The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

[photoglyph]

It's sad you see nothing wrong with the government not following the law. Oh that's right, the law only applies to people who disagree with your views

IOKIYAR: It's OK If You're A Republican -nice acronym coined to describe the double standard that exists for Republicans.

[Gatefan1976]

To be clear, I don't mind republicans, Jel is a republican and we get along just fine.
It's not even conservatives, MG, Womble and tood are all conservative, and I get along with them as well.

It's these trump idiots who think it's fine to disregard the law, and the constitution that piss me off.
I understand the desire for change, but change should not be illegal in nature, and especially by intent.

[Annoyed]

I think you folks have forgotten that Trump has yet to be convicted of any crime. Mueller's report was supposed to be the Democrat's savior, but it turned out to be a nothingburger. So now they try the current stunt, and when that fails, no doubt they will have some other stunt up their sleeve.

Being convicted by the media doesn't count for squat. Neither do hearsay witnesses, unfounded accusations or anything else the Democrats are trying.

The only thing Trump is guilty of is effectively opposing the Liberal/Democrat agenda in meaningful ways, and for that, he deserves a medal.

Problem is that the left simply can't accept that they LOST a particularly crucial election, and that loss is going to hamstring them for DECADES via changes to the judiciary.

And the 9th Circle of Hell is not the only liberal appeals court in the federal system. Here's a nice map.

http://visualfa.org/circuit-court-map/

And yes, those courts are politically appointed, so Trump is well within his rights to appoint conservative justices, which he is doing. This is one of the things his supporters put him in office to do.

Trump's only "crimes" are beating Shrillary, opposing the left and carrying out his campaign promises.

You let me know if he gets CONVICTED of anything else, eh?

[SoulReaver]

I think you folks have forgotten that Trump has yet to be convicted of any crime.

no **** Teflon Don is a damn billionaire corporate and he's in power how do you expect him to be convicted

do you also expect Putin to be convicted for his crimes?

And the 9th Circle of Hell

yeah I know the GOP's all about Big Godvernment

[Falcon Horus]

The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump of any wrong doing either.

I wouldn't call that a "nothingburger" -- that's a "somethingburger".

[Annoyed]

The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump of any wrong doing either.

I wouldn't call that a "nothingburger" -- that's a "somethingburger".

Seems to me that no charges were filed, no action taken.

In the words of Clara Peller, "Where's the Beef?"

And they're not going to get anywhere with the current partisan witch hunt, either. The Senate will not convict, because there is no hard evidence. Merely hearsay.

Yes, this whole mess has been hyper partisan from the start. But our system is laid out to prevent a partisan attack from taking out a President. One party is not supposed to be able to remove a president because they don't like him.

If there were hard evidence / proof, there would be enough support in BOTH houses of Congress; the House to bring the charges, and the Senate for the trial. As it happened with Nixon. Although he quit first, there was no doubt the handwriting was on the wall.

If you recall, Trump is not universally liked among the "establishment" Republican hierarchy. If there were sufficient evidence to convict, I think enough Reps. would cross the aisle to convict. But there isn't. So, while the Democrats were able to do whatever they wanted in the House, now it's the Senate's turn. And when impeachment goes down in flames, you can bet the Dems will have some other scheme up their sleeves. I wouldn't be surprised if they resort to assassination.

The left and right have been fighting like cats and dogs forever. They're supposed to. But where in the past have you seen the viciousness and willingness to stoop to any level, to do anything to oust a sitting President? There was talk among the left about impeaching Trump 20 minutes after he won the election, before he even took office!

What is the reason for that? Can't they just wait 4 year and try again with a more acceptable platform or candidate, as has been done in the past?

The Democrats screwed up royally in 2016. It's really not possible to overstate how devastating that loss was for their agenda, because of the judiciary. And Trump won, despite the fact that a SCOTUS seat opening was front page on the news for much of the year. No one can make the claim that judicial appointments were not part of what was on voters minds.

The courts have been the left's primary means to advance their agenda for a very long time now. And they are going to lose that ability. Even before next fall, it's a very good bet that Trump will seat another SCOTUS justice, as well as countless lower court positions.

The Democrats also know that they can't beat him next fall at the polls. Even leftist news operations such as Gannett are starting to see that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ls/2663659001/

If Trump wins next fall, that guarantees him that one more seat, and there will probably be others too. As well as even more lower court slots.

That is going to stop the left cold. It will not be able to advance its agenda at all. And they will very likely lose rematches on battles they thought they had won.

Do you understand how desperate they are at this point? As a result of 2016, they are going to be stymied for the next 30 years or more. As one of their own muckity-mucks has said, "we can't beat him, so we have to impeach him".

None of that matters. You can't impeach a president in this county because you don't like his politics. And their continued attempts to do so is only going to make it easier for him to win again next year.

Just looking at it strategically, they would be far smarter to abandon their failed attempts to prosecute their way back into power, and focus on adjusting their ideas, platforms and candidates to appeal to a larger section of the US electorate. And that includes considering the EC. They can't just kiss the coastal liberal elites' arses; they have to have ideas which benefit the whole country.

As Trump has done. The economy is booming, record level employment, wages rising for the working class, we've backed out of trade and other deals that were harmful to the US, energy independence and many other things. Yes, some things Trump has done has helped the rich, but you can't deny that his policies have been beneficial for many of the people in this country, not just the liberals on the coasts.

[Womble]

To be clear, I don't mind republicans, Jel is a republican and we get along just fine.
It's not even conservatives, MG, Womble and tood are all conservative, and I get along with them as well.

I object to that. My political beliefs overlap with much, but not all or most, of those of US conservatives, but on the USA political spectrum, I would probably fall closer to the pre-Obama Democrats. I am very much pro-single payer healthcare, public transport, separation of church and state - and, as a veteran immigrant married to a new immigrant, I can't be against immigration.

[SoulReaver]

Seems to me that no charges were filed, no action taken.

In the words of Clara Peller, "Where's the Beef?"

correct Trump's government didn't charge Trump

And they're not going to get anywhere with the current partisan witch hunt, either. The Senate will not convict, because there is no hard evidence. Merely hearsay.

so Trump's own words are hearsay?

If there were hard evidence / proof, there would be enough support in BOTH houses of Congress; the House to bring the charges, and the Senate for the trial.

since Trump's own words & transcript ain't evidence enough what would it take? ah yes impossible standards in other words Senate's already made up it's mind

you know just like the jury made up its mind to acquit Emmet Till's killers

If you recall, Trump is not universally liked among the "establishment" Republican hierarchy.

except Koch Goldman Sachs (Wall $treet generally) the trillion-dollar oil indu$try & just about all the upper elites

As Trump has done. The economy is booming, record level employment, wages rising for the working class

still parroting Govt. propaganda?

btw why is record low unemployment automatically considered a good sign for the commonfolk? you can have both low unemployment & high poverty (and high wealth disparity). if most of those jobs are precarious underpaid **** jobs then what's the point
is the low unemployment the reason why almost a million people will be deprived of food stamps? or is that part of the Prolife(tm) agenda?

[Gatefan1976]

I object to that. My political beliefs overlap with much, but not all or most, of those of US conservatives, but on the USA political spectrum, I would probably fall closer to the pre-Obama Democrats. I am very much pro-single payer healthcare, public transport, separation of church and state - and, as a veteran immigrant married to a new immigrant, I can't be against immigration.

Remember Womble, "conservative" is not an actual political party in the US. When I call you a conservative, I mean in the more "moral" rather than political sense. Everything you listed I would consider a "moral position". I too am for all of the things you listed, but I just want to go further. Or perhaps I want to take the concept of "charity" as a moral responsibility to the government?
If corps and governments can be legally considered "people", should they not have the same responsibilities as "people"?
I did not mean to call you a conservative in any kind of pejorative way mate.

[jelgate]

To be clear, I don't mind republicans, Jel is a republican and we get along just fine.
It's not even conservatives, MG, Womble and tood are all conservative, and I get along with them as well.

It's these trump idiots who think it's fine to disregard the law, and the constitution that piss me off.
I understand the desire for change, but change should not be illegal in nature, and especially by intent.

I'm actually neither. I have never registered with any of the political parties and never will. My ballot is usually pretty mixed of Republicans and Democrats

[Annoyed]

btw why is record low unemployment automatically considered a good sign for the commonfolk? you can have both low unemployment & high poverty (and high wealth disparity). if most of those jobs are precarious underpaid **** jobs then what's the point
is the low unemployment the reason why almost a million people will be deprived of food stamps? or is that part of the Prolife(tm) agenda?

You really need that answered?
Low unemployment means employers have to compete with each other for employees. That mean they offer better wages/benefit packages.
And despite what you want to believe, that is happening. In fact, this economic recovery is the first one in 20 or more years where that has happened. Prior recoveries since NAFTA and the other free trade crap have been "jobless recoveries" as employers simply outsourced their work. The only people that made out good under that were the elites on wall street.

Oh, have you noticed that Trump scrapped most of those deals that were bad for the US worker?

[Gatefan1976]

Seems to me that no charges were filed, no action taken.

Because he followed the rules?
It is not the job of the investigator to lay charges, it's the job of the judiciary to do that. Mueller made 10 counts of obstruction of justice, but as the POTUS, he is only accountable to such charges by the House and Senate, he couldn't just drag trump into a court. Now that trump is being charged, all you seem to care about is the senate not caring about the facts, but voting along party lines.
You simply don't care about justice.

In the words of Clara Peller, "Where's the Beef?"

And they're not going to get anywhere with the current partisan witch hunt, either. The Senate will not convict, because there is no hard evidence. Merely hearsay.

They won't convict because they will have to admit a mistake. I posted a link for a lawyer about the use, value and exceptions to the hearsay laws, but I'm guessing you did not watch it, or you did and did not understand it.
Or you just don't care.

Yes, this whole mess has been hyper partisan from the start. But our system is laid out to prevent a partisan attack from taking out a President. One party is not supposed to be able to remove a president because they don't like him.

WRONG.
A party holding the house and the senate can boot anyone they want.
SHOULD they do it?
Normally, nope.
Get it through your skull Annoyed, it's not about republican Vs democratic, it's about the essential criminality of trump. He's broken the law at every turn, and if you want his "agenda", it can be done legally. I have not agreed with any US president on the republican side for decades, but I would not ask for them to have been impeached.
Trump is just a grifter, screwing you for all he can, not for your nation, but for himself.

If there were hard evidence / proof, there would be enough support in BOTH houses of Congress; the House to bring the charges, and the Senate for the trial. As it happened with Nixon. Although he quit first, there was no doubt the handwriting was on the wall.

Are you joking?
YOU, and I mean YOU PERSONALLY have taken glee in the notion that the senate will not give a DAMN about proof.
"It's a witch hunt"
You don't care about fact, you don't care about law, you don't care about due process.
You just want what you want, and you don't care how it happens. trump really could shoot someone, and you would let him hide behind his office.
You really don't care, and you are proving it all the time.

If you recall, Trump is not universally liked among the "establishment" Republican hierarchy. If there were sufficient evidence to convict, I think enough Reps. would cross the aisle to convict.

No, they won't because they are afraid of losing power.
Just like you.
They have even more of a vested interest in not doing it because it would cost them money.

But there isn't.

Yes, there is, but you don't want to see it.

So, while the Democrats were able to do whatever they wanted in the House, now it's the Senate's turn. And when impeachment goes down in flames, you can bet the Dems will have some other scheme up their sleeves. I wouldn't be surprised if they resort to assassination.

Just how deep is your dive into conspiracies?
All you are proving is that you don't give a damn about the law.
When a jury is sworn in, it must have an open mind, but you are revelling in them not having that.

The left and right have been fighting like cats and dogs forever. They're supposed to. But where in the past have you seen the viciousness and willingness to stoop to any level, to do anything to oust a sitting President? There was talk among the left about impeaching Trump 20 minutes after he won the election, before he even took office!

Were the impeachment hearings against Clinton justified?
Ken Starr went for financial issues (whitewater) he ended up with a totally legal blowjob
But you went ahead with it because Clinton lied about it.
The Mueller report gives not one, but 10 examples of trump lying about it.
But sure, there is nothing there.
So, who set the standard for impeaching presidents?

What is the reason for that? Can't they just wait 4 year and try again with a more acceptable platform or candidate, as has been done in the past?

Yes, just let the POTUS continue to be a criminal.
What are you going to do if a democrat does it?
Impeachment does not matter, because the senate refuses to do it's job. So you have effectively cut out what the FF thought as the LAST RESORT to a criminal president.
Do you even listen to how often the democrats say they did not want to do this?
They could have chased impeachment after the Mueller report, but they did not, because they did not find enough to act on (which I think is BS, but that's my personal thought's)
You are giving total power to the presidency, and that is the antithesis of what the FF wanted.

The Democrats screwed up royally in 2016. It's really not possible to overstate how devastating that loss was for their agenda, because of the judiciary. And Trump won, despite the fact that a SCOTUS seat opening was front page on the news for much of the year. No one can make the claim that judicial appointments were not part of what was on voters minds.

Are you smoking crack?
Or just ignoring and attempting to refute what 17 branches of your own intelligence community, and your military has determined?
You think you had a choice?
You were denied that choice by "just enough" for it to be acceptable to mindless twits like you.
You are the real threat to America, and I'm not saying this based on "many people" or "some say", I am basing it of the words of your own intelligence department.

The courts have been the left's primary means to advance their agenda for a very long time now.

Proof?
Let me guess, the 9th.
I have 8 others that supposedly advance the right agenda.
Again, all you want is total control, and any dissent is hostile to you.
Heil Annoyed.

And they are going to lose that ability. Even before next fall, it's a very good bet that Trump will seat another SCOTUS justice, as well as countless lower court positions.

What is the role of the judiciary?
To uphold party or uphold the law?

The Democrats also know that they can't beat him next fall at the polls. Even leftist news operations such as Gannett are starting to see that.

The polls say he is failing, and the people want him gone. You are confusing the notion that it is harder to ditch a president in their second term with popularity.

If Trump wins next fall, that guarantees him that one more seat, and there will probably be others too. As well as even more lower court slots.

You actually drool over that, but you don't even know what it means.

That is going to stop the left cold. It will not be able to advance its agenda at all. And they will very likely lose rematches on battles they thought they had won.

What is the "left agenda"?
Actually giving a damn about people?
Yay for selfishness??
Selfishness is fine for individuals, it protects them to a degree, but government is NOT supposed to be for the individual, it's supposed to be "for the people, by the people"
Read your constitution.

Do you understand how desperate they are at this point? As a result of 2016, they are going to be stymied for the next 30 years or more. As one of their own muckity-mucks has said, "we can't beat him, so we have to impeach him".

Total BS
How about "we cannot afford to impeach him, so we have to lie about the facts"
No, don't like that?

None of that matters. You can't impeach a president in this county because you don't like his politics. And their continued attempts to do so is only going to make it easier for him to win again next year.

Actually, you can, and you are using that defence right now. "it's because trump is a republican"

Just looking at it strategically, they would be far smarter to abandon their failed attempts to prosecute their way back into power, and focus on adjusting their ideas, platforms and candidates to appeal to a larger section of the US electorate.

They won the will of the people, they did EXACTLY what you are saying.

And that includes considering the EC. They can't just kiss the coastal liberal elites' arses; they have to have ideas which benefit the whole country.

Universal healthcare doesn't help all of you?

As Trump has done. The economy is booming, record level employment, wages rising for the working class, we've backed out of trade and other deals that were harmful to the US, energy independence and many other things.

How much have the people in the mid-west gotten?
Why are small farms going under at a record rate?
Why are small businesses collapsing under trumps idea's?
What are these new jobs being paid?
Is that pay enough for people to live on?

Yes, some things Trump has done has helped the rich, but you can't deny that his policies have been beneficial for many of the people in this country, not just the liberals on the coasts.

Oh yes, I can, and I will.
Move to a farm dip****, and have your land stolen, your rights ignored, no support, and higher tax,
But you got something out of it, so it's ok.

[Gatefan1976]

I'm actually neither. I have never registered with any of the political parties and never will. My ballot is usually pretty mixed of Republicans and Democrats

You lean republican, you have said as much yourself.
My point was, you and I differ on how things should be done, but we don't think that either of us is "the enemy"
Is that fair?

[Gatefan1976]