Is America's Constitutional Democracy Dead?

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (223 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    Now that the Trumplicans in the Senate abdicated on their duty to hold a fair trial and voted to let Donald Trump remain in office, did that mark the end of our democracy as we know it?

    Consider:

    1.  There isn't a thing a president can do that will warrant removal if the Senate is made up of a majority of the president's party.

    2.  Congress can no longer perform oversight of the President if that person says no.

    3.  A president can now rule by executive order and Congress is powerless to stop them unless it has a veto-proof majority of the opposite party

    4.  The DoJ has lost its independence and cannot be trusted to do the right thing for America

    5.  The State Department had been hollowed out and is no longer trusted world-wide.

    6.  Now the Intelligence Community has been eviscerated and can no longer be trusted by foreign governments or the People

    7.  DoD is no longer now a tool of the president's political agenda

    Tell me, how are we different from #MurderingPutin's Russian government?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, the end of our form of democracy is near.  Consider:

      1.  Every president will now face a bogus impeachment if their party is not in control of the House.

      2.  Any congress that is not of the President's party will attempt to micro manage every action of the President, using the court system to systematically delay and cancel everything (s)he does. Separation of Powers simply means "Do what helps the political party in power finds helpful in maintaining their status".

      3.  Every president is limited to executive actions unless (s)he has a controlling majority in Congress.  Nothing else will be even considered for action by Congress.

      4.  The DoJ is no longer independent, but merely a tool for politicians to use to harass and obstruct a President they don't like.

      5.  The State Department is required to follow the wishes of the ruling party in Congress without regard to the needs of the country.

      6.  The Intelligence Community must make public everything it finds or does in an effort to aid other countries in getting around our desires and needs.

      7.  The DoD is now merely a tool of the ruling party in Congress, with it's Commander in Chief a committee buried in the halls of Congress.

      Tell me, how is any of this good for the country rather than just the Democratic party?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        You're assuming every POTUS will be as corrupt as Trump. Why? Just because Trump was Impeached by the House and the Senate covered up for him?

        I certainly don't want any other POTUS of either party to act like the baby man has.

      2. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        1. Only the Republicans have done that.  Trump is Corrupt and the Democrats TRIED to hold him accountable but the Trumplicans stopped them.

        2.  Only the Republicans did that with Obama.  What will change is that if they try it again with a Democratic president, that person can go tell them to stuff it based on the precedent set by Trump.

        3.  Actually, based on history, that is clearly not true - just ask Clinton.

        4. Again, that has never been true - until Trump.  He turned the DoJ into his personal law firm.

        5.  Until Trump, the world could trust what the State Department said - no longer.  It will take the Democrats a very long time to gain that trust back.  Also, the State Department is required to do what is lawful.  Under Pompeo, that is no longer true.

        6.  The IC must tell the truth to power.  Now, under Trump, they cannot.

        7.  That of course, until Trump, has never been true.

        Trump has forever cheapened American values and standing in the world.

        Tell me how you can be so delusional.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Only if you will tell me why you so consistently miss the point so badly, and continue the pretense that Democrats are only doing their job while Republicans are all corrupt.  Those points listed were presented as an indication that Democrats, this time around, are doing the exact same things you accuse Republicans of.

          For instance, the plainly bogus claims against Trump in the impeachment - they could not stand the light of day and the Senate turned them away as they should have, but you claim, without any evidence beyond opinions of witnesses, that Democrats did right...because of your built in bias that Trump is corrupt.  That was unproven in the impeachment process, whereupon you claim it was a bad judgement because Trump is corrupt.  The reasoning is plainly based on a bias without evidence.

          And the rest were much the same.  The FBI and IRS have both been weaponized, by Democrats, in the past.  Democrats have consistently opposed every attempt to control illegal border crossings, from the travel ban to demanding illegal aliens be turned loose within our borders, yet you ignore that Trump attempts to enforce Congressional laws while Democrats attempt to bypass them. 

          This is typical of nearly every post you put up.  A tremendous bias against Trump, resulting in a declaration that Democrats are "only doing their job" (in ignoring border control, for instance, while anyone objecting is as corrupt as Trump obviously is.  Bias, nothing else.

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "Only if you will tell me why you so consistently miss the point so badly, and continue the pretense that Democrats are only doing their job while Republicans are all corrupt. " - BECAUSE, Wilderness, that is what recent history shows.  I only comment on what I have observed over time.

            There was a time when modern Republicans had a soul.  That would be between 1960 and 1994.  Prior to that you had the Joe McCarthy era and after that you have the Tea Party-Trumplican era.  Then of course, the original Republican party (which is now represented by the Democratic party) was liberal and actually cared about people. 

            It was the liberal who freed the slaves and passed the 14th and 15th amendments.  It was the conservative Democrats who opposed those amendments and their implementing legislation.  It was the conservative Supreme Court (like the one today) that eviscerated the 14th and 15th amendments.  It was the liberal Democrats of the 1960s which passed legislation to give meaning to those two landmark amendments.

            You tell me why I should respect practical conservatism since it has demonstrably hurt America and Americans throughout history.

            "For instance, the plainly bogus claims against Trump in the impeachment" - AGAIN you prove how delusional you are.

            ".because of your built in bias that Trump is corrupt.  " - MY BIAS is not built-in.  It derives from years of observation of a man who proves his amorality and corruptness almost on a daily basis - and not just while he holds the office of president.  You, on the other hand, prove you live in a delusional world by your blind faith in the anti-Christ.

            "The FBI and IRS have both been weaponized, by Democrats, in the past.  " - AGAIN Delusional.  The last time the FBI was "weaponized" was by the conservative J. Edgar Hoover.  The last time a president tried to weaponize the IRS was conservative Richard Nixon.

            "Democrats have consistently opposed every attempt to control illegal border crossings, from the travel ban to demanding illegal aliens be turned loose within our borders, yet you ignore that Trump attempts to enforce Congressional laws while Democrats attempt to bypass them. " - AGAIN, delusional.  In this case, you are making false statements and projecting.

        2. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "3.  A president can now rule by executive order and Congress is powerless to stop them unless it has a veto-proof majority of the opposite party"

          "We now shrug off the grandiose promises of candidates to remake the economy, establish universal health care, and so on, as if Congress had no say in the matter. But when the need to build a legislative consensus does come up, the candidates simply promise to do it themselves.

          Former vice president Joe Biden has criticized the use of executive orders. However, his website clearly states, “On day one, Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track.”


          Is this different from your contention?

          "4. Again, that has never been true - until Trump.  He turned the DoJ into his personal law firm."

          "Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off a question Thursday about when he might leave the administration. Instead, the top lawman professed his allegiance to President Barack Obama.

          "I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done.  I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.  So we’ll see," Holder said in an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show."

          Source: Politico - Eric Holder: 'I'm still the president's wingman'

          Yep, that's the ticket . . .

          "5.  Until Trump, the world could trust what the State Department said - no longer.  It will take the Democrats a very long time to gain that trust back.  Also, the State Department is required to do what is lawful.  Under Pompeo, that is no longer true."

          "Judicial Watch and The Daily Caller News Foundation today released eight pages of State Department documents revealing that on December 23, 2016, 28 days before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, State Department Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer had a 10-minute phone call with Alexey Vladimirovich Skosyrev, the “political chief” at the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC."

          Is this a State Dept. out of control, or following an administration lead?

          Doesn't this type of exchange seem to go both ways—depending on your partisan perspective, My Esoteric?

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            If I am not mistaken, what Biden is talking about is removing all of the EOs, Trump has created.  But more to my point, if he does do as you suggest, what can Congress do about it?  They can't convict him anymore.  Let's take Trump's declaration of a fake national emergency to get around the laws of misappropriating funds.  Or Trump's illegal withholding of aid to Ukraine for which he was impeached but not convicted.

            Re: Holder: Are you actually trying to draw an equivalence between Holder's words with Barr's actions?

            "Jonathan Winer had a 10-minute phone call with Alexey Vladimirovich Skosyrev, the “political chief” at the Russian Embassy in Washington, DC." - ARE you saying this was illegal, GA?

      3. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        It isn't good for the Republican Party either. Ever heard "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?" Unless and until we get rid of the Electoral College, this will continue. Perhaps if we put the government back into the hands of the people instead of a committee above "We the People" we can vote to get our government back. I'm not talking putting another party in power. I mean voting in individuals who will work for the people.
        I know followers of the party in power will give me bullshit (even my own grandson in college does this) about how the Electoral College keeps the larger states with more population from overriding the will of the great uneducated unwashed in the majority of the smaller states. Perhaps this did 200 years ago, but times and election methods have changed since then. Today we have delegates and superdelegates. The superdelegates are wild cards who answer to nobody but themselves. Thats the way I understand it, and I'm mighty confused as to their existence. There are layers   of elections concerning the primary, like Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Nevada ... why? Why do these people get a say that has influence over our elections? A person in New York or California is just as American as a person in Alabama or Wyoming. Now that we've gone to electronic elections, we have opened ourselves up to influence from foreign countries like Russia. So far this hacking has been good for the Republican Party, not the Democrats because it put their candidate in power although the Democrat candidate won the popular vote in 2016. So you can feed me all the gibberish you want, but I don't see how it is good for anybody, except those, both domestic and foreign, who want to skew and interfere with our democratic elections. It seems today our votes have no more power in the U.S. than "elections" in Russia or Iran.

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Oh hell, I lost a long and considered reply to your comment, and I am not inclined to try to replicate it. So I will simply say I think you are wrong. I think you are conflating the purpose of the EC with the process of the Democrats' nomination process.

          You speak of the value of a California citizen's vote, but your logic would diminish the value of an Alabama citizen's vote. Are you proposing that the major population centers of the coasts should be the sole determinants of our presidential selection?

          Without the EC that is what would happen. Are to okay with Middle America, America's heartland, not having a say in who our president is?

          I am not trying to argue with "gibberish," I am trying to present the reality of who would have the power to choose our president without the EC as an equalizer.

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I am not in favor of an election based on population for the reasons GA gives.  I am also no longer in favor of the EC because it does not function like the founders originally configured. 

            I think I am for proportional distribution of EC votes based on each state's outcome.  Sort of like what Maine and Nebraska do today. 

            Another alternative is the way Maine does elections now - Ranked-choice voting.

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I could also support  proportional distribution of EC votes.

              GA

          2. MizBejabbers profile image91
            MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I think the EC does just the opposite of what you think it does, GA. I think it wipes out the votes of the larger states. If the EC votes were based on the votes of their own states, like split 60% one party, 40% the other, then I wouldn't say that. But only a couple of states do it that way. The rest of the states' EC votes allow the little states to gang up on the larger ones and wipe out their votes, kinda like a bunch of Lilliputians against Gulliver. Our House of Representatives allows states' representatives to be based on population, but our forefathers saw a reason to limit each state to only two senators as part of checks and balances in Congress. I'm not sure they would have put the EC in our Constitution if they'd known that one day the U.S. would stretch from one ocean to another and comprise 50 states, not just 13. Back then, I don't think they were worried about California. Jefferson and Madison were too concerned about Pennsylvania and New York vs. Virginia and the other rural states.

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              "If the EC votes were based on the votes of their own states, like split 60% one party, 40% the other, then I wouldn't say that>"

              Great point. I know people who don't vote in national elections because they say they know who our state will choose anyway. It does feel kind of pointless to go vote for a blue Presidential candidate in an overwhelmingly red state.

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Which, of course, is no reason not to vote.  It wouldn't have taken but a few in WI, MI, PA, and NC to switch the outcome.  It is known through the Mueller report that Russia targeted the first three.

            2. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I guess we just see it differently. For instance; your example of "EC votes allow the little states to gang up on the larger ones and wipe out their votes", from my perspective, validates what I said. The flipside of that thought would be a large state bullying a collective of smaller states.

              Your Lilliputian example seems to say the same thing; one large entity having the power of size to control a collective of small entities. Maybe the power of all their ropes was their EC equalizer?

              Also, I don't think the effect is to "wipe out" any state's votes, I see it more as a bit of equalization. If your thought of "wipe out" is a fair description, then it would also be fair to look at it conversely; a large state can wipe out the votes of a bunch of smaller states.

              I think your 60%/40% thought is of proportional allocation of EC votes—an idea I could support, and one that I think, (without going to look), was the idea the framers had in mind. I think, (again, without going to look), the winner-takes-all allocation is a 20th-century thing.

              But even with that modern manifestation, I still support the purpose and effect of the EC for the reasons I first noted. I don't think the minority of the largest states should have the power to control the presidential selection for the majority of all states.

              Maybe we are just in a 'Blue dress/Gold dress' moment. ;-)

              GA

    2. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      It appears we are very near Putin's Russia. I'm not even validating the links that some people go to in order to defend Trumps destruction of our institutions and our way of life. It is now clear that this is his intent. He even calls himself king. No more specifics are needed other than that.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        The excuses from the Right are ridiculous in the face of what this Cretin is doing to the rule of law in the US. Without his enablers he'd be forced to acknowledge his mistakes, but they accept every lie from his mouth as gospel.

        You can't cure willful ignorance.

        1. MizBejabbers profile image91
          MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          You're right about that, Randy, but the only answer the party in power gives is term limits so they can vote the opposition out. I say that much more election reform is needed, and perhaps we should go back to paper ballots, hanging chads be damned. They are only a minor problem compared to hacking.

        2. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "You can't cure willful ignorance.'

          Nor can you reason with wilful obstinateness. (I really wanted to use "obstenence" but that ain't a real word)

          GA

      2. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        hard sun, I am feeling a bit chastised for my recent reposnses. But, in the same serious, but collegial vein as my responses to Eastward were, I think you are tettering, if not over, the edge in your thoughts that we are "near Putin's Russia'.

        I understand your opposition to Pres. Trump, but, I don't think you are such a neophyte as to not recognize this political divide as just an extension of what has been happening in, (at least), the last two administrations.

        Com'on bud, considering the last two pre-Trump administrations, do you seriously fear we are becoming "Putin's Russia"?

        Is it possible that your dislike of this president is exaggerating your perspective? I am hopeful that your answer is that you have gotten a bit carried away, because otherwise I am forced to consider that your anti-Trump bias is distorting your worldview.*

        *Yes, I understand how that sounds—who the hell cares what I consider. But, I care, because I enjoy our conversations. Just as folks determine not to engage in conversations with me—for their own reasons, I also choose who to engage in conversations with, for my own reasons.

        GA

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Of course it is possible I'm wrong. I'm not sure if this matters but, when I say "Putin's Russia" I mean we are becoming much like Putin's Russia, not so much that Putin is pulling all our strings, though he may indeed be doing some of this.

          The fact is we have a President who refers to himself as a king. As I said before, anyone who doesn't see the  he presents could be called a "neophyte" IMO. The way he is handling the presidency is NOT normal and it is NOT American.

          This stuff is clear as day if we just open our eyes. He doesn't even try to hide it. It is an extension of whats been happening in our recent administrations...but that doesn't mean it's not happening. I heard people calling Obama a dictator because they wanted a dictator, they just wanted a white one.

          Edit: For clarification...I see the problem here is with everyday Americans. The problem is with the hate that so many are willing to spew onto one another. I don't blame this all on Trump. He is giving them what they want.

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            When I talked about Putin, I was trying to be careful by saying "#MurderingPutin's Russian government"  That is my point, because of Trump and the Trumplicans letting him off the hook, America now looks and acts like the Russian government.

            #MurderingPutin's DoJ equivalent is not independent and does what he says - just like Barr

            #MurderingPutin's intelligence service tells him what he wants to hear and he controls what information gets out.

            #MurderingPutin murders or jails or tortures his political opponents.  While Trump doesn't do this yet, I have no confidence that he won't if he thinks he could get away with it.  Right now Trump simply insults, fires, smears, and humiliates his political opponents - better than killing them, I suppose, but very bad in any case.

            #MurderingPutin controls his media with an iron fist.  Trump controls the right-wing media and wants to close down the real media.

            #MurderingPutin micromanages his military; so does Trump, he tells his commanders what to do with individual soldiers.  (just like he intervenes in individual court cases for his friends.)  Hell, he calls his generals a bunch of children - to their face!  Isn't that a hoot.

            #MurderingPutin ignores his legislature and does what he wants. So does Trump.  And his legislature has no power over him.

            The one difference between Trump and Putin is that Putin totally controls his elections while Trump is only "trying" to control his.

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              These are the types of things I thought you were referring to. Nice summary that I wish wasn't true.

    3. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      To turn things around, I think the following is needed.

      1.  A Constitutional Amendment that, in the event there is a legal conflict between the executive branch and Congress, it immediately be resolved by the Supreme Court within 45 days.

      2.  A Constitutional Amendment that moves the impeachment trial to 100 randomly selected appellate-level judges and taken away from the Senate who are quite obviously are incapable of providing an impartial judgement.  60% will be needed to convict.

      3.  A Constitutional Amendment that establishes an independent office of Special Counsel which has subpoena and arrest powers in case a lawful subpoena is ignored.

      4.  A Constitutional Amendment that makes Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress specific impeachable offenses.

      5. A Constitutional Amendment that guarantees the DoJ independence from the Executive Branch and that the Senate is required to approve nominations to cabinet Secretary positions for Treasury, State, DoJ, and DoD with a 2/3rd majority.

      I had considered a Constitutional Amendment that would limit a president to two terms of two-years each but rejected it for much the same reason our founders did.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        1.  Fine.  Sounds good.

        2.  If you're going to ignore the Constitution duties of the Senate, better do it for the House as well.  Any time there is an impeachment, 100 randomly drawn people will examine the evidence for impeachment and submit their findings, not a House that is politically desirous of removing election opponents. 

        3 - 4  Good grief!  Why don't you just make the Democratic party leaders the God of the country?!?  That's what you're asking for, for as soon as Republicans would use those amendments you'll want them canceled.  For sure, they would have been used against Obama, for instance - it could have started with his EO that made it legal for foreign citizens to remain in the country indefinitely and against our laws.

      2. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Well damn, that's a lot of Constitutional Amendments. It sounds a bit like a dictatorial manifesto to me.

        Why didn't you have any of these problems with previous administrations' usurpation of power?

        Have you compared the Executive Order directions of the Bush and Obama administrations? I did, and Pres. Trump is lagging in 3rd place as far as the cooption of legislative and judicial powers go.

        Can you guess which president's Executive orders most contravened standing laws? Or which president's Executive orders most circumvented the will of Congress? As a hint, the former is Obama and the latter is Bush.

        And to your point of your subjugation of your opinion, (relative to the length of term), to that of the Founders, well hell, that's awfully humble of you. I am sure they would appreciate it.

        GA

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "It sounds a bit like a dictatorial manifesto to me." - AND why would that be, GA, if it they are passed by Congress and 3/4 of the States?  Why is curbing presidential abuse of power a bad thing now that we see the nation can elect someone who so easily does it?

          Actually, the answer is Trump.  Exactly which laws did Obama's orders contravene?  And, while I disagree strongly with most of what Bush  II did, what EOs circumvented the will of Congress?  (I don't recall the Republican Congress ever disagreeing with him.)

          Having read what I have read, if the founders knew that a Trump was in their future, I bet they would have gone with a two-year term or, more likely, a multiple executive which got serious discussion for a while.

    4. peterstreep profile image80
      peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      The US hasn’t been a democratic country for along time. Simply because it is possible to become the president of the US with a minority vote,
      In a true Democratic country the person who gains the most votes becomes president. Same can be said about the UK.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        The founders purposely didn't choose that route for fear of electing demagogues like Trump.  They rightly feared the unwashed would be too easily confounded by the empty promises made by a politician who play upon their fears.

        But, keep in mind, Trump wouldn't have won, even against a flawed candidate like Clinton.  It took Comey and Russia to convince 90,000 people out of 22 million not to vote for her.  Absent Comey and Russia, the popular vote would have coincided with the EC.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Can you offer anything, except your opinion, that the efforts of Russia were effective?  Or do you just assume they were because it is inconceivable that Americans rejected "politics as usual" without help?

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Common sense.

            First - advertisement in America works!  That is why companies spend Billions on it.

            Second - Mueller proved Russia had an extensive and effective advertisement program for Trump and against Clinton.

            Third - Mueller proved that Russia TARGETED Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (probably using the internal polling data Manafort fed them).

            Fourth - Even Trump said he didn't expect to win

            Fifth - the margin of victory in those states was miniscule.

            It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.  Maybe you are incapable, but the rest of us are not.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "But, keep in mind, Trump wouldn't have won, even against a flawed candidate like Clinton.  It took Comey and Russia to convince 90,000 people out of 22 million not to vote for her."

          And do you have something lined up for why he will win in 2020? I guess you can pull out Russia again. Forget the fact that Trump has been harder on them with imposing more tariffs than any other president. I suggest you have a look at this link. It offers a complete and thorough explanation of sanctions as well as  Trump's admonishing Russia for wrongdoing. Each fact provides in-depth explanations on the sanction as well as the admonishments. It is lengthy but holds pure facts. about Trump and his handling of Russia.

          https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/

        3. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          If “the founders”  truly believed in democracy they would have given every vote the same value. Do you blindly trust The Founding Fathers? (the name alone smells religious and like worshipping to me...like the wise men....)
          Face it. The US is not a democracy, and never was.

          1. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            You are almost right Peterstreep, the U.S. has never been a democracy, but you are wrong in that the Founders, (Framers), never intended it to be.

            Our form of government, from the very beginning, was intended to be a Representative Democracy. Almost every effort in the framing of our Constitution, that dealt with our form of government, was intended to prohibit pure democracy rule.

            So, yes, I do trust the wisdom of our founders/framers.

            However, for a bit of clarity concerning your thought about the 'religious smell' of "Founders," even though it is typical for Founders and Framers to be used synonymously, they really aren't. It is more accurate to think of the Founders as the authors of our Declaration of Independence—our nation was "founded" by that declaration and a government established under the Articles of Confederations, and to think of the Framers as the authors of our subsequent Constitution.

            GA

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Thank you GA.
              I don't know much about the intentions of the Framers and Founders.
              As said. I do not consider the US and the UK true democracies. And sometimes I’m agitated by those and other countries claiming that they want to bring democracy in other countries..
              I think that there are a lot of different ways to organise a country. And no country is the same. I think as long as the basic human rights and freedom of speech are not limited you can have as manny different forms of governments as you can think of.
              A democracy has it’s down sides too. Personally I would not like a democratic referendum about introducing the death penalty or one about making homosexuality a crime. Just to name some. The vote of the people is not always the most sensible one. This may sound elitist. But sometimes I trust an educated panel of experts more then the voice of the people. So there you go democracy ;-)

              1. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "The vote of the people is not always the most sensible one. "

                You don't sound elitist Peterstreep. You sound like our framers. Pure democracy is no different from mob rule. The tyranny of the majority over the minority.

                That is why our legislative branch was formed as it was. The House as the most direct voice of the People, and the Senate as the wiser voice of the People. (a so-called "panel of experts," so to speak).

                Of course, us being humans and all, it doesn't always work out that way. ;-)

                GA

                1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                  Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  One point though, Gus. The Senate members were formerly appointed and not elected. This makes them more, rather than less, political than the Framers intended.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image93
                    GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    More political when they were appointed, or more political when they were elected?

                    I see both methods as making them political, but the appointed method as the more dangerous of the two, as their politicalness would be tied to political shenanigans and power bases rather than just a duped public electorate.

                    GA

              2. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "But sometimes I trust an educated panel of experts more then the voice of the people. So there you go democracy ;-)" -  AND so did our framers.

                (Truth be told, our Founders did not want to leave England. They went to great lengths in trying to stay within the English framework, retain the rights of regular English citizens, and be represented in Parliament.  The King, however, was having none of it and so here we are today - trying to prevent another king from ruling America.)

              3. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                One of the biggest problems is that idea of "basic human rights".  Our constitution guarantees the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but it has come to include:

                free housing
                free medical care
                free food
                free secondary education
                free or subsidized transportation

                It comes down to a "human right" being whatever one wants but doesn't want to pay the cost of; it then becomes a "human right" that someone else should be forced to give them.

                1. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  There you go again making things up, Wilderness.  Your right, basic human rights does include a right to life and pursuit of happiness (Locke also includes healthcare). 

                  Tell me, how do you live without food?

                  How do you live without adequate medical care? 

                  How do you live without adequate housing? 

                  How does one get to work without transportation?

                  What mainstream Democrats want free secondary education (although that would improve national security)

                  What mainstream Democrats advocate free transportation?

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                    Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    These things are not free. We pay taxes for being members of society.  The problem is, the taxes are siphoned off for other things.

            2. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              What GA said.

    5. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Your opinion is sobering, and it appears you truly are not in any respect benefiting from what America truly offers.  You must realize there are many that just don't agree with your analysis, and are very satisfied with all the wonderful things America offers to its citizens. One only needs to live in a country where they have little or no say to governing the country they call home

      You ruminate on everything Trump. Which you are within your right, and many share your feelings. However, you should realize due to our democracy we have the right to vote and choose a president. (I am positive you do not approve of the EC so no need to go into a rebuttal on the subject). My point a president has  4 to 8 years, and then we will have a new one. I have greatly benefited under the Trump agenda, so I find it hard to be bleak or upset about "the sky is falling.". You might need to realize many feels just as I do, and just buck up, and look forward to whoever takes Trump's place after 2020 or in 2024. Our democracy is alive and well. And well represented by our current Congress. They are actually at a point of counterbalance, which is never ba. and this should give you a bit of hope that nothing drastic will befall you.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        " it appears you truly are not in any respect benefiting from what America truly offers.  " - AND WHAT draws you to that conclusion?

        How is your 401k today?

        }You must realize there are many that just don't agree with your analysis, and are very satisfied with all the wonderful things America offers to its citizens."  - THAT would be true, but Trump is trying to destroy it all.  He has done nothing of significant benefit to America that Clinton wouldn't have done. 

        AND Clinton would not have started a trade war with the world which is bankrupting so many farmers PREVENTING them from "enjoying what America has to offer".  It is a good thing you are not a farmer or you would be singing a different tune.

        I lived and fought for almost a year in a country who had nothing and whose gov't wouldn't listen to them trying to stop the Communists from making things even worse.  We failed.  What have you done?

        You are being very selfish aren't you (a trait of conservatives) saying YOU have benefited monetarily.  Yet America has lost its soul because of Trump for which neither you nor Wilderness seem to care one bit.

        Look at the damage Trump has done in just 3 years.

        I agree, many feel the way the you do and you will vote to totally destroy what America use to stand for (It does no longer).

        Our democracy is dead, we now live in a dictatorship where Congress is powerless to do anything to stop a rogue leader.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "How is your 401k today?" This is a very personal question. However, I will answer it. At the very first mention of the  Coronavirus, every cent of my 401, as well as a private stock investment, were pulled out and sit in cash. I have only had to do this one other time, and it worked out well. My good common sense both times told me, time to get out or take a huge hit.

          " THAT would be true, but Trump is trying to destroy it all.  He has done nothing of significant benefit to America that Clinton wouldn't have done. "

          You have no idea what Hillary Clinton would have done in regards to anything. You're simply speculating.

          "AND Clinton would not have started a trade war with the world which is bankrupting so many farmers PREVENTING them from "enjoying what America has to offer".  It is a good thing you are not a farmer or you would be singing a different tune"

          And no Clinton would not have made any attempt to fix NFTA her husband's big GEM! This is simply not true in any respect. The trade war is already benefiting our coffers. As well as supplementing the farmers through the hard times.

          "I lived and fought for almost a year in a country who had nothing and whose gov't wouldn't listen to them trying to stop the Communists from making things even worse.  We failed.  What have you done?"

          How dare you. My husband fought in the same way, my daughter was born while he was in Vietnam ... my husband lost a brother. You presume too much. Many were touched by the Vietnam war.  Let me remind you your party has a man that's ideology is very close to communism, and that openly promoted Castro...  Maybe you should be concerned with stopping Bernie a self-professed admirer of the Communist party from "making things even worse" Hey, that should be a piece of cake, you fought in Nam... Or do you believe we should give his socialist agenda a try?

          "You are being very selfish aren't you (a trait of conservatives) saying YOU have benefited monetarily.  Yet America has lost its soul because of Trump for which neither you nor Wilderness seems to care one bit"

          Anything I own or have accumulated has been through good education and hard work. How dare you once again sit on your high horse and assume you can call me selfish. You know nothing of what I give back..."America has lost its soul"? This is your sorry opinion. Many of us are very happy with Trump's job performance, and as I said are benefiting from it.

          Our democracy has been shown for what a shame it was. Trump pulled up the rug and showed all that ugly was beneath it. And not to sound too rude you just do not have the guts or ability to have a good long look. You very much appear to choose to lash out at anyone that you don't agree with. Our democracy has been reborn, and citizens are now after a long time able to be heard above a bunch of Washington political hacks. not pleasant for them or apparently you.

          It is very apparent our opinions could not be further apart. But when you get personal open up the conversation to insults, expect to get back what you dish out.

          Try getting off your high horse, it's clear you have no right to be up there.

          By the way, Bernie just did not feel the same as you did about fighting communism. He did not want to fight it then or now.

          https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie- … d=33434041

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            That was a good move.

            Yes, I have a very good idea of what Hillary would do, she was very clear what her policies were going to be and they all would have benefited America.  Unlike Trump, she has proven she cares about America and Americans; Trump demonstrates every day that he only cares about Trump.

            You are right, she probably would not have done much with NAFTA, it was a good trade agreement.  She would have also stayed with TPP.  Instead, Trump withdrew and turned it over to China - that hurt America a lot.  Also, Trump's replacement to NAFTA only improves it at the margins.  Pelosi's replace of Trump's replacement fixed it so much, even the trade union signed on.

            If you consider a dictatorship a democracy, then you are correct, democracy has been reborn.  If you don't believe that, then Trump and the Trumplicans have effectively destroyed what our framers created.

            Good for Bernie, but I don't really care; I really don't think he will be the Democratic nominee (nor should he be since he is not a Democrat).

            What I "lash out" at is when people say things they know and I know to be false - such as Trump had GDP over 4%.

            1. MizBejabbers profile image91
              MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I'm not sure I agree with what's being said about Hillary and NAFTA because Bill publicly admitted that he'd made a mistake and expressed his regret over NAFTA. I forget which channel the interview was on, but it was either CNN or CBS. If he went so far as to apologize, which he did, who is to say that Hillary wouldn't have found some way to correct his mistake. I have the feeling he would have been behind her and helped her correct it.
              When Bill was a young (32 yo) governor, we in Arkansas whupped his butt and taught him humility -- a lesson he badly needed to learn. lol
              Too bad Trump hasn't had a lesson in humility, too.

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                He may have apologized, but the net effect of NAFTA was positive.  Increased GDP and a net increase in jobs.

                - NAFTA's immediate aim was to increase cross-border commerce in North America, and in that respect, it undoubtedly succeeded. That combined $1.0 trillion in trilateral trade has increased by 258.5% since 1993 in nominal terms. The real—that is, inflation-adjusted—the increase was 125.2%.

                - At 4.1% in December, the unemployment rate is lower than it was at the end of 1993 (6.5%). It fell steadily from 1994 to 2001, and while it picked up following the tech bubble's burst, it did not reach its pre-NAFTA level again until October 2008. The fallout from the financial crisis kept it above 6.5% until March 2014.

                - The automotive industry is usually considered to be one of the hardest-hit by the agreement. But although the U.S. vehicle market was immediately opened up to Mexican competition, employment in the sector grew for years after NAFTA's introduction, peaking at nearly 1.3 million in October 2000.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  "The automotive industry is usually considered to be one of the hardest-hit by the agreement. But although the U.S. vehicle market was immediately opened up to Mexican competition, employment in the sector grew for years after NAFTA's introduction, peaking at nearly 1.3 million in October 2000."

                  And without Nafta it would have grown at double the rate it actually did.

                  How do you know that statement is false?  Just because you were a proponent of NAFTA?  Aren't you just assuming it is in order to glorify a trade agreement that was not in our best interests and cost us far more jobs than it ever created?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    The facts, as is usual, prove you wrong.

                    I know you don't believe that the huge increase in trade between the three countries actually had a positive benefit to each country but common sense and the data says you are wrong.

                    I find it amazing you are siding with the far left and against conservatives on this.

    6. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      The Courts just made a dictatorship all that more likely.  The three-judge appeals court found 2 (R) - 1 (D) that the judiciary has no business ruling on conflicts between the other two branches.

      It listed other tools Congress can use to get the executive branch to obey the law - apparently obeying the law is not in the courts' jurisdiction.  Those other tools are:

      1. Inherent Contempt (where Congress arrests or fines recalcitrants)

      2. Shutting down the gov't (by denying funding which the president will veto)

      3. Negotiating with a president who now doesn't need to negotiate.

      4. Impeachment (LOL, I just the two Republican judges didn't watch the recent impeachment trial)

      5. Slowing down confirmations (which the president doesn't need anymore since he can use "actings" to their hearts content.

      This, of course, is a very wrong headed decision which makes the President exactly what our framers wanted to avoid (some didn't even want an executive), a KING.

      I sincerely expect that the full appeals court will hear the case and slap down this ruling and that the conservative Supreme Court will find that yes, the judiciary does a voice in deciding what is illegal or not.

      But, for the time being, the president, in this case Trump, can keep raising his middle finger at Congress and the Constitution.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        "The Courts just made a dictatorship all that more likely.  The three-judge appeals court found 2 (R) - 1 (D) that the judiciary has no business ruling on conflicts between the other two branches."

        It listed other tools Congress can use to get the executive branch to obey the law - apparently obeying the law is not in the courts' jurisdiction.  Those other tools are:"

        It was clear the House did not use their given powers during the impeachment, deciding to "do it their way".  The court has reminded them they have powers using the tools provided to them. They seem to burden the courts with their conflicts.

        You forgot to add the court's statement ---" The appeals court judges said that the case should be dismissed because the Constitution forbids federal courts from refereeing this kind of dispute between the other two branches of government. The Committee's suit asks us to settle a dispute that we have no authority to resolve,” wrote Judge Thomas Griffith".

        Time for Congress to follow the playbook. The court gave good examples, not sure why you find them unacceptable? They also have the recourse of taking their complaint to the Supreme Court. It would be my guess they will give them the same advice. This decision was prudent, and it would not have mattered or been different no who the president was.

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "It was clear the House did not use the their given powers during the impeachment, deciding to "do it their way"."  -- BESIDES Inherent Contempt (which is like using a nuclear bomb), exactly what so-called powers did the House have to use??

          Would you have preferred they try to shut down the gov't to get Trump to obey the law?  I guess they could have not approved NAFTA 2 to get Trump to obey the law - would you have preferred that?  They have no nominations to hold up, not that Trump would have cared.

          Exactly what effective tools are you talking about??

          BTW, add in the lower court opinions, Griffith is in the minority.

          I am sure they will ask for a full appeals court review or even try to fast track it to the Supreme Court (but they only let Trump do that now, it seems).  In any case, it is mute because nothing will probably happen until Trump is defeated in November.

          I do hope that the House carries on the fight after the election and go after all of those who broke the law, including Trump, those who ignored the subpoenas, Barr, Pompeo, Mnuchin, the IRS commissioner, and a host of others.

          They also need to try to rehire all of those who Trump railroaded out of the government.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            including Trump, those who ignored the subpoenas, Barr, Pompeo, Mnuchin, the IRS commissioner, and a host of others."

            They did not subpoena Brr, Pompeo or Minchin. Don't you remember they felt it would take to long fighting in court to produce them as witnesses? They had the power, just decided not to go that route.

            All !7 of the people they subpoena testified. We will never know if they subpoenaed Barr. Pompeo or Minuchin would have respected a subpoena. We can speculate, but we will never actually know.

            A president has the right to replace anyone that they choose. Tump is no different than any president before him that cleaned house.

            Rest assured if the Bias House could bring charge down on any one of Trump's cabinet for committing any form of a crime they would. It shocks me to realize you really believe they would not. Face it, none of the people you hope to condemn and charge of crimes, have done anything.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              The House is biased, but the Senate is not, eh Shar?  tongue

              1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Both are very biased...

                1. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  The question is, do they have a reason to be biased? 

                  I am biased against all obvious dictators - is that wrong? 

                  I am biased against people who purposefully break major laws - is that wrong?

                  I am biased against people who are bullies - is that wrong?

                  I am biased against people who make fun of other people - is that wrong?

                  I am biased against pathological liars - is that wrong?

                  Where do you stand on all of those? It seems like it is a very clear choice.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    You need to link up with Randy; he, too, thinks dictators gain office via legally conducted elections.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Randy's comment--The House is biased, but the Senate is not, eh Shar? 

                    My reply --Both are very biased...

                    I can see you are directing your comment at Trump.
                    I do not feel Trump is a dictator, a liar, a lawbreaker,  a bully.yes.
                    I would hold a bias against any of those attributes if they could be factually proven.  We clearly have a different way or thought process about forming opinions.

            2. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I am not just talking about subpoenas for the most part.  Mnuchin disobeyed a clear law when he didn't turn over Trump's taxes.  Barr has violated his oath of office by coordinating with Trump and letting Trump interfere with on-going prosecutions. Pompeo is probably involved with Trump's illegal activities with Ukraine.  Pompeo also ignored subpoenas for information.

              No, a president does NOT have the right to replace anyone if that replacement is done with a corrupt intent.

              I am hoping with the recent ruling from the appeals court will force the House to start using their Inherent Contempt powers and start jailing and fining all of these people obstructing Congress.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                A few hours in a cell would cause these pampered folk to reconsider their ways, Scott.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image86
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                As I said Congress has the right to investigate wrongdoing in regards to Trump's cabinet members, and would if they thought any of them committed crimes or are you saying they are being lacks in their oversite? If a Government employee feels they were wrongly dismissed they have due process rights and can initiate a lawsuit. As did Andrew McCabe.bring a suit for unlawful" termination.

                In regard to Trump's taxes, it is now on the Supreme Court docket and will be heard on March  31st, 2020. They will have the final say on the case the House filed against the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service. Hopefully, this will one way or another put this subject to rest with their decision.

                https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … ords-cases

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS will make new law by requiring every President to release private financial information in order to give the opposing political party something to use against them.  The only possible rationalization that I can see is that the last few presidents did so voluntarily; is that sufficient reason to declare that it is now the law of the land?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Again, you are off the mark, Wilderness.  That is NOT what SOTUS is deciding. 

                    SOTUS has three things in front of them, I think. 

                    1) Whether the State of New York and subpoena tax documents of a sitting president, and

                    2) Two cases about whether the House, as part of an investigation, require others to turn over relevant tax documents of a sitting president.

                    Another case is working its way through the courts - Does Mnuchin have to follow the law and turn over Trump's tax returns to the heads of the relevant committees.  (On this case I think the House ought to drop it, hold Mnuchin and the IRS Commissioner in Inherent Contempt and start fining the crap out of them until they comply - maybe even jail Mnuchin)

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    It's the job of the SCOTUS to protect the rights of citizen's right to privacy. Congress does have the power to ask to see anyone's tax returns but needs to show good cause. Congress has asked for the reasons that site abuse of power. Which was shot down by the Senate in the impeachment trial?

                    It would be my guess the SCOTUS will uphold Trump's Constitutional rights, and deny Congress the right to see any of his financial records. Common sense tells me they will do their job to the letter of the constitution. It seems once again the House has put together a flimsy case against the President for a cleary political reason. I would think the SCOTUS will be hopefully swift with their decision. Enough is enough... The SCOTUS will not become a part of such a game.

  2. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 12 months ago

    It's a constitutional Republic. And the more people say it's okay for their guy to do something wrong because the last guy did the same thing, The more power you give to the office.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 12 months ago

    And now a Hubpages Trump fan says Bernie should welcome the help from Russia.

    I truly fear for our country, given that forty-plus percent of it has forgotten what honesty and integrity means.

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      No doubt.  I know career criminals who at least understand what honesty and integrity mean...they just aren't honest and have little integrity. This up is down with morality thing is wacky.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Absolutely! Up is down, right is wrong, white is right...

        Makes me wanta puke!!

      2. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Keep in mind that the reasons Trump doesn't know right from wrong are:

        1.  He has NPD
        2.  He is a Hedonist
        3.  He is a psychopath (different from a sociopath, btw)

        So say a few dozen mental health professionals.

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I'm more worried about his hardened supporters though. They live among us..lol.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah.  They require proof, not the opinion of a "few dozen health 'professionals' that have never performed an examination.

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              That's not my concern Dan. My concern is that so many endorse such a man as the leader of our nation. We can all read his tweets and hear his words.

            2. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              "They require proof," - When have you and yours ever required proof.  All you need is the word of Trump.

              "not the opinion of a "few dozen health 'professionals' that have never performed an examination." - If you had taken the time to read their book, they (and common sense) would have explained why they don't need to examine him face-to-face to reach valid conclusions. 

              What they can't do is come up with a concrete medical diagnosis, they admit that, but they can apply dozens of years of observed behavior, writings, and speeches to known criteria of mental health disease which they have treated in many other patients.

              But since you don't believe scientists, why should you believe mental health experts?

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Absolutely.  They apply a couple of years of watching Trump put on his public, political "persona" and declare that they then understand his mental workings.

                And you swallow it as a factual diagnosis because you like the result.  Others are not so gullible, requiring more than the opinion of another biased watcher that does not like what he sees.

                1. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  I see you are up to your old tricks by not reporting what you read correctly.  I DIDN'T SAY "They apply a couple of years of watching Trump " - you made that up - WHY?  Why do you do that?  What I DID say was "but they can apply dozens of years of observed behavior, writings, and speeches"  WHY did you LIE and say "a couple"??

                  That is why you have no veracity.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Trump cultists are experts at denying their own eyes and ears:  ignoring knowledgeable people who present factual information, pretending Trump*s lies and aberrant behavior are no worse or different from other politicians, discounting the damage Trump and his @ss kissers  are doing to our institutions  and systems of government.

                It's  really scary, because we've seen this behavior among citizens in other countries and know exactly where it could lead.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                  Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  You final line says it all, Sandy. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't keep it from peeing in the trough. tongue

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    The Red Hats are yesteryears Brown Shirts.

          2. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Very good point.  While we have never had a destructive demagogue like Trump before, the kind of blind faith supporters he has have been around forever.  Occasionally, they spring to like when a movement strikes.

            At least twice in the 1800s they gained political sway during times when the religious right gained power.  Then again in the Joe McCarthy era and once more with the tea party-Trumplican era.  There have been others, but those are the ones I recall.

            In all cases, sanity came to the rescue (Lincoln and Kennedy) and put them at bay for the moment.  And, if we can get by the modern day Mondale (in the form of Bernie Sanders), sanity may win again.

    2. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I must have missed that "fan's" comment, but I don't doubt it.

      But, I think your "40%" is an extrapolation from other conversations that doesn't apply to this thought.

      If you are talking about Pres. Trump's unassailable base, I think that nowadays' you are looking at something closer to 30% than 40%.

      It is my opinion that, beyond purely economic considerations, Pres. Trump's base has shrunk.

      We will soon see who is right.

      GA

      1. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        My husband does a political talk podcast on Fridays so he keeps up with that sort of thing. He says that Trump's base has shrunk, too.

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I hope he is right. I live in the MidWest. Hardened Trump territory. I have seen a small shift in the comments on our local news stories that reference Trump. It does seem that perhaps a few have fallen off the bandwagon. But, how do we ensure our elections our safe when it's likely Trump will just fire anyone who may catch something like Russian hackers actually changing the vote?

        2. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          It makes sense:

          1.  The Bernie supports who switched to Trump have gone back to Sanders
          2.  Trump gains no new supporters except for the youth who couldn't vote before minus the elderly who did vote for Trump but have since died.
          3.  Trump loses voters everyday.

      2. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I am obviously missing some dynamic and can't wait for the next Morning Consult tracking poll on Trump's state-by-state popularity.

        Against all of my logic, the revelations from the impeachment process and the sham trial appear to have Helped Trump, not expose him for what he is even further.  In their January poll, almost across the board, Trump's position in each state improved, sometimes by several points.

        Now, I understand polls since statistician is one of my past jobs and I know that there is a range of possible outcomes around the mean and that are not insignificant chances of an extreme outcome.  This is why I wait for trends, but that Jan outcome was so counterintuitive (to me at least) as to make me wonder what is going on in the American psyche.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Well, I am the perpetrator of the comment. And when PRETTYPANTHE responded to it. I quickly responded let her know it was meant as a bit of sarcastic. I guess she forgot to add that to her comment. I was pointing out how Bernie might Benefit from Russia's help due to the fact the DNC, as well as the media, are hell-bent on trashing his agenda.

        I would think one reading the comment would have clearly picked up my sarcastic tone.  I love tattle tails... as much as I like bullies.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      As I explained I said that in jest, a sarcastic remark. Perhaps you did not see my response to your remark about what I had said about Bernie and  Russian help or maybe you did, and just needed a sarcastic blurb?   My sarcasm was meant to point out how badly Bernie is being treated by not only the media but his own party.  Hopefully, this comment will set you straight as to what I meant.

      Please feel free to Identify me if you find you need to bring up one of my comments.

  4. profile image60
    sockratusposted 12 months ago

    you definitely demonized Russia. at first, it's not belong to Putin. at second, i live here and have no pain from Putin or so. and political system too.

    i believe if USA virtually became similar system, you found no difference with regular life.

    however, there would be something to be upset about. no matter what system or country around.

    1. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Putin is a murderer and that doesn't bother you?

      Putin invades Ukraine, and that doesn't bother you?

      1. profile image60
        sockratusposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Who did he kill? And why do you think people of Ukraine still get to Russia to make money for life and send them back to families? In 2015 sometimes it was a bit grotesque. Propaganda in Ukraine was working good enough to brainwash people, but they still get here to paint walls, etc. "Hey, intruder!! Give me a job now!! Ughh you moskalaka ... ". But TV is bad at constructing reality for more than a few months.

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Here is a partial list of #MurderingPutin critics who he had killed:

          Alexander Litvinenko
          Anna Politkovskaya
          Natalia Estemirova
          Stanislav Markelov
          Anastasia Baburova
          Boris Nemtsov
          Boris Berezovsky
          Paul Klebnikov
          Sergei Yushenkov

          And in his normal fashion of supporting #MurderingPutin, #TraitorTrump defends him.

          https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/20 … -kills-too

          1. profile image60
            sockratusposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Also you need to add "we here think Putin killed them, but can't prove in any way". Internet is full of empty accusations. Try to prove something in math using phrase "highly likely" smile It's like if you use poppy bagel in place of steel unit in chain. Everybody can pull it to see what will happen.

            1. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Hello Brad, it is time to ignore you here as well.

              1. profile image60
                sockratusposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                sorry, who is the Brad? anyway, good luck!

              2. Randy Godwin profile image60
                Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                He was close, Scott. sockratus....sockpuppet.....is there a connection?  lol

                Also, he claims to be from Russia. I don't think I've encountered a Russian hubber before. yikes

                1. profile image60
                  sockratusposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  hubpages suggested hubs based on what it knows about user. it definitely saw i'm in russia, and this topic is fulfilled with word "russia" smile guys, you screamed to loudly smile

                  anyway, you can skype me in the evening if you really want it. i mean my evening, after 15 UTC. can show you me myself with thick russian accent, car with russian license plate etc.

                  i didn't think my english is good enough to pretend to be a native joker. thank you.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry, your style is too much like Brad's to be a coincidence.  Even if you are who you say you are, I would cut off communications because Putin is probably tracking what you say to make sure you are toeing the party line. 

                    Trump is starting to do that by politicizing the institutions of government by doing what EVERY dictator does, putting incompetent loyalists in either positions of power or as loyalist spies throughout the executive branch to report on disloyalty, real or perceived. 

                    That is a result of Trumplicans letting a criminal stay in office.

      2. profile image60
        sockratusposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        You are building on "common knowledge". It's a weak stuff. For example, here in Russia everybody knows that Earth is geode. And it's rounding around the Sun. And catholic church burn down people in medieval ages as it was a heresy. Do you know anyone burned down due to heliocentric conception?

  5. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 12 months ago

    Democracy dies under socialism.

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/86983100_2772407719494141_5748862241646575616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=7eQP01U6mmYAX8rGMVB&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=e32a289ecccfbce8dae38183dcb50a9b&oe=5EFA5361

  6. Randy Godwin profile image60
    Randy Godwinposted 12 months ago

    I asked if you cared if he was in the pocket of a foreign power, Shar. Do you?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I answered you... "He is not in the pocket of anyone.' I do not think he is in the pocket of any foreign power.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image60
        Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        If he was would you care, Shar? And you don't know for sure he isn't without him releasing his financial records, do you?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, I would care if Trump was for any reason beholding to a foreign country. Trump's tax attorneys have stated that Trump has been under audit since 2002.  Do you feel the IRS is protecting him? Do you feel the IRS would not charge him with any for of Tax evasion or other tax crime?

          The SC will hear opening statements on March 31, 2020, and give a ruling in June. In my opinion, they will not release Trump's tax records citing the Constitution  "the right to privacy". 

          I can't be sure as you can't be sure he is hiding a deep secret in those taxes. As I said I had hoped Trump would release his taxes if for nothing else to put an end to the mystery.

          1. profile image0
            promisemposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Clearly, Trump supporters have proven they are happy that Putin put Trump in the White House and will try to keep him there in the November election.

            Party first, country second.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, I certainly would not want to see a Dem in the WH after watching them make complete fools of themselves for three years. If that was not enough, they could not come up with one candidate that had any form of suitable agenda. Yes, at this point party first. There has been no other president that has been as stern with Putin than Trump. The list of sanctions and actions well proves it. Please take the time to actually read the list. I have posted it many times, it appears some just can't bring themselves to read it. Not sure why Putin would want Trump in the WH? Perhaps he is a saddest...

              Please use Browser on each heading to get a full description of Sanction or action. This is lengthy but should set the record straight in regards to how Trump has handled Russia.

              https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/

              1. profile image0
                promisemposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Multiple references to "denounced" and "condemned". Worthless rhetoric.

                It's better to ask why Trump and McConnell have opposed all efforts to improve election security.

                Even better, why do Trump supporters still deny election interference despite overwhelming evidence from the FBI, VIA and even Senate Republicans?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  So, you are telling me you do not take the word of the Brookings?  This reference gives lengthy well-documented information. Not much more I can say on the subject when you deny the facts. Who in the world would denounce Brookings account of the sanctions and actions the Trump ad. put on Russia. 

                  You are full out ranting for no reason. I certainly have not denied anything in regard to Russia interference in the 2016 election. Your tone is accusing and rude. No call for it. It appears you do this with anyone that does not agree with your views. Don't put all into one basket, like Hillary Clinton did. How did that work out for her?

                  1. profile image0
                    promisemposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Please stay on topic and not make this personal like usual.

                    Did I not clearly state that the article has multiple references to "denounced" and "condemned"?

                    Since when does denouncing and condemning carry any weight in international relations?

          2. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I would be interested to hear why you believe Trump is trying so hard to keep the information from coming to light, Shar? Just for the hell of it? Or what? Either he isn't worth as much as he claims, or he's in debt to someone outside the US. And that would be Deutsche Bank .

            And what do we know about Deutsche Bank? Can you say Putie?  yikes

          3. Randy Godwin profile image60
            Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Trump appointed the head of the IRS and he's refusing to turn over the required info the House is entitled to, Shar. Why is he doing this?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Trump had every right to appoint a "new team" as most presidents do. At any rate, it will be up to the SC. I trust them to sort out the law as it applies to our Constitution. Hey, why is he doing this? Your guess is as good as mine. I just don't live in a world of what-ifs... I learned a long time ago, most what - ifs never materialize. Why use up so much energy? Plus think, he has been under audit way before he appointed  Rettig in 2019. This conspiracy make no sense.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Prove he's been under audit, Shar. Did Trump say he would release his returns when he was campaigning for POTUS? Of course he did. Why did he lie?

                Your lack of curiosity as to why Donnie's trying so hard to protect his finances from being revealed is astounding.You don't care if he's in a foreign power's pocket or at least, you're not concerned if he is.

                I can imagine what you'd say if Hillary or Obama tried to hide their financial connections.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Lack of curiosity? I have no way of persuading the president to turn over his tax records, do I? Naturally, I would like to see them as much as anyone else. I am not losing any sleep over it. I said to trust the IRS to do their job, and I have no suspicions that Trump is in any respect controlling the IRS.

                  A while back the IRS put out a statement Trump could release his tax records even if under audit. They, however, could not without the court order. I went into length in regards to why I do not feel Trump is beholding to Russia. Hillary has hidden so much of her dirty dealings it would make one's head spin. Obama does not appear to be dishonest or proven to be dishonest in any respect as far as I can see.

                  In regards to so-called sanctions, I would once again repeat Trump's sanctions on Russia are many and sever. I noted you gave no mind or mention of Trump providing Ukrain with the Javelin system. Do you think this would be prudent of him being in Putin's pocket?

                  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/

              2. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                The IRS Commissioner is 'supposed' to be a non-partisan appointment.  This Commissioner is quite partisan.

          4. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "Do you feel the IRS is protecting him? " - No question.  The IRS Commissioner is clearly breaking the law by not turning over Trump's tax returns to Chairman Neal who has the authority to ask for them.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              How about we let the Supreme Court make that judgment. The IRS did their job to the letter. They are waiting for court approval or disapproval in regards to Trump's right to privacy, his Constitutional right.

              "First, the law. While it is true that IRS Code 6103(f) appears to give the committee the power to get tax returns, the statute must be exercised in a way consistent with Congress’ constitutional authority. The Supreme Court has said Congress has broad authority to conduct inquiries but that its authority is not unlimited. In the 1881 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose."

              https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … rns-226571

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                They desperately need dirt on Trump so he won't be re-elected - does that count as "proper legislative purpose"?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                  Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  There's plenty of dirt on Trump already. No need to make it up. Why is Trump so afraid of his taxes coming to light? Any suggestions, Dan?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I have no more suggestions than you have facts.  Your imagination does NOT constitute an answer to your question.

                    As far as dirt on Trump, yes, there is plenty.  He colluded with Putin to fix the election.  He tried to bar all Muslims from entering the country.  He wants to kill all immigrants, and take their kids from them.  He cheated by using the electoral college results rather than popular vote.  He called the Ukraine to fix the next election.

                    Lots and lots of dirt...and not a single one with facts to back them up.  Except, perhaps, that he has funny hair, depending on your definition of "funny".

                2. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Dan,
                  You got it... There is no way the SC will go along with a pure political scam. I wish I could place cash on this bet. They will walk away with their tails between their legs. IT is just common sense, which is clear many have totally lost the ability to use it.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image60
                    Randy Godwinposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Which "pure political scam" are you referencing, Shar?  The House oversight duties?

                3. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  If there is no "dirt" in his taxes, he would release them like so many presidents did before him.  Just like we know Al Capone broke the tax laws, there is so much smoke that Trump has done the same requires investigation.

                  You do know you are a hypocrite, don't you WIlderness, when you call for an investigation into the Bidens when there is no smoke yet don't want Trump investigated for what the world knows (especially the Russians) he has.

              2. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "the statute must be exercised in a way consistent with Congress’ constitutional authority. " AND WHAT statute says that??  None.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  II have come across a problem. You totally have taken a few words and ignored the rest of the content. This means you did not understand the context of the paragraph.

                  Note this sentences.---Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose."

                  Note the words congress can't use its powers to delve into someone's private financial matters unless is a proper legislative purpose.

                  Congress has given no legislative purpose in the case they filed. I guess they did not have time or maybe they want someone else to do that? Sort of like they did with the Senate in the impeachment trial. They felt the Senate could just do the job they did not have time to do...

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    The 1880 ruling did not speak to the law that was written well after that decision.  It also speaks to "resolutions", not laws, so it doesn't apply to the statute, something both houses of Congress passed and the President signed.  Are you suggesting laws do not matter?

                    And yes they have given a legislative purpose, you just don't want to accept it.

                    "Neal claimed that Congress “has a duty to conduct oversight of departments and officials,” and in this case, that duty involves evaluating the IRS policy to audit all presidents’ tax returns. The letter cites a 1924 law that gives the House Ways and Means Committee the power to request tax returns from the Treasury Department for review in closed session." ("Some say, - a Trump euphemism - he has received special treatment from the IRS Commissioner he appointed)

                    https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/t … al-experts

                  2. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this
  7. WJFitzgerald profile image88
    WJFitzgeraldposted 12 months ago

    Impeachment has always been a high bar: requiring 2/3 of the Senate to convict. This will likely require a significant bi-partisan agreement to convict. So far no President has ever been convicted. One came close, another was presumed, but none have actually occurred. So, Trump acquittal, like Clinton's before, should be no surprise.

    Does this destroy democracy? Absolutely not. Trump will be "tried" by the American people on November 3rd. This is democracy. Impeachment is actually more anti-democratic than deciding Trump's fate at the ballot box; which should go without saying, but apparently not.

    Impeachment should only be used when a Presidents conduct is so egregious that the normal democratic process cannot wait. This is why the bar is so high. In Trump's case, his conduct was not so egregious to cross that high bar; at least not to the extent requiring the circumvention of the democratic process in less than a year.

    1. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      In the Clinton trial, the so many Republicans broke ranks and voted with the Democrats they they couldn't even get to a majority to impeach Clinton.

      In Trump's case, the only thing stopping him from being impeached is the highly partisan senate Republicans who don't believe 1 + 1 = 2 if Trump tells them not to.  The evidence was overwhelming by any reasonable standard.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        "In the Clinton trial, the so many Republicans broke ranks and voted with the Democrats they couldn't even get to a majority to impeach Clinton."

        You said a mouthful... Yes, they did break ranks. Clinton committed offenses that could be easily proven. He lied on TV, He then confessed his lie... He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice,

        In Trump's impeachment, there was no provable crime no evidence other than secondhand and hearsay. Reasonable standards do not apply and never should when convicting someone of a crime. So, you feel ---If  I say you did you are guilty or If Joe blow said he thinks you did something wrong in his opinion, your guilty? Perhaps someone said, I overheard him say, "will he do the investigation".? That is enough let's hang him...

        The big difference between Clinton's crimes, they were well proven with first-hand witnesses. Not a cast of characters with nothing but opinions and hearsay evidence.

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "You said a mouthful... Yes, they did break ranks." - WHY did they break ranks?  Because they knew what Clinton did (and apologized for - something Trump will never do) was NOT impeachable.

          What Trump did was clearly impeachable, but the partisan Trumplicans were to scared to be impartial and therefore put on a sham trial.  Who EVER heard of a trial without witnesses.  They didn't want any because they couldn't stand the truth.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Clinton lied, he got caught, he was admittedly guilt. he had a woman give a complete account of the sex they had in the oval office. He then apologized,  How big of him... LOL

            Trump did not commit a crime. he has not lied to Congress. There was no proof of a crime. he has nothing to apologize for.

            Sorry, this will sound rude. But you go over the same BS. There were 17 witnesses, those were all that the House subpoenaed. They all had nothing but opinions to offer. The House did not subpoena the list they wanted the Senate to drag in, they could have and do not. We will never know if any of them would have fought the subpoenas. Because the House just did not do their job.  They then blame the Senate for not taking over and doing their job. They have no case what so ever. They lost. Bingo that's all she wrote. you can speculate all you please, that's what they hoped people like you would do. The impeachment was a badly planed political ploy a cheap Dem scam. The House could not have looked more foolish.

            1. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              The proof is there, all you have to do is open your eyes and mind; but you are wedded to this criminal for some reason.

  8. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 12 months ago

    I think you are really stretching that "legally conducted" qualifier to come up with your list.

    Without even doublechecking the others in your list, "Lenin" was enough of a red flag to doubt your other listees. Do you really think Lenin's accession to power was through legally conducted elections?

    GA

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)