America under President Trump

[godzilla]

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

The evidence to russian interference was inconclusive and did not implicate Biden or Obama anyway.  

Trump may be president, but he is not a king or emperor.  Unless they make u.s. a dictatorship he still has to follow ethics, even if it is too difficult for him, being essentially morally bankrupt.  

I think you meant "collusion" was inconclusive. 18 intelligence agencies were positive that Russia interfered.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

Good for Trump using POTUS for personal interests and not the benefit of the US? Yah tell me again how you are not a blind patisan groupie of Trump and how you did not elect him and are neutral in your analysis.

 

President Trump earned his office at the hand of American voters...I was not one of them.

Accordingly, Trump gets to do all the fun stuff that the power and responsibility of the office entails.

As  long as you deny Trump his legitimate presidency (from a foreign country), I will defend his constitutional right to it.

[godzilla]

he's not above the law. that's what will come out of all of this. as an interesting side note... because he argues that he, his businesses and any associates are immune from prosecution or investigation, lower courts have already ruled that DOJ memos against presidential indictment are unsupported. he's kind digging his own whole there.

once you give in to a tyrant that way... well, I guess no one can save you.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

You again miss the point. No one has argued Biden is immune from investigation. No one. What we have argued is that the President because he is running against him as a direct personal conflict of interest in involving himself in any investigation of Biden directly or indirectly and no, no US President is allowed to use the powers of their Presidency to pressure foreign officials to investigate his political opponents and it has never been done.

 

Nonsense...the president has wide scope to do such things...including DoJ.   Nothing special about Joe Biden and his crooked son.

 

Quote

Not only that Trump has openly admitted he asked not just Ukraine but China to investigate Trump.

 

This makes no sense...I think you mean Biden ?

 

Quote

He not only asks foreign leaders to engage in investigating his political opponents  but said openly he sees nothing wrong with that. Well you and he may find that kind of abuse of power and confloict of interest acceptable but one would hope Americans expect more.

 

Don't be so naive....hate Trump all you want, but don't think for one New York minute that previous presidents have never done such things.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, godzilla said:

he's not above the law. that's what will come out of all of this. as an interesting side note... because he argues that he, his businesses and any associates are immune from prosecution or investigation, lower courts have already ruled that DOJ memos against presidential indictment are unsupported. he's kind digging his own whole there.

once you give in to a tyrant that way... well, I guess no one can save you.

 

Impeachment is purely political....the Democrats are having their fun now because they can.

Trump is no more a tyrant than any other U.S. president and expanding powers of the Executive Branch.

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

The evidence to russian interference was inconclusive and did not implicate Biden or Obama anyway.  

Trump may be president, but he is not a king or emperor.  Unless they make u.s. a dictatorship he still has to follow ethics, even if it is too difficult for him, being essentially morally bankrupt.  

 

Nonsense...President Obama already admitted that his administration (including Biden) whiffed on Russian interference because they did not want to impact Hillary Clinton's chances for election.    Massive failure for political gain.

Edited November 15, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

23 minutes ago, godzilla said:

I think you meant "collusion" was inconclusive. 18 intelligence agencies were positive that Russia interfered.

Really?  You think the U.S. Coast Guard intelligence determined Russia interfered?  Define interfering, because that’s a fairly broad term.  Regardless, the 18 intelligence agencies talking point is something that gets mentioned all the time, but I’ve never seen anything to back it up.  I’m not sure how all 18 agencies would have anything to do with Russian interference anyways.  Coast guard, border patrol, etc.  

[Shady]

31 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

The evidence to russian interference was inconclusive and did not implicate Biden or Obama anyway.  

Trump may be president, but he is not a king or emperor.  Unless they make u.s. a dictatorship he still has to follow ethics, even if it is too difficult for him, being essentially morally bankrupt.  

Ethics is subjective.  Regardless, should he follow ethics like our Prime Minister?  You know, the one who was found guilty of violating ethics standards by an ethics commissioner?  He’s still in office right?

[Cannucklehead]

8 minutes ago, Shady said:

Ethics is subjective.  Regardless, should he follow ethics like our Prime Minister?  You know, the one who was found guilty of violating ethics standards by an ethics commissioner?  He’s still in office right?

Ian Shugart, who became clerk of the Privy Council after the SNC-Lavalin hearings had played out, declined Dion's request for access to all cabinet confidence related to the examination of Trudeau's role in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

In his report, Dion said that without access to all cabinet documents related to the SNC-Lavalin affair, witnesses he interviewed were not able to provide complete evidence, which he said impacted his ability to investigate Trudeau's role. 

In Canada, the clerk of the privy council has three jobs. The first is to act as the deputy minister for the prime minister, fulfilling a bureaucratic role. The second is to be secretary of the federal cabinet and the third is to act as the head of the federal public service

Judge a book by its cover much?  

[Cannucklehead]

 

 

Theres your trump.  Less than an hour later he's supporting the 2nd amendment.  

[godzilla]

3 hours ago, Shady said:

Really?  You think the U.S. Coast Guard intelligence determined Russia interfered?  Define interfering, because that’s a fairly broad term.  Regardless, the 18 intelligence agencies talking point is something that gets mentioned all the time, but I’ve never seen anything to back it up.  I’m not sure how all 18 agencies would have anything to do with Russian interference anyways.  Coast guard, border patrol, etc.  

you're right I could be wrong about the number of agencies... lets just fix it as the number of intelligence agencies that the Republican led Senate intelligence Committee oversees. here is a link to a copy of the second volume of the Senate Intelligence Committees report:

Report - Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - Senate.gov

they define such a broad term in the report for you.

Edited November 15, 2019 by godzilla

[Yzermandius19]

On 11/9/2019 at 9:13 AM, Rue said:

No but we should expect ALL politicians to be far better than say Trudeau or Trump. We have grown complacent as the standard of expected moral behavior has lowered itself. There has been an erosion since Nixon. 

With due respect Y because we will always disagree with this, I think the US is far better than accepting Trump as acceptable and I say the same about Canada and Trudeau. We've settled for light weight idiots.

Trump is doing a good job compared to most US presidents, history shows the US isn't far better, since Trump has been a very above-average president to this point. The US can and has done far worse, you are looking a gift horse in the mouth, simply because it isn't perfect. You have to grade on a curve relative to his competition, it's not like there is someone way better to replace Trump with, you are acting as if there is.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

President Trump earned his office at the hand of American voters...I was not one of them.

If you had a do over, would you have voted for him in 2016, knowing what you know now? Will you vote for him in 2020?

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

If you had a do over, would you have voted for him? Will you vote for him in 2020?

 

Not for 2016...I would still vote third party as I have done in the past (e.g. John Anderson, Ross Perot). 

Since President Trump exceeded my expectations by winning in 2016 (and stopped Hillary Clinton), he has aggressively pursued an agenda that I mostly agree with, I would vote for Trump/Pence in 2020 if they appear on our state ballot.

...because now the rising socialists must be stopped.

 

 

[Yzermandius19]

18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not for 2016...I would still vote third party as I have done in the past (e.g. John Anderson, Ross Perot). 

Since President Trump exceeded my expectations by winning in 2016 (and stopped Hillary Clinton), he has aggressively pursued an agenda that I mostly agree with, I would vote for Trump/Pence in 2020 if they appear on our state ballot.

...because now the rising socialists must be stopped.

 

 

Who did you vote for Gary Johnson? Why didn't the socialists need to be stopped in 2016 when they were on the verge of sealing their control over the SCOTUS by replacing Scalia with a decidedly unGorsuch-like SCOTUS judge? You really wouldn't have voted for Trump in 2016 even given the hindsight?

If anything, now that Trump has locked down the SCOTUS majority, the socialists need to be stopped a lot less than they did in 2016. They won't win anyway, but if they did, Trump locking down the SCOTUS means they can't get any of their worst shit past the SCOTUS, if they had won in 2016, they could have gotten it through.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Who did you vote for Gary Johnson? Why didn't the socialists need to be stopped in 2016 when they were on the verge of sealing their control over the SCOTUS by replacing Scalia with a decidedly unGorsuch-like SCOTUS judge?

 

No....another party.   The extreme socialists did not have much traction in 2016, and the one candidate that did (Sanders) was screwed by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.    

SCOTUS justices were not at risk as long as the GOP controlled the Senate, which it has done.   Obama's lame duck nominee never got a vote.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No....another party.   The extreme socialists did not have much traction in 2016, and the one candidate that did (Sanders) was screwed by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.    

SCOTUS justices were not at risk as long as the GOP controlled the Senate, which it has done.   Obama's nominee never got a vote.

 

SCOTUS justices were at risk, because Clinton would have gotten to nominate the judges. Scalia would not have been replaced with Gorsuch, and the Republicans could not have stalled indefinitely, they would have lost the Senate in 2018 if they tried to do that. The extreme socialists had plenty of traction in 2016, that's why Hillary pivoted to the left so hard to pander to them and conceded the center to Trump.

Losing 2016 would have been far worse for Republicans than losing in 2020 after winning in 2016 would be. Not sure why you are under the false impression that it's somehow the other way around.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

SCOTUS justices were at risk, because Clinton would have gotten to nominate the judges. Scalia would not have been replaced with Gorsuch, and the Republicans could not have stalled indefinitely, they would have lost the Senate in 2018 if they tried to do that. The extreme socialists had plenty of traction in 2016, that's why Hillary pivoted to the left so hard and conceded the center to Trump.

 

I disagree....Senator McConnell already had a robust political apparatus in place to not only groom conservative candidate judges, but to shoot down any that weren't.

Hillary Clinton ain't no socialist, but she is a Clinton.

By 2016, the Democrats had lost about 1,000 federal and state offices under Obama.  Lost the House..lost the Senate...then lost the presidency.

Edited November 15, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I disagree....Senator McConnell already had a robust political apparatus in place to not only groom conservative candidate judges, but to shoot down any that weren't.

Hillary Clinton ain't no socialist, but she is a Clinton.

By 2016, the Democrats had lost about 1,000 federal and state offices under Obama. 

The American electorate would not have put up with McConnell and Republicans continuing to obstruct and not allow a SCOTUS judge to be replaced after 2016 election, they would have punished Republicans for that, and they would have lost the Senate as a result. You can disagree all you want but your confidence in maintain the Senate under those circumstance would have been misguided and risky.

2016 was the more important election, 2020 is pretty much irrelevant, aside from a 6-3 SCOTUS majority, but that's just icing on the cake, losing in 2016 would have given the Democrats a 6-3 SCOTUS majority at this point, and you weren't worried enough about that to vote for Trump in 2016, which is really odd if you factor in hindsight.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The American electorate would not have put up with McConnell continuing to obstruct, they would have punished Republicans for that, and they would have lost the Senate as a result.

 

I don't think so, at least not the majority of older Americans who actually turn out to vote.    This is because they have long memories going back to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.   After those battles, the process has been permanently weaponized for both sides.

The GOP actually gained two Senate seats in the 2018 mid-terms.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I don't think so, at least not the majority of older Americans who actually turn out to vote.    This is because they have long memories going back to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.   After those battles, the process has been permanently weaponized for both sides.

The GOP actually gained two Senate seats in the 2018 mid-terms.

 

They wouldn't have gained those seats if they were obstructing the Democrats nominees while leaving only 8 SCOTUS judges on the bench. In 2016 the Republicans could hide behind Obama being a lame duck and electorate needed to have it's say in 2016 before allowing a judge to be confirmed, but if they had lost the Presidency, they wouldn't have that excuse anymore, and continuing to obstruct into 2018 after they swore up and down that if they lost they'd stop obstructing and allow a vote, would not have gone over well.

Even if you are right and Republicans would have continued to hold the Senate, that strategy would have been hella risky and you shouldn't have been confident enough in that outcome to vote third party given hindsight.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

They wouldn't have gained those seats if they were obstructing the Democrats nominees while leaving only 8 SCOTUS judges on the bench. In 2016 the Republicans could hide behind Obama being a lame duck and electorate needed to have it's say in 2016 before allowing a judge to be confirmed, but if they had lost the Presidency, they wouldn't have that excuse anymore.

 

No, the longer view at the time was that Democrats had bottomed out nationally at the state and federal level, had screwed themselves by changing Senate rules for majority confirmation, and had a long history of obstruction themselves.   McConnell was in a very strong position regardless of who won the presidency, as the GOP would retain the Senate because of the way 33% seat re-elections broke down in 2016.

GOP strength has been the Senate, long before Trump, who is not considered to be an old-school Republican anyway.  

 

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, the longer view at the time was that Democrats had bottomed out nationally at the state and federal level, had screwed themselves by changing Senate rules for majority confirmation, and had a long history of obstruction themselves.   McConnell was in a very strong position regardless of who won the presidency, as the GOP would retain the Senate because of the way 33% seat re-elections broke down in 2016.

GOP strength has been the Senate, long before Trump, who is not considered to be an old-school Republican anyway.  

 

They wouldn't have retained in 2018 though. The Republicans only retained the Senate in 2018 because the Democrats tried to do Kavanaugh dirty, otherwise the Republicans would have lost the Senate. Your "long" view is rather short sighted and overconfident.

2016 was more important for the GOP than 2020 will be, you miscalculated, and are still miscalculating based on wishful thinking.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

They wouldn't have retained in 2018 though. Your "long" view is rather short sighted and overconfident.

 

But they did.....the most important view is what actually happened.    And it may pay off again if the House votes to impeach Trump.

The GOP went from having nothing in 2008 to having it all in 2016.....and that builds confidence.

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But they did.....the most important view is what actually happened.    And it may pay off again if the House votes to impeach Trump.

The GOP went from having nothing in 2008 to having it all in 2016.....and that builds confidence.

They retained because a Trump nominated judge was done dirty, without that the result would have been different. With a Clinton nominated judge being done dirty, no way the GOP would have retained. 2016 was more important, your confidence in the GOP holding the senate in 2018 no matter who won POTUS in 2016 was risky and misguided.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19