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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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. ;-)
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.
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.
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.
"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)
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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/
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.
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.
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 ;-)
"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. ;-)
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.
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.
"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.)
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 medical care
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.
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?
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.
" 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.
"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
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%.
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.
Too bad Trump hasn't had a lesson in humility, too.
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.
"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?
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.
That's interesting. Just what "facts" are you using to prove that without NAFTA we would have had more auto industry jobs? Common sense says that when the jobs migrate to Mexico we don't get them, after all.
Facts can't be used to prove a hypothetical - as you well know - so you must be being disingenuous.
Common Sense says that when trade between the three countries INCREASES by 1 Trillion dollars, jobs grow in all three countries. No increase in trade, no job growth.
LOL You're the one that said "The facts, as is usual, prove you wrong." Now you can't support your statement so will claim I'm "disingenuous". I'd have to say you put the shoe on the wrong foot.
Common sense says that when trade increases it does NOT indicate which country profited or which country was doing the producing and which was doing the consuming. You know this as well as I, so there is no reason to attempt a false conclusion simply to fit your desired conclusion.
LOL, you are the one who said the unprovable "that without NAFTA we would have had more auto industry jobs?" THAT is your assertion, not mine.
Common sense say you are not using yours
And it was very, very clear that that was NOT my opinion, merely a statement that COULD be true, and one that you should consider in your conclusion but just don't want to. You prefer to simply assume that all the trade was equal in direction; that we sold as much as we bought. That automotive jobs increased in the US because we bought more from another country.
And when I asked you for evidence that was true, you declined, saying the facts don't support what you want them to and that I was "disingenuous" to suggest you should support your statement.
It appears plain that your version of "common sense" merely means that anything you want to be true IS true somehow - that your statements do not need support because YOU made them so they have to be true. How else can you support a statement that increased trade, mostly from moving production to Mexico, results in more jobs in the US?
Well don't attribute it to me and then try to beat me on the head with it. As I said, disingenuous.
My statements can always be supported (except when they are opinions), yours rarely can because there are often no facts to back you up.
Right. Like the statement that because trade is up (possibly all imports) it means more jobs for Americans. Easily supported by facts.
Except that your next comment is that it cannot be supported by facts...because any request to do so is disingenuous. Got it.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
The House is biased, but the Senate is not, eh Shar?
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.
You need to link up with Randy; he, too, thinks dictators gain office via legally conducted elections.
Historically, that is true. Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Hussein. Idi Amin, Putin, Nasser, a host of African dictators, Santa Anna, a bunch in South America, so on and so forth. And now Trump.
Coups are less common than elections.
I can not fathom why you believe President Trump is a dictator. He has made nothing but improvements since taking office. His trade deals alone are wonderful accomplishments, we have a wonderful economy, new prison reform, a military that is has been rebuilt. His accomplishments are too numerous to list. he just today donated his paycheck to fight the Coronavirus. He has not kept one paycheck. You can hate the man, but to call him a dictator is ridiculous. To many he will go down as the best president we have ever had due to his job performance. In five years he will leave this country far better off than it has been in many, many years. You can call him whatever you please. In my opinion, he is a man of the people.
All the dictators you listed cared nothing for the people cheat, suppressed and yes even killed their own. They were out to take what they could get from the people. You really should think before you compare the president to your cast of characters. Your statement is not logical or fair.
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.
You don't think Trump is a pathological liar? Do you want me start listing the 16,000+ lies and false statements he has made (with sourcing) since he assumed the office? I will if you want.
How about the 1000s of times he has called people demeaning names?
Or the 100s of times he has made fun of people, especially the handicapped. I can produce videos of your hero doing this.
Face it, he is a despicable man, a terrible leader, and bad for America.
My Esoteric -- The discussion was about the Biases in our Government. Not sure why you found the need to make an attempt to turn Randy and my conversation into a hate Trump fest. I think anyone that posts here frequently fully know how you feel about Trump. And I might add will have to hear it for 5 more years...
Try as you may to open a back and forth about Trump's lies, and who the hell knows what --- I am not up for all kind of crazy... You have the right to let hate rule your life. I have a right to ignore the hate. Trump 2020
"Not sure why you found the need to make an attempt to turn Randy and my conversation into a hate Trump fest." - HOW did I do that by asking questions? Several of which describe Trump to a 'T'
"Several of which describe Trump to a 'T'", and you can't figure out you turned the conversation into a hate Trump fest?
The TDS is getting worse, isn't it? The only thing on your mind any more is Hate Trump, so much so you don't even recognize when you promote a hate fest.
How did you do that? You totally changed the subject. LOL
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.
A few hours in a cell would cause these pampered folk to reconsider their ways, Scott.
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
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?
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)
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.
I suppose it's too much to ask of a candidate for POTUS to show he's not in the pocket of a foreign power. Unless of course, you don't care about the POTUS being swayed by Russia or some other adversary of the US.
If someone wants to be POTUS, then what's the problem if you're clean? And what does Trump have to be so frightened of, being found out he's a liar? WE already knew that!
Would you consider someone that owns or does business in another country in the pocket of that country? Trump owns nothing in Russia, I am very sure he has done business with many foreign counties, and yes the IRS would be aware of any and all funds he has made in other countries. Unless you feel he is in some way taking money illegally, which no one has accused him of doing. It is a well know fact Trump's taxes have been audit for many years. I would think due to all his business ventures. I am sure he has used any and all loopholes.
Trump had a reputation for his business dealings for many years before he ran to be president. Do you really think seeing his taxes would change anyone's mind in regards to voting for him? Again, if he has cheated on his taxes or evaded paying taxes it was the duty of the IRS to do their job, and charge him with a given tax crime. Let's face it there is no there there. Not sure Trump would care about being called a liar. He is called a lair every day. Most of the time it's just a statement that was twisted out of context.
Not sure why Trump won't show his taxes, it almost feels like he just loves to pull congresses chain. You do realize Trump is very much about being the "boss" pretty much on every part of his life. He may just be standing on his right to privacy. nd as I said in my comment, I don't think the SCOTUS will overstep those rights. I realize many want to have clarity in regard to his financial status, but he is a citizen and protected under the constitution. Maybe Congress will be able to give the SC a better case than they gave the Senate in the impeachment trial in regards to Trump abusing his power. Not sure why they used that charge when it came to the need to see his taxes? I am sure they will do their best to prove their case. But I think it will be shot down as it was in the Senate trial that he did not abuse his power, and he was protected by the constitution in the end.
In my opinion, as president, he should show the taxes for no other reason to stop the controversy one way or the other. But I also believe in constitutional rights to privacy. This is a two-edged sword.
The difference is most businesses aren't in bed with Russia like Trump is. His known dealings with Russian oligarchs run long and deep; who knows about the ones he hides.
Most American businesses can get loans from American banks. Trump on the other hand has been banned by American financial institutions and must go to Deutsche Bank and the Russian oligarchs to get his loans.
Everything Trump does relative to Russia (like withholding Ukraine aid as they fight Russia) stinks of collusion. So it is legitimate that Congress look behind the billows of smoke and see if there are real financial ties between Trump and Russia that give Russia leverage over Trump.
All of his actions suggest that is true.
Now I do believe that many, but not all Trump supporters would hang with him if it is proved he is beholden to Moscow. But there will probably be a few who will think he crossed a line and vote for somebody else or not vote at all.
"The difference is most businesses aren't in bed with Russia like Trump is. His known dealings with Russian oligarchs run long and deep; who knows about the ones he hides."
Please offer The difference is most businesses aren't in bed with Russia like Trump is. His known dealings with Russian oligarchs run long and deep; who knows about the ones he hides.roof of this statement. It's just not been proven to be true in any respect.
"Most American businesses can get loans from American banks. Trump, on the other hand, has been banned by American financial institutions and must go to Deutsche Bank and the Russian oligarchs to get his loans."
Trump has not been barred by any lending institution, including any American institutions. Trump offered financial statements at the first part of his presidency that proved the majority of his loans came and come fro JP Morgan, Ladder capital as well as many other American lending institutions. He certainly also used Barclays and Deutsche Bank to secure loans. All very respectable institutions. He borrowed where he could get the best interest rates as any business person would do. The story that Trump could not obtain loans was based on facts. As I said he released his financial discloser statement. One only has to do a bit of reach to find the specifics from the statement. CNN or MSNBC would not be the best source to find info on Trump's borrowing habits.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donal … 2017-06-22
And no there have been no ties found between Trump and Russian lenders. And no the House has no right to continue looking for crimes that just are not there.
He has slapped Russia with more sanctions than any president in our history. I have posted the link below more than once that list every sanction and action the Trump administration has punished Russia with. It is sobering. Take the time to read the facts before stating Russia has leverage over Trump. He clearly is not beholden to Moscow in any respect. Unless Putin is a saddest?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/
Trump will win in 2020, and the Dems have made him a shoo-in just by propagating all the crazy conspiracies as well as some of the very mistruths you posted in your comment.
Mine is dated 2019 - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/maga … trump.html
And then there is this - https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/ho … -business/
From your source: "The ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Democrat Maxine Waters of California, is leading a group of four House members that’s pressed Deutsche Bank to disclose the results of an internal review of its business relationship with Trump and his family. The Waters-led group wants to determine whether loans made to Trump and members of his family were backed by guarantees from the Russian government or were in any way connected to Russia."
Deutsche bank is Trump's largest debtor. Ladder Capital is the second, but there may be something shady as they seek to be acquired by another company under investigation by the federal gov't.
https://medium.com/@wsiegelman/trumps-s … c2a768d6c3
Other loans were made while Trump's empire was going bankrupt. Others are small and well securitized or have a clause to protect themselves if Trump goes rogue as he is known to do.
https://medium.com/@wsiegelman/trumps-s … c2a768d6c3
He has also taken sanctions off and won't put on others Congress has told him to.
Trump will lose this year.
The Ds will probably win the following states that they lost in 2016:
AZ (Biden +1), WI (Biden +1), PA (Biden +3), MI (Biden +5), NC (Biden +1), OH (Biden +5)
Possible wins: TX (Biden -3.6), FL (Biden -3.5), IA (Biden -3)
Not much sense to respond to your comment. I well proved my point. You continue to disbelieve facts. Your articles hold nothing of facts. An account from Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio.
I used my source from June of 2017 because that is when Trump released his financial statement, which documented his loans before he took office. I find that information pertinent.
I will see your Brookings and raise you https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics … ndex.html.
And had to this the fact that Trump turned over the Middle East to Putin.
No that was Obama...
Sorry your CNN opinion page was not impressive. Although I now see where you get your opinions from. No, really this is not good, you should search out the truth, facts that can be verified by a face, a name, not an article that is clearly opinion.
What was Obama?
Are you saying the following are "opinions" rather than facts?
"He said Putin was "so nice," he called Putin a "strong leader" and said Putin has done "a really great job outsmarting our country." Trump also claimed he'd "get along very well" with Putin. " - ARE YOU trying to tell me Trump DIDN't say those things?
"Manafort spent a decade working for pro-Russian politicians and parties in Ukraine and cultivated close relationships with Putin-friendly oligarchs. Manafort is currently in prison for, among other things, evading taxes on the $60 million he made from his Ukraine consulting." - ARE YOU saying Trump didn't hire Manafort?
"Trump said Putin did "an amazing job of taking the mantle" when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. During the presidential campaign, Trump broke with US policy and suggested he was OK if Russia kept the Ukrainian territory. He repeated a Kremlin talking point, saying, "The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were." - ARE YOU saying Trump didn't say those things and hold those views?
This is ALSO a FACT - "Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. Mueller investigated this for potential collusion but determined the change was not made "at the behest" of Russia. (The Trump administration ultimately gave lethal arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukrainian military.)" AND NOT an opinion.
"At a news conference in July 2016, he even asked Russia to hack more, saying, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," - ARE YOU saying Trump didn't say that?
" But Trump has repeatedly rejected this view (Russia interfered with America's elections), and publicly sided with Putin at the Helsinki summit in 2018, saying he accepted Putin's denials." - YOU DID watch him say that, didn't you? I did.
"The (Obama) sanctions were meant to punish Russia for interfering in the election, but then-Trump aide Michael Flynn asked the Russian ambassador not to escalate the situation so they could have a good relationship once Trump took over." - DO YOU deny Trump did that?
Need I go on? I have a bunch more.
When I said That was Obama... I was replying to this comment you made.
"I will see your Brookings and raise you https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics … ndex.html.
And had to this the fact that Trump turned over the Middle East to Putin."
Obama pulled out of Iraq, we all know what happens then. He handed Syria over to Russia, Oh and not let's forget releasing that plane full of cash to Iran. Which has gone to funding terrorist. Please don't go into your explanation of Obama's reasoning. THERE WAS NONE.
I have nothing to discuss in regards to the rest of your comment. As I said we have a very different thought process.
"Obama pulled out of Iraq" - So apparently you are one of those who think America can simply ignore what the host country tells us to do with our troops in their country. Are you saying Obama should have flipped the President of Iraq the bird and tell him we are not leaving? I sounds like it.
Nobody asked Trump to leave Syria other than the Russians and the murderous Assad. He left on his own accord handing the keys to our bases there to the Russians.
I also think the candidates for President should undergo a thorough psychiatric examination to determine their fitness to hold the nuclear football.
"Congress does have the power to ask to see anyone's tax returns but needs to show good cause. " - AND you source for this opinion? My source is Section 6103(f)(1) of the IRC which provides "that, upon written request of the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), or Senate Finance Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “tax committees”), the Treasury Secretary “shall furnish” the requested tax returns or return information to the relevant committee."
Every judge(s) that have heard the three cases SCOTUS is reviewing found against Trump - every one. Now, given Trump appointed two of the conservative justices and four of them think the president should be king (based on their rulings) it may very well be they will rule in Trump's favor. I mean look, conservatives ruled blacks were not citizens, so I suppose they could do it again.
Guess we will see who is right when the SC issues a decision. I say they protect his right to privacy. Simple very cut and dry.
Once again Shar, do you care if Trump is in the pocket of a US adversary? It's a simple question which you should be able to answer quite easily?
He is not in the pocket of anyone. Did you read the link I posted on this thread as well as many previous threads that factually list all sanctions as well as actions that Trump has placed on Russia? actually no other president has been so aggressive with Russia in regards to sanctions.
I can see you would rather take the opinions of Talk jocks on CNN, and ignore facts. I have no problem with conspiracies, but come on... I suggest you read the information. I certainly will not buy into Trump being controlled by Russia or any foriegn nation. The proof saids otherwise.
Then why didn't a bunch of conservative and liberal judges before them rule against Trump? Are they all idiots who don't know the law?
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely! Up is down, right is wrong, white is right...
Makes me wanta puke!!
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.
I'm more worried about his hardened supporters though. They live among us..lol.
Yeah. They require proof, not the opinion of a "few dozen health 'professionals' that have never performed an examination.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Putin is a murderer and that doesn't bother you?
Putin invades Ukraine, and that doesn't bother you?
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.
Here is a partial list of #MurderingPutin critics who he had killed:
And in his normal fashion of supporting #MurderingPutin, #TraitorTrump defends him.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/20 … -kills-too
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" It's like if you use poppy bagel in place of steel unit in chain. Everybody can pull it to see what will happen.
Hello Brad, it is time to ignore you here as well.
sorry, who is the Brad? anyway, good luck!
He was close, Scott. sockratus....sockpuppet.....is there a connection?
Also, he claims to be from Russia. I don't think I've encountered a Russian hubber before.
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" guys, you screamed to loudly
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.
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.
Putin is probably tracking what you say to make sure you are toeing the party line.
a few facts:
1. i never voted for Putin
2. i took part in opposition meetings in early 201x
3. i was never punished due to that in any way.
USSR is dead for many years. Russia is not a USSR.
i'd better afraid about your carrier, especially if you work for party.
i sometimes listen to CNN and FoxNews, from my perspective it looks like one may be punished due to talk with russian.
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.
i'd better not comment that. afraid of charge as a russian troll.
Ha ha. Someone should get in touch with the Trump campaign. I don't think their trolls are supposed to be so easy to sniff out. If I tell, maybe I'll be considered a loyalist and get myself a trolling job, and then, you never know, maybe on to the White House!
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?
I asked if you cared if he was in the pocket of a foreign power, Shar. Do you?
I answered you... "He is not in the pocket of anyone.' I do not think he is in the pocket of any foreign power.
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?
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.
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.
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/
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?
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?
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?
You made it personal---
"Even better, why do Trump supporters still deny election interference despite overwhelming evidence from the FBI, VIA and even Senate Republicans?"
I have given you a suitable link to give factual information on Trump's policies in regards to Sanctions he placed on Russia. I have certainly not strayed from the subject. That would be you. Getting personal with your comment in where you put all Trump supporters into one category.
The Trump administration enforced sanctions on 16 different occasions. I guess you missed all the sanctions? Perhaps have another look at the link. He has plummeted Russia with sanctions. As well he armed Ukraine with the Javelin defense system. I bet Russia just loved that...
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/63065937 … -on-russia
How is my observation about "Trump supporters" denying election interference a personal attack on you? Where does your name appear in the comment?
I did not miss the so-called "sanctions". Your link is only a back and forth about the question of Trump's toughness: "It's another sign of Trump's efforts to build closer ties with Moscow".
Again, please stay on topic and respond to my questions instead of evading them.
Try not to cram words in my mouth and claim that I am rejecting all of Brookings. Obviously I said no such thing.
Why bring it up( "Even better, why do Trump supporters still deny election interference despite overwhelming evidence from the FBI, VIA and even Senate Republicans?" ) in a conversation in regards to Trump's policy of placing sanctions on Russia. We certainly were not conversing Russian interference in the 2016 election or how Trump supporters feel about it. And no my name was not mentioned, however, and idiot can see through your vague jab. There is no doubt due to my repeated statements here that I support Trump's agenda, and job performance.
In regards to so-called sanctions, I would once again repeat Trump sanctions on Russia ae many and sever. I noted you gave no mind or mention of Trump providing Ukrain with the Javelin system. Do you think this prudent of him being in Putin's pocket?
I have in no way evade the subject and added solid references to back my opinions. Which even the dullest of minds could ascertain by reading the progression of this conversation.
In regards to your opinion on the Brookings article --- To quote you ---
"Multiple references to "denounced" and "condemned". Worthless rhetoric."
I would say that pretty much sums up you opinion on the Brookings article I used to make my point. I certainly did not accuse you of rejecting "all Brooking articles".
My reply was only in regards to the article I posted. We were not discussing Brookings reputation. Please note I versed my sentence to read THIS REFERENCE gives lengthy and well-documented information.
My comment ---"So, you are telling me you do not take the word of the Brookings?" This reference gives lengthy well-documented information
I in no respect tried to "cram words into your mouth.
I accused you of nothing! I asked a question...
It's clear you did not read the article. Brookings compiled each and every sanction the Trump administration has put on Russia. With lengthy descriptions of each. One only needs to browse each sanction heading to enter into each well-written article on each sanction.
It is apparent you may not be willing to either take the time to have a look at the sanctions or just are not willing to accept the fact that the listed sanctions were placed on Russia.
Not sure there is anything more I can add to this conversation. It's like talking to someone that does not have the ability to hear or read lips. But in this case, there is clearly not the case, due to this being a written conversation.
I stand by my opinion. Trump has been very severe on Russia in regard to his placement of sanctions, and the fact he provides Ukraine with the Javelin system. And that I do not feel Trump is in any faction soft on Russia or in Putin's pocket.
And to further clarify, I have never stated here on HP that I do not believe the Mueller report that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. I read the disgustingly boring nothing Mueller report. He did find Russian interference in the election none of which involved "any American".
This conversation has come to a conclusion.
The Brookings Institute, which I highly respect, laid out a record without context. They did not include any of the things Trump as done to promote the interests of Russia. The most devastating, and in my opinion traitorous, was when he told the world that he believed Russian intelligence and Putin over America's intelligence regarding Putin's attack on America's electoral system.
The article was a piece on a factual representation in an actual list format that was done to provide factual information on the sanctions Trump has placed on Russia as well as actions. Nothing more, nothing less. They gave a nonbias article. This was factual, not an opinion piece where someone gives an opinion on Trump what you call traitorous actions or their opinion on how they feel Trump promotes Russia or anything to do with any election tampering.
Just a factual article on the sanctions, He sanctioned Russia up the butt! not sure why you can't accept that as fact. But it is... And if you think that's doing Russia a favor, that's a problem. A problem that shows a lack of comprehension. Brookings piece is a fact piece, that can be backed up by government records in regards to Sanctions placed on foreign nations. So, if you have a complaint and don't like the article because you just did not want to the fact Trump has been very hard on Russia in regards to sanctions, take that up with Brookings.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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/
The IRS Commissioner is 'supposed' to be a non-partisan appointment. This Commissioner is quite partisan.
"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.
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
They desperately need dirt on Trump so he won't be re-elected - does that count as "proper legislative purpose"?
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?
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".
Not even a guess as to why he's so frightened of his finances coming to light, Dan? Surely you can think of something!
Could it be he's not as rich as he claims? That's one guess, but I doubt it's really why.
It amazes me at people who simply trust him implicitly as to not being in someone's pocket. Of course, he's known for his honesty.....
Randy, Just a quick question. What has he done so far for any foreign country that you feel maybe be looked at as payback, a favor? Most countries he has dealt with he has perturbed them. Pointing out they don't pay their fair shares. He has placed tariffs on a long list of nations. he is literally taking on China to create a fair trade deal. He has new trade deals with S.Korea, Japan, Canada, Mexico. In regards to Russia, he placed 17 sets of sanctions on them. He even brought it to the attention of the world he did not yet trust Ukraine and thought they were most likely still very corrupt.
So, who has him in their pocket? What country? And if he is not reelected should he not have started giving out all the favors as of yet? Not at all sure common sense would play into your scenario that Trump is in anyone's pocket. If so, he has not showed any regard or favers to his puppet master.
Indeed not, Shar. He didn't take Putin's word over his own Intel sources did he? Sure.....never happened!
And he and Un fell in love....and what happened then? I do believe Russia and North Korea are two of our biggest adversaries, and he kissed up to them, along with Saudi Arabia who allowed an American resident to be chopped to pieces.
So you still don't care if he is in someone's pocket? Of course you don't as you actually believe the cretin.
We were discussing Trump being in the pocket of Putin and possibly others. Not his opinion Putin or Little Kim or anyone. I asked what has Trump done that could be even considered a favor to any foreign country that would lead to a suspicion that he is beholding to any foreign leader?
Not sure what you mean by 'kissed up to them". What did he do other than perhaps words in a tweet or statement? Please elaborate.
Jamal Khashoggi was born in Saudi Arabia and a citizen of that country. He was not an American citizen. He was in America on an O .visa which is a classification of non-immigrant temporary worker visas granted by the United States. He was killed inTurkey, not in America. Hopefully, you are not accusing Trump of having anything to do with his murder? It appears the Saudis handled the crime and punishment of the perpetrators. Trump had no power to do anything in regards to that horrendous crime. If it would have happened in the USA he certainly would have needed to become involved in the prosecution of the criminals that killed Khashoggi.
You have provided me with any type of information that shows Trump beholding to any foreign power. In fact, as I pointed out he is to many foreign nations nothing but a nightmare with his sanctions, and tariffs, his belittling most for not paying into NATO. Come on Randy, he is not in anyone's pocket. You need to stop and logically think about the fact he is a big pain in the a-- to most foreign leaders. They actually want him gone more than you do. If he has done any favors I certainly am unaware of them.
And you feel Trump's statements in some respect were enough to refer to them as some form of payback that Russia could profit from or control our president? I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump has been hard on not only Russia but any other country he felt the need was plausible..
You've proved nothing "beyond a shadow of a doubt," Shar.
Why did Qatar suddenly reverse their decision not to lease Jarrod's losing 666 building for 100 years, Shar? Perhaps a call from the prince in Saudi Arabia? Why would they lease a losing enterprise for a century from Donnie's son-in-law?
You'll have no better answer for this than you do for the reason Trump's hiding his taxes, I'll wager.
Yes, they will come up with more dirt, most likely as crazy as what you listed. Just reading your list of Trump's supposed wrong-doings makes me really take a pause... OMG, what kind of minds would buy into all of this? This is the very kind of mindset that will could truly buy into supporting socialism or communism. Yes, dictatorship. And this is what the left accuses the right of doing. Is this crazy, comical or sad? Thanks for putting it in writing. Maybe some will read it and wake up to reality.
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.
Which "pure political scam" are you referencing, Shar? The House oversight duties?
The fact that the House has no real purpose other than political bias to request the tax records. The House has given no valid purpose other than that they have the right to see Trump's taxes. This jus won't go anywhere. They needed a purpose. They will not win this battle. Trump as you or me has the right to privacy. And yes if congress would have proved they have a legitimate purpose they may have been able to obtain the taxes. Guess once again, they just did not have the time or think they needed to follow the law.
The SC will follow our laws, and keep to the Constitution,
that's their job. They can't become involved with political games.
"The fact that the House has no real purpose other than political bias to request the tax records." - WHERE in the law does it say the House needs a political purpose???
In any case, they have given several reasons although they don't need to. They all revolve around Trump is suspected of illegal activities - you know like Hunter Biden.
I have stated this precedence twice. Congress can not ask for the court for anyones tax records without propose, and political bias is not a reason the court will even hear.
No congress can not just ask to see anyone's tax records without purpose, and political purpose is in no respect considered a purpose the SC will even address. I have on two occasions offered a resource to my argument, you apparantly do not respect it.
"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...
So you were referencing the House Oversight duty, Shar? Is it up to Trump to release his taxes like he claimed he would do after being elected, Shar? Or was this simply another one of his thousands of blatant lies?
Just give me any sort of legal scenario as to why he's trying so hard to hide his finances and I'll let it go, but until then, he'll still be considered to be in someone's pocket, Shar.
Give it your best shot...which is nothing to this point.
He did claim he would release the taxes after the audit was done. It is still ongoing. The IRS said there was no reason he could not release the taxes while they proceed with his audit. I have no idea why he won't show his taxes or if he ever will keep his word when the audit is complete. As I have said I don't think he has committed any form of tax crimes. The IRS is not covering for him. And I will predict due to Trump standing on his "rights to privacy" the SC will rule in his favor. Just common sense. The SC will follow the Constitution to the letter.
You have the right to your opinion about Trump being in"someones Pocket". It is pretty clear due to our history many presidents as well as Government officials are and were in someone's pocket.
So far i have seen no evidence Trump has favored any other government but our own.
You can consider my opinion nothing, that's your prerogative. II feel I have more than made my case in regards to what I have witnessed, and researched. There is no evidence of Trump doing favors to other nations that would appear off-color.
"It is pretty clear due to our history many presidents as well as Government officials are and were in someone's pocket."
Since it is pretty clear, then you should have no trouble finding a reputable source for your claim, Shar.
And there is no reason, other than some nefarious one, why Trump's hiding his taxes. I've given all of his enablers a chance to give me any sort of reason for his hiding his finances, Shar. You're no different in you can't think of any.
As far as off color, Trump's extorting the Ukraine is about as off color as one can get. You were fine with that as well....
Adding to the "Is Democracy Dead" imperative - Today a Bush appointed judge crucified AG Barr for having a "lack of condor" (you remember those words?) with the American people regarding the Mueller report. He basically accused Barr of lying to America about the contents of the Mueller report.
The judge is now going to review the unredacted version and determine what DOJ can and cannot redact. This is for a FOIA request.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/05/politics … index.html
The HHS IG rips Trump a new one (again) for trying hide the horrible things they were doing to immigrant children and their families.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/05/politics … index.html
NOt about to take the time to prove many of our presidents, as well as government officials, are in someone's pocket. It's called lobbying."You do me a favor I will reward you".
"'Lobbying' (also 'lobby') is a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by the government by individuals or more usually by lobby groups; it includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups."
And it's all legal... This is how they walk in with no bank accounts and leave millionaires.
Trump did nothing but provide more aid than any other president, as well as sell them the Javelin missile system so they could defend themselves from Russia. That's just a cold fact.
Think what you please about why Trump is hiding his taxes. I stand by my prediction. The SC will rule in his favor. The only way anyone will see his taxes is if he decides to release them. I could care less, I trust the IRS to catch any problems if there are any as they complete his 12th audit. All other audits found nothing that showed he broke any laws purposely.
It is also cold fact that Trump is the only person to withhold aid to Ukraine while they were in a hot war with Russia. Trump knew that would make Putin very happy while at the same time Trump spouted Putin's propaganda. (I wouldn't be surprised if Putin told Trump to do that in one of their many secret conversations.)
Hell, I doubt Ukraine would have their aid today if Trump hadn't got caught in his bribe.
Now they're still trying to dig up dirt on Hunter and Joe, even though there's absolutely no evidence either of them broke any laws. Wonder what Rudy's up to now? Nothing good, you can bet on that!
I see you ignored that Trump provided Ukran with a means to fight and kill Putin's comrades. LOL I would think Trump's providing the Ukrain with the Javelin system would show he was in no way kissing up to Putin.
Fact - Trump's ad. has provided more funds in the form of aid than any of our previous ad. And your statement in regards to the funds that were held. They were released, that's a fact. You can speculate, and come up with as many conspiracies as you please. The fact is they got the funds.
Please address why you feel Trump provided the Javelin system. How did this in any respect show he has favoritism to Putin?
I have previous said Obama should have given lethal aid, and I am glad Trump did (and yes, I am sure Putin didn't like that). But nevertheless, he took those Javelins away again didn't he (well, he wasn't going to give them any more.)? Well, until he got caught.
And yes, Trump has done a few things to piss off Putin, but the net effect, on the important things, Trump has been a very good friend to our enemy.
Please provide a resource where Trump took the Javelin back from Ukraine. he held up aid not Javelins. They purchase the Javelin system and are going to purchase more in the near future.
Please provide a resource to the story you got that info from.
Zelensky asked more Javelins in his so-called "perfect call" with Trump which led to the quid pro quo. Trump didn't deliver them until he got caught withholding aid.
You also don't read what I write, do you. I will repeat it and highlight the part you missed (I'll assume it was not on purpose) "But nevertheless, he took those Javelins away again didn't he (well, he wasn't going to give them any more.)?
Again I am requesting a resource in regards to your claim Trump took back the Javelin system and held up the delivery of a new supply of Javelins. You have come up with some crazy comments, this one takes the cake.
In the phone call transcript, it clearly shows Zelinskiy stating they were "almost ready to buy more Javelins". The first Javelin purchase to the Ukrain was approved in 2017, the weapons delivered in 2018. Trump never withheld any weapons that were purchased. And as of July 25th, no new ones had been ordered. Not sure what Javelins you are referring to when you say he held the weapons
"President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."
NOTE the sentence ---- "we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/poli … index.html
When that July 25th call was made Ukraine was not yet ready to purchase more Javelins as of yet.
In 2017, the US Congress approved a $47 million military-aid package that included 210 Javelin antitank missiles and thirty-seven Javelin launchers to go to Ukraine.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u … w-so-what/
It was not until Dec 26, 2019, that Ukrain announced they were purchasing more (second batch) Javelins from the USA.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker … rom-the-us
So, your statement ' Trump didn't deliver them until he got caught withholding aid." It is totally not true, they had not even been ordered or the sale approved by Congress as of the July 25th 2019 phone call. And the first batch was already delivered in 2018.
He never took any Javelins back... I am not sure where you heard such a report, but I can guess. CNN. Perhaps you can supply a link to where you got this false report.
"Again I am requesting a resource in regards to your claim Trump took back the Javelin system " - AGAIN I am suggesting you don't read the whole comment and just cherry-pick what you want.
"and held up the delivery of a new supply of Javelins." - AND IF you had read my answer you wouldn't have to ask, would you? I will repeat it. Unless you deny it, which I suspect you will, Trump held up aid from March (when DoD said they met their anti-corruption goals and started the wheels moving to release the aid) through the middle of September when Trump was caught and forced to release it. Next, you need to do a little mental analysis, which many, if not most, Trumplicans hate to do, and draw the line between Zelenskyy's request for Javelins in the July call to the fact that Trump held up the aid that would have delivered them.
Now I realize that Trumplicans, to believe anything negative about Trump (this doesn't apply to other conclusions they draw in support of Trump), that specific words must come directly out of his mouth to the public. In this case, those words must be something like "Zelenskyy, I am holding up your Javelins until you investigate Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the fake Ukrainian interference in America's 2016 election - you know, the one the Russians (and I believe Putin) are trying to pin on you." And unless Fake Fox News or Brietbart or some other conspiracy theory right-wing network reported it, Trumplicans STILL wouldn't believe he said that.
How could the Javelins be ordered (Congress had already approved them) when Trump withheld the aid??? Zelenskyy asked for them in early July. Why would he ask for them if they didn't already need them? But I suppose that is not enough proof for you either.
The president has never held up or refused to sell javelins to Ukraine. I have offered you a resource that shows the progression of both sales. All your lengthy comments can't change the facts I have provided. Trump never help up Javelins. The second order was well after the July phone call. Not sure how you feel he could hold up Javelinsthat had not been requested and paid for.
And you can't change the fact that Trump held up the Ukraine aid (from which they want to purchase Javelins, according to Zelenskyy), therefore denying them the Javelins they wanted - simple as that.
Your logic escapes me... The fund Trump held up was in no way connected to the talk that was ongoing in regard to Ukrain purchasing more Javelins. You just make it up as you go. As I said I certainly realize you really hate Trump but come on you must realize these claims you are making are just not true. Trump has not denied the Ukrain the Javelin system He provided them with them in 2918, At this point details are still being worked out on a second sale. It was Obama that refused to sell the Javelin system to Ukraine.
Nov 2019 ABC News
"Since that first sale, U.S. officials confirm that there have been long-running discussions between the U.S. and Ukraine about a future purchase of more Javelins, but nothing has been finalized.
As such, Javelin missiles were not part of the $250 million military aid package to Ukraine at the center of controversial Trump call with Zelenskiy that has triggered a formal impeachment inquiry by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/javelin … d=65855233
In Dec 26, 2019 Reuters
"KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine will purchase a second consignment of U.S. Javelin anti-tank missiles and launch units, Ukraine’s Defense Ministry said on Thursday."
"Contracts for the deal were signed in the fourth quarter of 2019, the defense ministry in a statement, without giving further details"
So far no further details on sale or delivery.
You win this one, Shar. Your ABC cite did the trick; I stand corrected. The "logic" by the way is I wasn't aware that no Javelins were included in the 2018 authorization which Trump illegally held up. Had they been, then the logic is fine.
Once again Trump did not and has never held up Javelins to Ukraine. The second-order had not been requested before the July phone call let alone held up. READ THE CALLS TRANSCRIPT. I provide a link as well as Zelinsky's quote in regards to the second set of Javelins. Ukraine had not yet requested more as of the phone call. Your lengthy comment sounds ridiculous. Onc again Zelinsky's quote
NO ZELINSKY DID NOT ASK FOR MORE JAVELINS IN THE JULY CALL.
"President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense.
( We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.")
Congress had not even considered or voted on the second purchase of Javelins until Dec 2019.
Your comment is ridiculous. I offered resources of the factual progression of any Javelin sales that have taken place, with dates. IT is not I that is reading anything into the javelin sales or the fact they were not held up in any respect. I have well documented my point. Your conspiracy theories are ridiculous at this point. Believe whatever you please. I choose to just follow the documented proof. Unless you can prove your opinion, I sugest we drop the conversation. I note in all this back and forth you offer no resource.
Apparently you didn't read the summary - "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." says Zelenskyy.
Had Trump not held up the aid, they could have bought the Javelins Zelensky was talking about.
I listened to Trump tell one whopper of a LIE yesterday when he said about the coronavirus “This came unexpectedly, it came out of China, we closed it down, we stopped it, it was a very early shut down,” - A HUGE DANGEROUS LIE although I suspect those Trumplicans on this site will agree with him.
His fake economic advisor Kudlow stupidly said later " “I would still argue to you that this thing is contained.” - Another LIE although I suspect the Trumplicans here think that is the truth as well.
Then this afternoon on my home, I heard Trump say something to the effect "America has been very proactive in testing for the virus; the rest of the world has not been." - Exactly what world is he living in? It certainly isn't this one.
Mamma Mia, here we go again! You are deflecting. We were discussing the Javelins Trump has sold to Ukraine. I pointed out it seemed Trump did Putin no favor by arming his enemies. Then you said, trump took back the Javelins... I gave resources that clearly dispute your theory of Trump being an "Indian giver."
HP has an active page on Bashing Trump's handling of Coronavirus. You might enjoy checking it out. It's turning into a very good bash fest. Have fun...
No deflection, just bring up yet another reason Trump should be removed from office and how he is trying to act like a dictator and putting out false and dangerous information that makes him look good.
This is your opinion. We all get one vote. That's all she wrote. Calm down, stop spinning. I get it you hate Trump. And yes reorient, you did deflect, and it was to a subject I see no point discussing. I don't let hate dictate anything in my life. It serves no purpose, especially when it comes to Trump. AS I said, in the end, we all have one vote. All the complaining does not make much difference in the end, now does it?
As I said before, I hate what Trump has done to this nation. I can't hate someone who is mentally ill and can't help himself.
The nation is fine. And the president is not "mentally ill." At any rate, I hope you can keep your mental faculties together for his next term.
I should have added the word "dangerously" since many presidents have been judged mentally ill and were very effective.
37 mental health experts make their case in "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" - https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-D … amp;sr=8-2
I review several of the chapters in:
In my opinion, and keep in mind my education is limited in phycology. Only having to take a couple required of classes to get my degree in the Science of nursing, and a three-month clinical in a psychiatric hospital. I am far from an authority on the subject.
I do have the opinion that the president does show signs of specific personality disorders, histrionic, narcissistic, and avoidant. He exhibits many of the characteristics that go along with all three disorders. Studies have shown some personality disorders can be attributed to genetic factors and or dysfunctional home life in early childhood and adolescence. It is believed that these factors can greatly contribute to developing personality disorders in later life.
It's interesting that Trump's parent's come from a generation that certainly had different ideas on how to raise children. Many Boomers are the results of parents that were authoritarians, and parents that made greater demands on children than most parents do today. They expected children to "be all they could be". Children were told, "You can be anything you want to be in life if you put in the time and hard work to accomplish your goal".
Perhaps the results of this form of childrearing could produce a child that could exhibit personality traits such as histrionic, narcissistic, and avoidant.
It's well-known Trump's parents expected a lot from their children and did not take no for an answer.
All true and according to Dr. Bandi and the other 37 mental health professionals the severity of those traits leaves Trump unfit to be president; something they have been trying to get the public to understand since prior to the election.
The public didn't listen.
I gave you several chances to suggest any legal reason for withholding his finances, Shar. You can't think of any, just like your fellow enablers, so we'll just leave it at that.
Randy, I have repeated myself over and over. perhaps you have not seen my replies due to this thread drawing many comments. I have no legal reasons why Trump won't show his taxes. he is standing in court on his"right To Privacy", Our Constitutional right. That is the only legal reason I can give. It's a pretty good one. And I have predicted the SC will rule in his favor.
I can't go along with any conspiracies in regards to Trump hiding his Taxes for a notorious purpose. As I said he has been scrutinized for 12 years of audits each year. I trust the IRS would have found any form of problem with his business and personal taxes.
If you really want my opinion on why he won't release his taxes, I will offer it up. It's his personality at work. He is not a person that buckles in, in any respect. Plus, he loves to say"I won". He is a big thorn in the sides of the Dems in Washington and loves turning the knife. If he wins in the SC on his right to privacy, he will have turned that knife big time. he will be setting big precedence for future presidents, as well as giving the House a blackeye for even bringing the case to the SC. Keep in mind this is all opinion, but the road called common sense most often is the best road in the end.
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.
"the statute must be exercised in a way consistent with Congress’ constitutional authority. " AND WHAT statute says that?? None.
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...
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
Here is another Trump Lie - https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … of-vpx.cnn
CNN? No thanks, they leave off much of the content to statements and conversations. Just not into sound bites. I will give a listen to the conversation, and see if CNN once again has worked their sad magic to twist context. No just not into CNN...
Actually Shar, you are talking about Fox - not CNN. That network is respected by everybody in America except you conservatives. The only thing you think is real is Fake Fox News.
By the way - why is it that South Korea can test for coronavirus 15,000 a day and the best Trump can produce is 1,200 in 9 weeks. (I'll tell you why, he wants to keep the reported cases low). In doing so, he is putting you at grave risk.
The cretin is putting all of us at risk just to try and keep the stock market going. His enablers don't care about that either, as long as he's blabbering as usual.
Let's see, what are Trump's latest LIES? Oh yes, the WHO estimate that the mortality rate is 3.4% is false (he, a pathological liar is calling the WHO a liar, what gall). Instead he tries to lull the American public into a since of complacency about the coronavirus by saying the mortality rate is lower than that of the flu.
He also keeps lying about when a vaccine will be available in order to fool the American public as well.
I wouldn't be surprised that Trump isn't responsible for the woeful lack of response of the CDC in providing test kits. The rest of the world finds easy to produce test kits (South Korea tests 15,000 people a day and we have a hard time testing 1,200 people in nine weeks), why is is SO HARD for us? My guess is Trump doesn't want the test kits available in order to keep the number of coronavirus cases low so that the stock market won't crash worse than it is. I would not put that past him.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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?
by Scott Belford 10 days ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
by Readmikenow 6 weeks ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by Ken Burgess 2 years ago
Trump has solidified his support in the Senate, the Rino politicians like Flake and McCain are gone, and Republicans now hold a solid majority that cannot be compromised by a rogue vote. The Democrats have taken control of the house, so all investigations, budgets, and lawmaking will be under their...
by Sharlee 2 days ago
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their...
by Sharlee 5 weeks ago
So far it is obvious President Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to resign in the final few days of his presidency. And VP Pence is equally unlikely to force him out by invoking the 25th amendment of the Constitution, despite calls from the Democrats to do so.So, in the wake of last week’s...
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Donald Trump just announced he will pass Term Limits? Will this help him win?At a rally today Trump spoke about a Constitutional Amendment on Term Limits for Congress. This should be supported across the asile - thoughts?
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|