Jump to content


Photo

Because Trump 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
17851 replies to this topic

#17181 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,513 posts

Posted 25 January 2020 - 2109 PM

 

Good video. I haven't been trying to follow the impeachment thing too much, because its looking like all drama and no law.

 

As for Tim's question about why the press is trying to pump up Dems on the impeachment, I think its quite possible that folks in the game know that the Dem field for 2020 has at best slim chances for winning in November, so its bread and circuses.


  • 0

#17182 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,644 posts

Posted 25 January 2020 - 2116 PM

I think it's obvious that some of the press is highly partisan in this election cycle. 


  • 0

#17183 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,513 posts

Posted 25 January 2020 - 2155 PM

Its been highly partisan in every election cycle, for about two centuries. What's changed I think is that there is no longer a broad spectrum of news outlets, really just two clusters on the spectrum, and the outlets on the left are so integrated into the DNC.

 

On a side note re journalism, I read a list going around the innertubes about Jim Lehrer's principles of journalism. A little googling produced the following document;

 

https://assets.aspen...TJOURNALISM.PDF

 

Go to page 55 to see the list of principles expressed by Lehrer. Quite a contrast to what's going on now.


  • 0

#17184 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,187 posts

Posted 25 January 2020 - 2200 PM

 

The talking heads are saying that impeachment should be stricken from Article 2. This is because Trump stonewalled the investigation by refusing to turn over documents and refusing to allow witnesses to testify.

Because the Democrats subpoenaed witnesses who have an arguable executive privilege. This isn't a new thing. Congress doesn't have OVERSIGHT of the Presidency. It's a separate branch with separate powers. They refused to go through the court proceedings that would resolve the specific questions, because they wanted the impeachment out the door for political reasons. Now they're trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube for the senate trial but that dog isn't going to hunt. 
 

You really ought to get your news from more than one biased side. 

 

Well the subpoena for Don McGahn is still going thru the court system from Apr 2019. One would think if Trump was SO innocent he would allow people like Bolton, Mulvaney and  Pompeo to testify. 


  • 0

#17185 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,644 posts

Posted 25 January 2020 - 2334 PM

 

 

The talking heads are saying that impeachment should be stricken from Article 2. This is because Trump stonewalled the investigation by refusing to turn over documents and refusing to allow witnesses to testify.

Because the Democrats subpoenaed witnesses who have an arguable executive privilege. This isn't a new thing. Congress doesn't have OVERSIGHT of the Presidency. It's a separate branch with separate powers. They refused to go through the court proceedings that would resolve the specific questions, because they wanted the impeachment out the door for political reasons. Now they're trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube for the senate trial but that dog isn't going to hunt. 
 

You really ought to get your news from more than one biased side. 

 

Well the subpoena for Don McGahn is still going thru the court system from Apr 2019. One would think if Trump was SO innocent he would allow people like Bolton, Mulvaney and  Pompeo to testify. 

 

https://en.wikipedia...utive_privilege

 

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]

In addition to which branch of government is requesting the information, another characteristic of executive privilege is whether it involves a "presidential communications privilege" or instead a "deliberative process privilege" or some other type of privilege.[4] The deliberative process privilege is often considered to be rooted in common law, whereas the presidential communications privilege is often considered to be rooted in separation of powers, thus making the deliberative process privilege less difficult to overcome.[4][6]Generally speaking, presidents, congresses and courts have historically tended to sidestep open confrontations through compromise and mutual deference in view of previous practice and precedents regarding the exercise of executive privilege.[4]


  • 0

#17186 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,044 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0046 AM

 

 

The talking heads are saying that impeachment should be stricken from Article 2. This is because Trump stonewalled the investigation by refusing to turn over documents and refusing to allow witnesses to testify.

Because the Democrats subpoenaed witnesses who have an arguable executive privilege. This isn't a new thing. Congress doesn't have OVERSIGHT of the Presidency. It's a separate branch with separate powers. They refused to go through the court proceedings that would resolve the specific questions, because they wanted the impeachment out the door for political reasons. Now they're trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube for the senate trial but that dog isn't going to hunt. 
 

You really ought to get your news from more than one biased side. 

 

Well the subpoena for Don McGahn is still going thru the court system from Apr 2019. One would think if Trump was SO innocent he would allow people like Bolton, Mulvaney and  Pompeo to testify. 

 

Are you being purposely obtuse, or do you really not understand the idea of presumption of innocence?  Trump need not prove anything, it is incumbent upon the accusers to prove their case.  If the House Democrats really wanted those people to testify they should have issued subpoena's and allowed the Supreme Court to adjudicate the necessity of having them testify.  Moreover, the House Democrats continue to state categorically that they already have overwhelming evidence of guilt.  If that is the case why the further need for witnesses?

So here's the thing, the House of Representatives are supposed to vote out articles of impeachment on the evidence they have of the crimes committed, not the evidence they wish they had for crimes yet to be determined.  It is not supposed to be a fishing expedition, they need to show which laws were broken and the evidence to support those allegations.  They haven't done the first so by definition they can't have done the second.


  • 0

#17187 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0353 AM

Its been highly partisan in every election cycle, for about two centuries. What's changed I think is that there is no longer a broad spectrum of news outlets, really just two clusters on the spectrum, and the outlets on the left are so integrated into the DNC.

That's propaganda bollocks with which Republicans want to excuse away all the exposure of their bad policies and bad behaviour.

 

There are much better explanations for why the media landscape in the U.S. works as it does today. You may skip the boring research papers and have a look at books like Taibbi's "Hate inc." to get a better understanding than that primitive bollocks of yours.


  • 0

#17188 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0356 AM

Are you being purposely obtuse, or do you really not understand the idea of presumption of innocence?


Presumption of innocence is a judicial branch concept. It does not apply to impeachment.

The Senators are supposed to freely use impartial judgment in their decision.

 

The lying moron is going to get his "presumption of innocence" when the State of New York arrests and prosecutes him.


  • 0

#17189 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,122 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0455 AM

You're delusional if you think that the current impeachment process will result in Trump's arrest.


  • 0

#17190 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,515 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0506 AM

You're delusional if you think that the current impeachment process will result in Trump's arrest.

"You're delusional" Just leave it at this. Explains everything  ;) 


  • 0

#17191 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,006 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0519 AM

For God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and America is the greatest country in the world.

 

The full event here. The rest went like a usual Trump rally.

https://www.youtube....h?v=9yjkBkBje9M

Beautiful. I wish all people would see this.


  • 0

#17192 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,515 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0539 AM

 

For God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and America is the greatest country in the world.

 

The full event here. The rest went like a usual Trump rally.

https://www.youtube....h?v=9yjkBkBje9M

Beautiful. I wish all people would see this.

 

A GREAT FIND. Thanks for posting it. I'm shocked that NBC actually broadcast it. 


  • 0

#17193 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,513 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0600 AM

So here's the thing, the House of Representatives are supposed to vote out articles of impeachment on the evidence they have of the crimes committed, not the evidence they wish they had for crimes yet to be determined.  It is not supposed to be a fishing expedition, they need to show which laws were broken and the evidence to support those allegations.  They haven't done the first so by definition they can't have done the second.


I don't think its a fishing expedition, aside from the electoral impact I think it is a ploy to handcuff Trump as long as possible. I read something earlier, a complain from some Dem that Trump wasn't taking the impeachment seriously because he was doing other stuff. Light bulb went on for me at that point. They don't want him doing other stuff. The trap obviously is that if he spends all his time on the impeachment, he won't be doing his day job. If he does his day job, not taking impeachment seriously.

 

Problem for the Dems is that American in general isn't taking it seriously, either.


  • 0

#17194 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0656 AM

https://www.nytimes....mp-ukraine.html

 

Obstruction of Congress is also impeachable and has been impeached before - including by Republicans.

 

https://www.law.corn...de/text/18/1505

 

You guys live in a right wing media bubble that's designed to keep you ignorant and hyperpartisan lying moron cultists.


  • 0

#17195 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0659 AM

You're delusional if you think that the current impeachment process will result in Trump's arrest.

L2read


  • 0

#17196 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,121 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0723 AM

...
1. I will answer your question if you'll answer mine. Have you read the Bible? Hint -- you will answer your own question.
...
2. Liberalism is the "...worst thing...in the U.S." Homosexuality is a part of "this worse thing."

1. Ha ha, except for the parts we were force-fed in early school-years, I have not read much of it. And even then I believe I have read more than Trump. :)

2. I reread the passage again, and now I get what you wrote.
  • 0

#17197 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,044 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0914 AM

 

I don't think its a fishing expedition, aside from the electoral impact I think it is a ploy to handcuff Trump as long as possible. I read something earlier, a complain from some Dem that Trump wasn't taking the impeachment seriously because he was doing other stuff. Light bulb went on for me at that point. They don't want him doing other stuff. The trap obviously is that if he spends all his time on the impeachment, he won't be doing his day job. If he does his day job, not taking impeachment seriously.

 

Problem for the Dems is that American in general isn't taking it seriously, either.

 

I don't for a second reject your thesis, I do however, believe both propositions can simultaneously be true.


  • 0

#17198 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,943 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 1326 PM

 

 

 

The talking heads are saying that impeachment should be stricken from Article 2. This is because Trump stonewalled the investigation by refusing to turn over documents and refusing to allow witnesses to testify.

Because the Democrats subpoenaed witnesses who have an arguable executive privilege. This isn't a new thing. Congress doesn't have OVERSIGHT of the Presidency. It's a separate branch with separate powers. They refused to go through the court proceedings that would resolve the specific questions, because they wanted the impeachment out the door for political reasons. Now they're trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube for the senate trial but that dog isn't going to hunt. 
 

You really ought to get your news from more than one biased side. 

 

Well the subpoena for Don McGahn is still going thru the court system from Apr 2019. One would think if Trump was SO innocent he would allow people like Bolton, Mulvaney and  Pompeo to testify. 

 

Are you being purposely obtuse, or do you really not understand the idea of presumption of innocence?  Trump need not prove anything, it is incumbent upon the accusers to prove their case.  If the House Democrats really wanted those people to testify they should have issued subpoena's and allowed the Supreme Court to adjudicate the necessity of having them testify.  Moreover, the House Democrats continue to state categorically that they already have overwhelming evidence of guilt.  If that is the case why the further need for witnesses?

So here's the thing, the House of Representatives are supposed to vote out articles of impeachment on the evidence they have of the crimes committed, not the evidence they wish they had for crimes yet to be determined.  It is not supposed to be a fishing expedition, they need to show which laws were broken and the evidence to support those allegations.  They haven't done the first so by definition they can't have done the second.

 

 

It's why I have my cursor hovering over the ignore button for him. There are plenty of posters here who I strongly disagree with but find their arguments in good faith. The few I have on ignore are those who are kneejerk trolls who's signal to noise ratio is beyond usefulness.


  • 0

#17199 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,513 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 2054 PM

Ironically, this story has been lost in the noise;

 

https://www.cnbc.com...ribery-law.html

 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is “looking at” making changes to a decades-old global anti-bribery law, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters on Friday.

“We are looking at it, and we have heard some complaints from our companies,” Kudlow said, responding to a question about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The law generally prohibits American companies from paying bribes to secure contracts overseas.

“I don’t want to say anything definitive policy-wise, but we are looking at it,” Kudlow added.

Pressed about the specific changes the White House might try to make to the FCPA, Kudlow declined to offer details but signaled that the administration was working on a “package” of reforms.

 

 

This is the kind of thing I worry about with Trump in office.

 

Trump then said he needed Tillerson “to get rid of that law.” When Tillerson said it would be virtually impossible to get Congress to authorize a repeal of the law, Trump reportedly ordered a senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, to draft an executive action to repeal the FCPA.

 

 

Just because everyone else is doing it does not mean we should. Terrible, terrible idea. I don't know if we can "encourage" FCPA compliance by other nations WTO-style, but I'd rather relinquish some small percentage of GDP than go down that road.


  • 0

#17200 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,992 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 2211 PM

 

 

 

OK, so we have a 2nd Amendment right for firearms which is not respected across state lines, but yet the sin of homosexual marriage is. THE ABSOLUTELY WORSE thing in this nation, and this world is today's version of liberalism.! AKA socialism.

Do you honestly think gay marriages is the worst thing currently in the US?

Another thing I have been meaning to ask you.
I saw a clip of Trump where he was asked about the bible. The reporters wanted to know his favorite quote/verse. He did not cite any at all, said it was "personal". When asked if he liked the old or new testament more, he replied "both".
I have seem you quote the bible several times, and I am guessing you know which testament you prefer?
Do you believe Trump has even read the bible?

What's more telling is how someone acts.  Who cares what verses one can recite if their actions don't reflect the beliefs they supposedly hold.  With that in mind Trump doesn't get a passing grade by any means, even during his Presidency, but I think you'll find his supporters will defend him because they feel his accomplishments have been the most supportive of Christianity compared to previous Presidents (which is certainly up for debate).

 

Your first sentence is a true statement so let's see what Trump has done. So far Trump has acted to: have a Christian to be his Vice President, appointed conservative judges(who are more likely to be Christian than liberal judges), Trump's "Protect Life Rule"  prohibits Title X family planning funds from going to any clinic that performs on-site abortions which caused Planned Parenthood announce that it is leaving the Title X program. His Health and Human Services has issued a waiver allowing a state-contracted foster care agency in South Carolina to deny services to same-sex and non-Christian families, and the Department of Labor proposed a rule to protect federal contractors from discrimination complaints regarding hiring and firing decisions motivated by religious beliefs. President Trump -- MAN, SAYING THAT IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN SAYING President Clinton -- is the first President to speak to the Women's Pro-Life March.

 
More accomplishments are found at www.ffcoalition.com/president-donald-j-trumps-remarkable-record-of-achievement

 

My bit about actions was referring to Trump as a person.  I have no context to compare the list you mentioned with what other R Presidents have or haven't done (and looking over that link it doesn't state how Trump's actions compare to previous R admins).  As a person who's supposedly Christian I stand by my statement of criticism.  For Trump's entire life he's failed to act in a way that highlights someone who truly believes.  I know you rail against homosexuality quite a bit on here.  I'm aware of where that comes from from Biblical sources.  The Bible is also pretty clear about the importance and respect that should be given to marriage (and Trump has clearly never respected marriage).  This is a pet peeve of mine where religious Conservatives rail against one sinful act but let another, blatant one, slide.  It's simply not that one thing, either.  Trump's behavior just reinforces to me he's someone who pays lip service (whether that's out of respect [or fear] of Melania or for reasons I'll never know) to the faith.


  • 0