brennan and the rest certainly DID have bias and DID abuse their positions.
Of course how you choose to look at things is based completely on your own bias.My "bias" is to believe Horowitz when he said there was no FBI bias. Your biased and conspiracy theory nature is to call him a liar. Why is that Ken?
Is Horowitz one of those fake "Deep Staters", lol.
Not a pleasant revelation , Esoteric, but this is pretty much my take on Trump, his supporters and the GOP as a whole.
And it is not pretty.....
https://www.salon.com/2019/12/17/are-re … y-love-it/Its rubbish Credence. "Republicans refuse Democracy"
Hah!
Just like the Democrats did when they rammed down the throats of all Americans the ACA despite overwhelming public resistance to that monstrosity "We have to pass the bill, then you can see what is in it".
If the Democrats believed in Democracy or rather the Republic... because that is what we have, a Republic. They would put their efforts into showing America what they stood for, and then eagerly await the election in 2020.
If the people believe Trump is a criminal (like the Polls say) if the majority want him out of office (like the polls say) then Democracy will win out in 2020 and the voters will remove him from office. All those states he won by mere thousands will swing to the Democrats.
It really is that simple."They [the Democrats] would put their efforts into showing America what they stood for, and then eagerly await the election in 2020.'
That is exactly what they are doing by impeaching a president who seems to think he is above the law.More rubbish.
Democrats in Congress have been saying since Day 1 ... Impeach, Impeach, Impeach!!!
They have acted as if they themselves are the law, Judge & Jury, deciding that Trump was guilty before he ever did one act as President, and they have worked tirelessly to create some excuse to validate their Impeachment.
And what is the excuse now for impeachment, asking about Biden and his corruption, the billions that were funneled through his son, the compromising of national security?
President impeached for looking into rampant corruption of members of previous Administration, those decades long D.C. politicians who felt themselves above the law and privy to funneling billions through their children and charities.This is a false view of Democrats. What we were hesitant of was a president elected by a hostile foreign government - something people like you seem unnaturally comfortable with. We had further reason to distrust him when he lied to us on day one about crowd sizes and then found out his National Security Adviser lied about Russian contacts in the first months. His dishonesty was on full display from the early days of his term.
Add this to the distaste many had for him as a human when he was heard saying that he liked to sexually assault women and mocked a disabled reporter during his campaign. Again, why his defenders on here are able to overlook that kind of conduct is why many have an open disdain for their views.
And Trump, through his obstruction of the investigation into the 2016 interference, as well as his openly racist statements and vitriol that has led to multiple instances of violent actions, has made for a clear case that Trump is dangerously unfit for the office of presidency.
Can you explain why you defend a man who is clearly racist, sexually assaults women, and protects a hostile foreign government who attacked us? What are your values?"We had further reason to distrust him when he lied to us on day one about crowd sizes" - ALONG WITH the thousands of lies and false statements he made before being elected. Oh yeah, there is his bigotry, his racism, his bullying, his ...
Ken: The republicans said impeach Obama from day one. They called him the anointed one, the czar, and ridiculed him beyond reason by calling him every name in the book. McConnell even said, it is the GOP's job to make him a one term president. However, he succeeded despite their efforts to block him.
Trump will be impeached by the house because of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. However, he will be acquitted by the Senate, simply because of McConnell. Funny, I mentioned him in two paragraphs and in both, he is detrimental to our democracy and the republic.And Republicans, without the good reasons the Democrats have, said BEFORE day 1 that they were going to limit Obama to one term.
They haven't decided formally that Trump is guilty. They simply found enough evidence to charge him with crimes and send it over for a trial where GOP senators are already breaking their oaths of office.
But, do they know Trump is guilty individually? Of course they do because, like with O.J. Simpson, the evidence is overwhelming.
"President impeached for looking into rampant corruption of members of previous Administration," - WHICH is total BS! The president is being impeached for asking a foreign gov't to help him win the 2020 election.
FACTS MATTER, KenDeleted
Impeached on both articles. Time wounds all heels!
Then you, too, will find it perfectly acceptable for a future president to claim blanket executive privilege to ignore all subpoenas in a future investigation.
Cool. Good to know.
Even Nixon had enough integrity not to do that.
"Ken: The republicans said impeach Obama from day one. They called him the anointed one, the czar, and ridiculed him beyond reason by calling him every name in the book. McConnell even said, it is the GOP's job to make him a one term president. However, he succeeded despite their efforts to block him."
Ken,
The GOP had it out for Obama since day one. So, we did not negligently fail to acknowledge this point, now did we?
So, the tendency to go against those that we oppose could be considered part and parcel of partisanship, and not just a character trait to be associated with Democrats?
I don't care for Republicans, their philosophy, their candidates, nor their supporters and there is no equivocation on my part regarding that and there never has been from the day I was old enough to cast my first ballot.Just like with this impeachment vote, had Republicans been allowed to vote their conscience, then ACA would have passed with large bi-partisan support.
If Republicans today were allowed to vote their conscience, Trump would be convicted. But, they all fear more for their job than they love America. There is no other reason for them to want a corrupt politician to remain in office.
I suspect Republicans will pay a very steep price for their unAmerican activity at the polls - except in deep red states where anti-Federalists still survive in large numbers.
Related Discussions
- 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...
- 110
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 2 months 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,...
- 137
Re-instateing 'real' Donald Trump as President Again
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 4 years ago
The American nation is on the boil! It's law enacting body or Legislation is likewise on the boil on impeaching biden. Both Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are target to be impeached as not to compromise the Presidency! So Biden, Kamala, and...
- 639
Impeaching Donald Trump - Again
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
- 117
Trump Tribunals: Predict An Impeachment Article / Indictment Charge
by JAKE Earthshine 6 years ago
There is no other acceptable choice and or remedy other than his resignation which would conceivably still lead to immediate criminal indictment given the trove of damning evidence which currently exists: The political END must be near for this most absurdly unqualified and mentally shackled...
- 66
Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.
by jeff61b 4 years ago
We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.But Donald Trump...