Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

in the fascist nightmare that America's become

Wait... did I miss something?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

in the fascist nightmare that America's become

Wait... did I miss something?

Really.  There's no way Trump could make the trains run on time.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump is crazy, no doubt. But that's not the same as him, or the US, being fascist. There is a pretty big distance to travel between what we have and the more fascist nations.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump's an idiot and an embarrassment, but I have trouble calling him a fascist since he's so....ineffectual.  The Muslim ban was pretty fascist, but it failed.  People rose up against it, and it didn't work.  He tried to repeal ACA, and it didn't work.  He's trying again, and it....probably won't work.  There's no wall or any real movement on the wall.  Hillary isn't in prison.

He has a Republican Congress, and he's accomplished...almost nothing?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

There was no Muslim ban.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

There was no Muslim ban.

Yeah, that's just another in a long line of campaign promises Trump never had any intention of keeping.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well, you know what I mean.  Nothing happened.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Okay, I'm not going to say that Trump isn't a part of the problem. He clearly is. He never should have been a realistic candidate, and he never should have gotten the nomination. But he did. And he's still better than Hillary. So, there's that.

The fact of the matter is that Trump isn't *the* problem though. He is simply serving to highlight what is wrong with the entire system right now. We have government officials refusing to acknowledge that he is the President, simply because they don't like him. We have Congressmen and Senators who are outright trying to undermine his authority as President. Not because he is breaking laws or because they are doing their job by keeping him in check. They are doing it because he isn't Hillary. That's it.

There needs to be maturity and perspective, but there isn't. This is not just childish and petty, it's dangerous for all of us. All of those people are just as bad as Trump, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I can't believe that Trump is in office, or that he is the source of all of this. There is a much, much larger issue here. It involves Trump, many judges, many senators and congressmen, and many members of the press. It didn't just start when Trump was elected. Hell, the only reason Obamacare passed in the first place is because nobody knew what was in it. We had Pelosi famously declaring that they had the pass the bill in order for people to find out what was in it!

I would love for them to just undo Obamacare. Complete repeal needs to happen, I think. The thing is, this back and forth that they're having over the issue now should have taken place before Obamacare ever passed. This is a conversation that should have been resolved many years ago, but it wasn't. Because they wanted to secure a legacy for Obama.

Right now, we have a lot of people violating laws by not upholding laws. We have many people stepping outside the boundaries of their authority. We have people acting against the lawfully elected government. I have a hard time looking at that and thinking that Trump is the problem. I think he is the least of our worries.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

General Michael Hayden summed it up perfectly last night or night before on Anderson 360.  He said that Trump behaves like a dictator/autocrat in Central America.  He lies non-stop, almost comically.  He threatens everyone.  He has an incredibly small inner circle, and barely speaks to anyone outside of that, including tons of nepotism.  He's 99.9% ego. 

In some ways, one cannot blame Donald.  This is who he is, and he never tried to be something else.  It goes back to the sheer amazement I have that people could actually vote for a guy who has this kind of putrid past in business.  At this point, as I predicted, he simply cannot accept government.  He, and Bannon, wish to destroy it.  They wish to destroy the very institutions that hold the government and thus the country together.  None of them are off limits.  There's never been this type of danger to the Republic since The Civil War.  Whether this moron lasts 2 years, 4 years, whatever, the damage he will inflict to the institutions of this nation will take much longer to repair, if ever.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Just for some perspective, most of what you just said is what the republicans were saying under Obama... and probably with more evidence to back it up.

But the world still turns. The sky isn't on fire. Nobody is being disappeared in the middle of the night. I think this mindset that we're on the verge of some Nazi Germany scenario is doing more harm than Trump. People need to step back, gain some perspective, accept the reality of the situation (Trump is President. For four years.), and start having rational conversations about the issues, and stop trying to one-up each other on "Trump is evil" statements.

One of the main problems under both Trump and Obama is that every comment is a meme, not an opinion. Everyone is looking at every issue as good vs. evil, and they will cheer for their team, even as they drive of a cliff. (I mixed way too many metaphors there).

Trump isn't the problem. He's just one symptom of many.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Hell, the only reason Obamacare passed in the first place is because nobody knew what was in it.

Some things never change...


A bunch of House Republicans admitted they didn't read the GOP healthcare bill

http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-hous … ill-2017-5

Collins also had to ask a reporter from The Buffalo News to explain to him a provision of the AHCA that would cut $3 billion in funding to help low- and middle-income New Yorkers pay for healthcare.

The result being...

Republicans misstate, again and again on TV and at town halls, what’s in their health-care bill

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos … story.html


Either the GOP congressmen don't know what's in the bill or they are deliberately lying about it.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

This is the problem. Republicans and Democrats who are more interested in putting on a good show than representing the interests of the people who voted for them. It isn't Trump that's incompetent. It's the fact that he is highlighting the incompetence of everyone else too. Most of the people in Washington are just con artists.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I've always found Informant to be a truly peculiar character and this thread frequently emphasizes that. I used to wonder if Informant simply sides with whoever he perceives to be a figure of power, hence his uniform siding with the police and whoever held the gun in any instance of black men being brutalized and murdered.

However, the Republicans had been on the losing side for the last eight years and he supported them right to the point of declaring the barely literate Sarah Palin  to be a delightfully intelligent woman, so I wonder if it's simply that he backs ideology and anyone who claims to support his views is above serious reproach even if one is an exposed fraud or a self-admitted sexual harasser and a predator of the poor.

The Republicans' party lines generally reflect his ideology that, among many other things, health care is an individual responsibility and not a right to be delivered by government. Except that's not what the Republicans are presenting either; in a post-Obamacare America, the populace views health care as a right, so the AHCA is being presented as a massive improvement in service as opposed to what it's actually been designed to do -- put the burden of health care back on the individual.

Then we get into Informant's unintelligible, inexplicable mental contortions where Donald Trump may have called his executive order a Muslim ban and confessed to sexual assault, but neither qualifies as either because Trump's words, quotes and actions shouldn't define his character and presidency in any way -- and oh, here is a heartwarming story about how Informant stood up for the rights of that half-assed doctor who was unjustly punished for letting a baby go blind.

Honestly, trying to figure Informant out is like trying to understand God; I only ever seem to drive myself crazy doing it and I'm not going to try anymore. I won't let it stop me from buying his books.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Info, this is not about politics.  This is about the LAW and the CONSTITUTION.  Barack Obama like George W. Bush before him, were not perfect, but they were decent, good men with morals, and were capable of deep thought and KNEW the definition of justice.  They did not lie constantly.  This is a totally different animal.  Republicans are sick of this scumbag.  This has NOTHING to do with Washington's "swamp."  This is 100% about a maniac now running the country.

Donald Trump has fired the acting AG Sally Yates, US Attorney of NYC Preet Bharara, and now FBI Director James Comey.  How many more law enforcement officials will this con artist get rid of before the GOP finally do what they are PAID to do, which is to provide oversight and checks and balances?  Would I personally want a President Pence?  Of course not, but this guy needs to go.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

ireactions-

Understanding me is simple. I don't believe in politicians or officials, I believe in specific points of view on specific issues. Therefore, I might think that Sarah Palin is right about some stuff, but that she is a total moron when it comes to other stuff. I might like someone like Ted Cruz now, but that wouldn't stop me from not liking him when what he says no longer represents what I believe.

Also, I might like someone as a person, but not like their political positions. And I won't jump on some factually untrue comedy train, targeting someone I don't like, just because I don't like them. I don't like Donald Trump. That doesn't make everything said about him true. He did not grab any woman by her p***y, so calling him a rapist or guilty of sexual assault is factually untrue. Just like it would be untrue to say that Barack Obama is the new Hitler, or Hillary Clinton is... wait... no... everything about her is true.

When it comes to black kids getting shot, I'm fine with throwing a cop in prison and throwing away the key if what they did is unjustified. However, I will not lump all of those cases together, and I do not believe that the overall "systemic racism" narrative holds water. Again, it's case by case and issue by issue. Fact by fact.


The VA is a government run healthcare system. Anyone who has ever been exposed to it will be able to tell you what a mess it is, and it's not just a matter of that particular system being run poorly. These types of systems do not work, and the world is our proof. I generally believe in less government, because people are more capable of taking care of themselves than the government is capable of taking care of the masses. When personal health issues become an issue of millions of faceless names on a piece of paper, people will die. Again, the world proves this to be true. Socialized healthcare results in more death. If we took the VA funds and gave those soldiers health insurance that would allow them to go to a normal hospital of their choosing, we wouldn't see the same number of untreated veterans in this country. If we made health insurance a competitive industry, rather than a federal mandate, we would see more people being able to afford the healthcare that they need. It's fun to say that healthcare is a right, but that's a slogan, not a reality. Which is why the public has mostly opposed the plan, and those elected officials who voted for it didn't even bother to read what was in it before they passed it.

The public school system is another perfect example of this. It's a disaster, and I don't think anyone can reasonably argue with that. We have inner city kids being forced to go to schools that do nothing for them, because this is all they can afford. The schools have no reason to get better, because it's not like they're going to shut down the public school system the same way that a failing business would close. Results don't matter. It's next to impossible to fire a bad teacher, because of their union. However, if those kids were given vouchers that would allow them to take the tax dollars that are set aside for their education and shop for a school that could do better for them, we would have more students getting better education, and more schools feeling a need to actually teach them something. Competition makes people better, not slogans and good intentions.


I have emotions, but my emotions aren't my political arguments. When it comes to political arguments, I rely on facts. You just broadly referred to all black kids being shot by cops as though you can possibly put all of those situations under the same blanket. You can't. You talk about how Donald Trump referred to his executive order, and not the executive order itself, which is the document that actually matters. You refer to the doctor in the case that I served jury duty on as half-assed, but his treatment met the medical standards of care.

If you want to understand me, stop looking at memes and emotional outbursts. Start looking at the facts and logic. That's why I love a good debate. If there are facts that are worth considering, I want to know about them, but I'm not really interested in catchphrases and "the science is settled" BS.



Grizzlor-

Look... I think George W. Bush is probably a great guy, and he'd probably be the most fun living President to hang around with. I believe that he has morals and cares about people, though I disagree with a lot of what he did and what he believes in. However, I can't say the same thing about Obama. He was absolutely full of himself. He absolutely pushed for violence and anger in this country. And he absolutely lied to us on a regular basis. He was a smug bastard, but the press agreed with him, so that's not how they painted him. The level of anger and vitriol in this country is the direct result of Obama, not Trump. Trump is the result of that anger and vitriol.

We have more democrats saying that we should lock up climate change deniers than we have conservatives saying that we should lock up abortion doctors. We have more violent acts being committed against conservative speakers than we have toward liberals. If Donald Trump is the threat to this country, then why aren't we seeing his followers acting so outrageously? Why don't we see his people presenting ideas to silence free speech, the way we have actually seen democrat politicians speaking?

You say that this is about laws and the Constitution. Okay. So tell me what laws were broken, and where the Constitution was violated.

I agree with you that Trump is crazy. I think that he is a liar. I think that he is an idiot who possibly has some good ideas, but is incapable of presenting them in a normal, mature way. At the same time, I think that a lot of what we see in the press is BS, because when you actually look into a lot of those stories, the facts don't support the narrative.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

There's never been this type of danger to the Republic since The Civil War.  Whether this moron lasts 2 years, 4 years, whatever, the damage he will inflict to the institutions of this nation will take much longer to repair, if ever.

I honestly don't understand this sentiment.  Is Trump doing damage to the country?  Probably.  Is it potentially dangerous across the world?  Probably.  I can't answer "yes" to either of these questions because I don't consider myself well-read enough to definitively answer either way.

But unless someone launches nukes, nothing is irreparable.  Trump is a shitty president.  But we've had shitty presidents before.  Loads of them.  We've had a celebrity president before (Kennedy and Reagan, in their own ways, were celebrities like Trump).  We've had crazy presidents (Andrew Jackson was ten times crazier than Trump, and I won't allow an argument to be made for the contrary).  We've had presidents who didn't know what they were doing and just wanted to be president because it sounded cool (Warren G. Harding just wanted to play poker with his friends).

The Republic survived.  And it will survive Trump. 

People always want to believe that we live in the X-est time in history.  For millennia, people have believed that they're living in the end times.  But, more these days, we want to talk about things in hyperbole.  "2016 was the WORST YEAR EVER" "Race Relations are the worst they've been since the CIVIL WAR"  "Bush/Obama/Trump is HITLER"  When, in all those cases, it's hyperbole.  2016 probably isn't in the worst 1000 years ever, race relations are much better than they were in a lot of people's lifetimes despite everything that's happened, and there was one Hitler and he's dead.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I agree with that. I'd throw FDR in as one of the most damaging Presidents, because he was given a blank check when he got into office and we are still suffering the consequences of his crappy economic policies. People give him credit for ending the Great Depression, but he was the reason why there was another dip around 1937. World War II had more to do with ending the Depression than the New Deal did. But we never learned the lesson from FDR, so we keep letting Presidents go nuts with plans that are going to be kicking us in the ass for generations to come. I'd love to see one of them try to save us some money instead.

Sorry. You know I love a good FDR rant.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

http://jezebel.com/tennessee-woman-atte … 209243/amp

Too far.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

We agree on something!

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Roaming Millennial recently posted a video on YouTube that caused a stir. In it, she makes the case against vegans (not veganism as a practice, just the actual vegans) who tend to have a d-bag complex. The point of her argument isn't that being a vegan is wrong, it's that those d-bag vegans aren't going to do anything to further their cause, because nobody likes a d-bag.

I agree with her, and I don't think that it's limited to vegans. I think that people who are concerned with the environment have the same issue. Whereas most people would agree that we want less litter and less smog, just for the sake of living in this world, and that we'd all love some sustainable alternative source of energy, the environmentalists tend to go a little crazy, betting all their chips on man-made climate change. They enter an unnecessary battle with people.

The same idea is true with many other activist groups as well. If they cared more about the change they want to see, and less about the cause that makes them feel like they're a very special warrior of justice, the world would be a much less dickish place to live. Nobody wants to eat lunch with the crazy Christian who is telling everyone that they're going to Hell. Cuz that guy's a dick too.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

My biggest problem is the loss of civility in most public debates.  It wasn't too long ago that people could have a political discourse, disagree, and try to find common ground.  Nowadays, I don't think there's even any attempt to find that common ground.  Or, frankly, any desire to.

(None of this applies to anyone here, I'm mostly talking about what I see on social media).

People used to dislike the other party.  Now they hate them.  People used to tolerate people who voted differently.  Now there's all kinds of slurs and insults.  Look on Twitter or Facebook and try to make a partisan-like comment.  You'll either be told about Trump's fascism or Hillary's murders or gay sex with Vladimir Putin or Bill's rapes.  If there was ever a topic, it gets derailed immediately.

I saw a discussion on health care fall apart when two people with handles that were very anti-Trump got mad at each other over whether or not Hillary was a monster.  They were basically on the same side of the argument, but since one was for Hillary and one was for Bernie, they could no longer find common ground.

It's been happening for years, and I'm not sure who fired the first shot.  My earliest memory was the vitriol that people had for George W, but I'm sure it happened before that.  But the hatred from the left for W turned into hate towards Obama from the right.  This election was hyper-negative from day one, and most people were voting *against* someone instead of voting *for* someone.  We were told that anyone from the coasts are elitist assholes and everyone from the rest of the country are racist idiots.  People lost friends and exiled relatives.

What's scary to me is, on both sides, how eager people are to hate.  To threaten violence.  To *incite* violence.  To the point where we could have an American president killed with zero mourning.  Half the country would celebrate and half would be angry.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

It's true. It's become entertainment, in a way. People have their teams, just like with football. They cheer when their team scores, and they throw a fit and call the ref an idiot when they don't get their way. It has nothing to do with any actual issues (in fact, I've seen some loud Hillary supporters who I'm pretty sure don't realize that they're actually conservative in terms of beliefs). It's just teams. You never question your team. You never consider cheering for something that the other team did.

The real world has been suffering ever since the line between entertainers and politicians was crossed. I don't mean entertainers who become politicians, I mean treating politicians as though they're entertainers. Rubbing elbows with actors and musicians at swanky Hollywood parties, because they're all rich and famous, with huge egos. You eventually blur the lines between Kimye, and the people who control the nation's stash of nukes. Issues that should absolutely be debated and discussed in great detail are reduced to which team you're on. Too many people have no idea what they're actually supporting. You see people who support something when they're told that Hillary Clinton said it, and then turn around completely when they see that Trump actually said it. You see government officials saying that they'd support something if Hillary's name were on it, but it's criminal for Trump to propose it.

It's all disturbing.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

You eventually blur the lines between Kimye, and the people who control the nation's stash of nukes.

That line is gone.  Our current president is a reality TV star.

It's been coming a long time, really since Kennedy and the widespread ownership of televisions.  Presidents have always hung out with the beautiful people.  TV allowed us to see it instead of occasionally reading about it.

674 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-05-15 14:53:11)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

People have their teams, just like with football.

Exactly.  You hate everything your rivals do, even if it's probably something you'd love for your team to do.  I honestly think that a good percentage of the problem with the health care debate is that each party wants credit for it.  I think the Republicans could pass an identical bill to ACA, and the Democrats would try and vote it down.  Because each party wants to campaign with "we fixed health care"

It isn't really about helping people or anything.  It's about the appearance of helping people to get votes next time.  As someone who doesn't identify with either party, it's infuriating.

And what's crazy is I don't think I'm that different from most people.  I'm liberal in certain areas and conservative in others.  In the last election, I voted for nearly the same number of democrats and republicans and went with 3rd parties (left and right) a few times.  Siding unilateral with either party is confusing to me.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I hate when someone actually tries to have a debate or discussion on an issue, and they're just shouted down or ignored by the people who have no idea what's going on. If you actually believe in something, why would you be afraid to have someone question it?

I was sitting with a couple of people a few years back, and the topic turned to the white man coming in, murdering Indians and stealing the land. As usual, those people were conflating hundreds of years of complicated history into a single event, so I just said "Well, it was a little more complicated than that."
Both people looked at me as though I had just broken a law, and said "No it wasn't."

End of conversation.

Anyone who fears discussion or examination of a topic can't really believe in what they're saying. Sometimes I even agree with an overall opinion, but I can still allow for a gray area.

It all boils down to the face that people suck and I should stop interacting with silly humans.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I was debating whether this was a Marvel comment or a political comment. Finally settled on political.

I was reading an interview with the producers of AoS on TV Line (a site which is growing insufferable quickly) and they made a comment about the actor who plays Fitz wanting to wear his hair a certain way for this alternate reality storyline (or whatever it is. I haven't seen it yet). They joked that he is a Nazi now, based on the hair. So I looked it up, and saw that it's actually a pretty traditional hairstyle, so I was confused by the comment.

More Googling showed me that this is actually a thing now. Hipster millennials are freaking out because of this "Nazi" hairstyle that they suddenly realized they were using. Some people are trying to push the idea that it's some secret symbol for white nationalists.

Seriously. The derangement is getting out of hand. Having a man's hair cut short on the sides and longer on top isn't a Nazi thing. If they wore the style, it's because it's a pretty old style for men. The actual styling changes from person to person. Some just have messy spikes on top, some have a center part, some have the neat side part with slicked back hair... But the actual cut is pretty standard. Mostly because it's simple and doesn't require much fuss.

People need to stop looking for Nazis as though they're Waldo. They're not exactly a secret society that's known for being subtle. The hairstyle thing is ridiculous.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Walls closing in on Donald.  Shared CLASSIFIED INTEL with Russians in the White House.  Bob Mueller, and not a lacky, now in charge of the investigation.  If he makes it through 2017 without resigning I'll be shocked.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Walls closing in on Donald.  Shared CLASSIFIED INTEL with Russians in the White House.  Bob Mueller, and not a lacky, now in charge of the investigation.  If he makes it through 2017 without resigning I'll be shocked.

Watergate took over two years to reach Nixon resigning, at which point formal impeachment proceedings had barely started.  And that was with the opposing party in charge of both houses of congress.  If there's anything to this, it will take a while before it's resolved.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Watergate took over two years to reach Nixon resigning, at which point formal impeachment proceedings had barely started.  And that was with the opposing party in charge of both houses of congress.  If there's anything to this, it will take a while before it's resolved.

That's the thing about this stuff.  People are so eager to get Donald out (for anything) that I've seen posts since January asking what's taking so long.  The last time we did impeachment stuff (Bill Clinton), it took months of investigation.

The only reason this might go faster is, ironically, that the Republicans control Congress.  If the investigation clearly looks like Trump is guilty, it'd benefit the Republicans to get the proceedings going ASAP.  Not only would it possibly help Republican incumbents in 2018 ("I stood up to corruption in Washington and voted out Donald Trump"), but they're doing to want to put as much distance between this and 2020.  If Mike Pence gets 2+ years in the White House and things go pretty well, he'd essentially get the same bump as any incumbent president.  That didn't really help Ford, but again, if it goes well....

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The ride would be so much smoother for republicans with pence or ryan but they need the political capital to get rid of trump or the citizens in their communities will have bone to pick with them.  it doesn't hurt that trump is losing supporters, i guess. at some point it may reach a tipping point, and republican congress acts.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Are we talking about discovering the truth here, or are we discussing finding any excuse to get rid of Trump? If it's the first option, people are putting the cart before the horse. If it's the second option... Have fun with that.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Are we talking about discovering the truth here, or are we discussing finding any excuse to get rid of Trump? If it's the first option, people are putting the cart before the horse. If it's the second option... Have fun with that.

Well, this is my next big concern.  People were talking about impeaching Trump before anything happened.  Before he took office.

And I'm worried about two things:

1. Is this going to be the new political world?  If we don't like a president or didn't vote for him/her, we're just going to demand impeachment at every turn for any reason?  Not just "I don't approve of the president" - "HE/SHE HAS TO GO!"

2. What if they get Trump on some sort of technicality?  Not necessarily a crime...something light and flimsy.  Doesn't that set a terrible precedent for future presidents?  Wouldn't hardcore republicans try the *exact same thing* with *whoever* the next Democratic president is?  Put pressure on them from day one....wait for any mistake...and strike?  Trump's awful....but wouldn't any president make a mistake under 24/7 scrutiny?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Are we talking about discovering the truth here, or are we discussing finding any excuse to get rid of Trump? If it's the first option, people are putting the cart before the horse. If it's the second option... Have fun with that.

There appears to be plenty of proof to convict Flynn.  If it's as bad as it looks, it becomes a game of what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it with Trump and other senior officials.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Are we talking about discovering the truth here, or are we discussing finding any excuse to get rid of Trump? If it's the first option, people are putting the cart before the horse. If it's the second option... Have fun with that.

Any politician is motivated significantly by the ability to move their agenda. With all the chaos going on, which I think is disrupting getting things done, surely at a certain point if they feel there's enough of a smoking gun AND they won't get too much flack from their constituents, I think they will make their move.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:
Informant wrote:

Are we talking about discovering the truth here, or are we discussing finding any excuse to get rid of Trump? If it's the first option, people are putting the cart before the horse. If it's the second option... Have fun with that.

There appears to be plenty of proof to convict Flynn.  If it's as bad as it looks, it becomes a game of what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it with Trump and other senior officials.

The obstruction of justice thing in itself could be the end. Whether he did or not is open to interpretation - assuming he said what the Comey memo indicates. If there is the political will to get him out of the way,  folks in congress could decide it falls under obstruction.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

We don't know anything legit about the Comey memo, except that if Comey took anything Trump did as an attempt to sway an investigation, he was obligated to report it. He didn't.

A lot of what we are working with here is wishful thinking and anonymous sources. There isn't any actual evidence so far. So discussing an impeachment at this point is just an attempt to get to the result you want, whether or not Trump actually did anything.

As I've said before, Trump isn't the one (or the only one) acting immature and foolish, nor is he the one (or only one) putting our entire system at risk over pettiness and greed. What we learned from those released emails is that Hillary and the DNC actually took steps to manipulate the election. Should I assume that everyone is equally outraged by that?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

What we learned from those released emails is that Hillary and the DNC actually took steps to manipulate the election. Should I assume that everyone is equally outraged by that?

She shouldn't be president either...

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

except that if Comey took anything Trump did as an attempt to sway an investigation, he was obligated to report it. He didn't.

I certainly think that's an issue.  I'm not sure what he was planning, but it should be addressed if this escalates.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

My main concern is, how much of this is a legitimate concern, and how much of it is narrative, made up by people who are upset that Hillary lost the election? We have a lot of people throwing around a lot of words that they don't seem to know the meaning of, acting as though all of these rumors are undeniable facts, but the truth is that we have very little, if anything, to work with when it comes to actual facts.

If Trump rigged the election in some way, I'm all for tossing him out of office and into prison. However, at this point, that sentence is a lot like saying that if Trump murdered a family of six and ate their bodies in order to hide the evidence, he should pay for that. Or if Trump is a unicorn poacher, he should be set adrift in space for all of eternity.

There is obvious corruption going on, from a lot of angles. Hillary should have been indicted, but she wasn't. Comey is a weasel who should have been fired long before he was. I have a hard time viewing the rabid "impeach Trump" crowd as anything but a bunch of crazies, because they're certainly not concerned with justice. I have no doubt that a lot of republicans would go along with whatever it takes to get rid of Trump, because they want people like Ryan or Pence to have more power... but that's not remotely close to what the actual voters wanted. The democrats wouldn't approve of Trump saving a puppy from a burning building at this point.

There's a big mess here. Sorting it out will probably be impossible. Most of the people involved are in the wrong.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Okay, I have a question. Say there's no evidence of Trump messing with the election or working with the Russians, or any of that stuff that people have been going crazy over. Undoubtedly, there will still be speculation and all sorts of anonymous sources full of mysterious references to documents that we will never see, but let's say that there is no actual evidence.

Now say that despite this lack of evidence, political machines manage to turn these accusation into an impeachment and boot Trump from office (this is hypothetical, so don't ask me to explain how).

At that point, do you celebrate Trump being gone? Or do you protest the corrupt and underhanded method by which it happened?




Hypothetical question aside and moving on to a different topic, I think that the media is getting dangerously close to "boy who cried wolf" territory. One minute, people in the media are throwing around words like "treason" and "impeachment", and the next, they're backing away from such words, because there's no actual evidence of wrongdoing. They really should hold back on the speculation and outrage machine-fueling until they have something factual to report. I've seen so many stories today with comments like "President Trump is denying allegations...", when the real story is that there really wasn't a story when the press ran with it.

I think that there may very well come a time when there is something legitimate to report on Trump, but members of the media, from "legit" journalists, to late night comedians have been so gung-ho, focusing on one narrative and one endgame since election night, that there is a real risk of people ignoring a real story if it should actually arise. The bias is already undeniable. The lack of professionalism is obvious. We're getting to a point where, as Trump once said, he could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it, because he's told some version of the truth more often than the press has.

Makes me wonder if this isn't a strategy of some sort. Is Trump making the press look crazy, so anything they say later won't be taken seriously?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Okay, I have a question. Say there's no evidence of Trump messing with the election or working with the Russians, or any of that stuff that people have been going crazy over. Undoubtedly, there will still be speculation and all sorts of anonymous sources full of mysterious references to documents that we will never see, but let's say that there is no actual evidence.

Now say that despite this lack of evidence, political machines manage to turn these accusation into an impeachment and boot Trump from office (this is hypothetical, so don't ask me to explain how).

At that point, do you celebrate Trump being gone? Or do you protest the corrupt and underhanded method by which it happened?

There's no political machine that can impeach Trump that WILL without (from this week on) damning evidence of misdeeds presented by the special counsel's investigation. At least on the Russian matter. Trump can still go off in some other way that causes Republicans in the house to draft articles of impeachment. I would like to say how unlikely that is but you NEVER know with Donald Trump. It's impossible to predict what he will or will not do and what the subsequent fallout of something Donald Trump could do might be.

As far as what ifs around there not being any there, there? I think many people have suggested that Trump's resistance and reactions to further and prolonged investigations on Russia might very well be blindly based on his insecurities over being perceived as somehow not having won the White House on his own. That it's all a Democratic effort to discredit his victory and de-legitimize his presidency. And that he, and this is the blindly part, with no perception of proper boundaries for a president has trampled into many potentially impeachable areas just out of his own personal insecurities. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable scenario actually.

But... the cover up, as they say, is ALWAYS worse than the crime. And in this case, the cover up might be all there really is. In a fair and just Washington, it really should be all that's needed to remove Donald Trump from office. Fair and square. Comey's notes, as we've all heard, are, like any FBI agents contemporaneous notes, taken as having a high evidentiary value. Those notes show a president clearly attempting to improperly influence an FBI investigation into his campaign. And he admitted that his firing of Comey was based on Comey's FBI investigation of the Trump campaign. His spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that they, the White House, hoped for a speedy resolution of the FBI investigation AND that their dismissal of Comey was something they hope would help that to happen.

Stunningly stupid admissions that completely back-up Comey's notes and the concerns he's voiced through associates of a president attempting to influence him to drop the Russian investigation. We would and should celebrate the removal of office of a president who does just these things and nothing more.

So... your hypothetical is what exactly? That we should assume for a second that this stuff that actually happened DIDN'T happen? I don't understand. If Trump hadn't done all of this stuff and was being railroaded out of Washington without justification? No that wouldn't be something to celebrate.

The real problem is that, instead of making America great again, something many people quite honestly hoped he could do, Trump remains, as long as he is in office, an existential threat to liberty and justice and many other more specific linchpins of the American political system. He threatens a free press. He is actively attempting to brush aside long-established independence between the White House and FBI, something that would leave essentially nothing with any teeth in it that has political independence that could check this, or any subsequent, White House's actions.

So... again... not saying there's any actual collusion with Russia, etc. There's already IMO enough in the public record to warrant or justify Trump being removed from office. I suggest that if the investigation only turns up what we already KNOW, confirms it through Comey's notes, and supporting materials like public statements and like... confirming through testimony whether Trump DID ask the VP and AG to leave the room before talking one-on-one to Comey, etc. that this would be enough to remove Trump from office.

So what corrupt and underhanded methods are you referring to? What's YOUR evidence of anything like that happening? What's your reasons, for example, for thinking Robert Mueller might participate in any corrupt and underhanded methods that would result in the removal from office of the President of the United States?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I'm basically just asking if evidence actually matters anymore, or if it's more important to get rid of someone that you don't like.

The fact is that at this point, there is no evidence to suggest that Trump actually tried to interfere with an investigation. We say "Comey's notes" are third-hand tellings from anonymous "sources", based on documents that may or may not exist, about an event that possibly didn't even happen, and if it did, could have been a completely innocent comment.

Basically, at this point, they're as relevant as a figment of a reporter's imagination. We can't even take them into consideration, because we can't even see what they actually say.

I'm sure that Trump's not happy about it. I'm sure that he's tired of the democrats and the press trying to discredit his election (which they're absolutely doing). And I think that Trump and his team need to work on their communication, because they often contradict each other. People who need to be in the loop don't seem to be in the loop. I get that Trump has no love for the press, and I don't blame him, but he needs to have a coherent message for the American people. Right now, he doesn't.

That said, I don't think that Comey's firing is the smoking gun that people are hoping for. The man was bad at his job and deserved to be fired a long time ago.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant's claims to the contrary, I find that he is primarily driven by ideology and if reports from Comey's memos and aides and friends don't fit his ideology, he will declare that they cannot be trusted even as he throws his weight behind fraudsters like James O'Keefe and empty-headed parrots like Sarah Palin and infantile oafs like Donald Trump. However, I agree with Informant that it isn't about evidence; it's about strategic advantage.

Will Republicans eventually find that their constant occupation with defending Trump makes it impossible to govern? Or does control of the Senate, Congress and the White House make having Trump's constant scandals a tolerable situation? Impeachment will come when the GOP finds that Trump's presidency makes it impossible to execute their agenda whether it's through blunders, scandals or the Mueller investigation yielding incontrovertible evidence of collusion with Russia. But so long as Republicans can pass bills and get laws signed with Trump in office, they will not support an impeachment and without their support, it's not going to happen.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

James O'Keefe didn't just tell someone about a portion of a video that he saw once. He releases videos. Some of them I find interesting. Some I do not. Again, it's not about putting me weight behind any person. I'm not a Sarah Palin fan. I think she did some good things early on, but she got a big head. I like her compared to McCain, but that's like saying that I prefer Trump to Clinton. It doesn't mean that I necessarily like either.

The fact is that we don't have a Comey memo. We don't even have a full telling of what's in that memo, if such a memo exists. We have someone else's interpretation of a fragment of a retelling about an event that Comey apparently didn't see as a big deal... if it happened at all. Therefore, I can't take that half-baked concept of a memo and consider it evidence. I consider what we have and weigh it accordingly. As I said, I think that Trump's team isn't working well together, but that doesn't make anything he's done illegal. Did he give the Russians information? Maybe. Was that illegal? No. He's the President. It's only a scandal because it's Trump.

As endearing as it is that you find it to be your responsibility to assign me some easy-to-digest ideology that you can quickly dismiss, your assessment of what you think I believe is not an accurate representation of what I actually believe. I think Trump is scum and has probably broken a million laws in his career as a businessman. I think that if he's breaking laws now, odds are, he's smart enough to not strong-arm the FBI director who is taking notes during their conversation, and who is leading an investigation into corruption. I think that if that happened, Comey probably would have reported it, because not doing so is a crime.

When did it become a bad thing to actually want to see evidence? There were any number of accusations and rumors surrounding Obama that I didn't get on board with, because those reports lacked actual evidence. What you guys are doing is taking a rumor about something that might exist, but for which we have no proof, and holding it up as though it's a solid piece of the "get Trump" campaign.

To be clear, I don't want Trump as President. I would love for him to be replaced by someone who was more capable of doing the job. If an investigation comes up with evidence of wrongdoing, I'm all for him being booted. I'm just not willing to believe anything that anyone says about him, just because it sounds like something I'd imagine him doing. And while he's in office, I think that the constant undermining of his role as President is doing none of us any good. Sabotage and shadow governments are a very dangerous precedent to establish.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I have also been watching WEINER, a documentary about another crazy politician who lacked any impulse control and blew up his own life. Twice.

http://www.watchonline.red/weiner-2016-watch-online/

Retail Link: https://www.amazon.com/Weiner-Anthony/dp/B01IURTFIC

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Very interesting writeup from a friend of James Comey sharing Comey's account of Trump.
https://lawfareblog.com/what-james-come … nald-trump

And Informant raises an excellent question: why should we trust the anonymous sources of the Washington Post and the New York Times? WP supported the war in Iraq with bogus information. NYT had to fire Jayson Blair. And so on.

My attitude is that the White House response to the assertions made by the anonymous sources are so incoherently self-contradictory, so reactively defensive and so quickly undermined that it makes the unattributed claims all the more credible.

Reports that Trump had fired Comey over the Russian investigation were met with Trump's surrogates saying it was due to the deputy attorney general's memo, that it had nothing to do with the investigation, that Comey's handling of the Clinton email case was poor -- only to be overturned by Trump himself declaring that he had planned to fire Comey for ages over being a "showboat" and a "grandstander" and, indeed, for the Russian investigation.

Trump claimed Comey asked to have dinner together and to keep his job at the FBI, an absurd claim as the FBI and White House traditionally stay separate. Comey had many more years left on his term of duty. Trump's ridiculous account lends greater credence to the report of Comey's memos saying that Trump insisted on their meeting to demand a loyalty pledge. The claims from the anonymous sources make coherent sense.

The White House's responses to these accusations are inconsistent, self-contradictory, overturned shortly after their delivery -- which are all the hallmarks of people running scared from the truth, grabbing whatever lie comes to mind before throwing it away in favour of another lie, ricocheting from one flimsy denial to the next. At least that's how it looks to me.

697 (edited by Informant 2017-05-19 17:00:04)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

It smells more like a poorly briefed staff to me. It's a big failure. Even a bunch of liars will try to tell the same lie most of the time. Just look at... Every other President. I think his staff was speaking without a clue, and Trump was speaking without a thought.

The link you posted was interesting, and raises a lot of questions. Unfortunately, those questions will never be answered, because we are reading someone's impression of a conversation that he had with an over-venting friend, during which he failed to attain some important facts. If true, this story implicates Comey (damn his stupid name for messing with my auto correct!) as much as Trump.

There are legitimate questions to ask, but we can start with the answer we want and work our way back from there.

And again, Comey is a weasel who blatantly and unapologetically thumbed his nose at his oath to uphold the law. We have to keep that fact in mind here. We aren't dealing with a saint versus a madman. We are talking about a corrupt sellout versus a madman.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Comey will testify publicly to the Senate, so those questions will be asked.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Right. But as for right now, we can't take possible comments, three times removed, and pretend that they're facts.

I'm not saying not to question. I'm not saying that I like, support or trust Trump. I'm just going on that wacky concept of innocent until proven guilty. Trump doesn't have to prove that he didn't do these things. Others have to prove that he did.

If this were an O'Keefe story, you'd be telling me how flimsy it all is, and you know it. You'd be demanding the unedited videos, and even once they were released, you'd be unwilling to accept evidence from a source that you don't trust. Where is that demand for evidence now? Every single one of the big stories that Project Veritas broke had more substantial evidence than this. The accused, on video, in their own words. So far, the only real first-hand account that we have of anything here is from Trump.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

If O'Keefe's targets responded with a series of contradictory denials, each more self-incriminating and ludicrous than before, I'd find O'Keefe's assertions credible as well.