Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

aloyisious

It seems the fight, if it get's that far, on the senate floor will be around the intent in Don's mind when he asked for the QPQ: was he after a fair investigation by Ukraine of two US citizens for corruption or was he looking for the investigative info to be given to him for use as a political weapon against the person named as his opponent in the upcoming election.

How many GOP politicians and GOP voters would say, hand on heart, that they have absolute faith and trust in Don to the extent they think he wouldn't dream of using the info to win the election and would vote for him on that basis, firstly on the house and senate floors and secondly in the ballot booth?

How many debaters here who stand with Don would say, hand on heart, that they have absolute faith and trust in Don to the extent they think he wouldn't dream of using the info to win the election?

Would they take his past history of deal-completion into account?

Don has issued a verbal invite [Saturday] to President Zelensky to visit and meet him in the White House. One of the topics has to be the current problem he faces over his "covert" requests for help from Mr Zelensky in July.

Igotadose

Cult45 in full swing - children invited to the WH halloween events got to play the 'build the wall' game. Creepy. Conditioning them when they're young.

https://news.yahoo.com/children-were-told-to-build-the-wall-at-white-house-halloween-party-153024720.html

Also, apparently Trump's wall is being cut through by industrious smugglers using cordless power tools that cost around $100 US. Laughable, but this is the government that brought you $10,000 hammers and chairs at one point.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/2/20945336/trump-border-wall-smugglers-saw-us-mexico

Manic Moran

Those sections apparently were not yet completed. They are supposed to have vibration sensors to detect exactly that sort of thing, which the article states had not yet been installed. It is a basic tenet of field engineering that an obstacle on its own does little, it must be covered by observation and a reaction process, the obstacle merely buys you time or location.

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

Those sections apparently were not yet completed. They are supposed to have vibration sensors to detect exactly that sort of thing, which the article states had not yet been installed. It is a basic tenet of field engineering that an obstacle on its own does little, it must be covered by observation and a reaction process, the obstacle merely buys you time or location.

Well, what do you expect. Only $10bn spent so far, obviously the GOP subcontractors doing the work need more taxpayer $$ to complete the job. Plus more CBP agents hired for the job who can learn what 'floaters' are.


In fact, I imagine there'll be decades of maintenance on the taxpayer dime required for this wall.

everlast75

Igotadose wrote: »

Well, what do you expect. Only $10bn spent so far, obviously the GOP subcontractors doing the work need more taxpayer $$ to complete the job. Plus more CBP agents hired for the job who can learn what 'floaters' are.


In fact, I imagine there'll be decades of maintenance on the taxpayer dime required for this wall.

Still waiting for Mexico to pick up the tab......

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Those sections apparently were not yet completed. They are supposed to have vibration sensors to detect exactly that sort of thing, which the article states had not yet been installed. It is a basic tenet of field engineering that an obstacle on its own does little, it must be covered by observation and a reaction process, the obstacle merely buys you time or location.

And they’ll send a recon for a $100 power tool attack. Can make a lot of decoys with $500

Outlaw Pete

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Sure, if you promise you wont play any semantic games , Iike saying "that article only says he tried to get information about the activities of IC in Italy (despite that he would have access to these records from his own office so the only motive would be to engineer a scenario where he could charge the IC with acting outside their remit) and does not say 'Frame'!!"

Ok?

You mean if I promise not to tell the truth?? Would you come off it, you said, and I quote:

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The Italian prime minister is already on record as saying the same thing- Barr was asking him to frame US IC staff.

What you said it not true. The Italian prime minister is NOT on record as saying Barr asked him to "frame US IC staff" and that link does not excuse you saying it either.

The PM clearly says that Barr asked Italian authorities to "verify the operations of American agents" and "verify what the American intelligence did".

To parse that as Barr asking the Italian PM to "frame" US officials is completely false ... but it's par for the course for this thread and the left in general when it comes to issues Trump related.

Igotadose

Interesting read, seemingly not behind a paywall, analyzing Trump's use of twitter:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/02/us/politics/trump-twitter-presidency.html

Overheal

Igotadose wrote: »

Interesting read, seemingly not behind a paywall, analyzing Trump's use of twitter:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/02/us/politics/trump-twitter-presidency.html

Pretty epic infographics to be honest

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You mean if I promise not to tell the truth?? Would you come off it, you said, and I quote:



What you said it not true. The Italian prime minister is NOT on record as saying Barr asked him to "frame US IC staff" and that link does not excuse you saying it either.

The PM clearly says that Barr asked Italian authorities to "verify the operations of American agents" and "verify what the American intelligence did".

To parse that as Barr asking the Italian PM to "frame" US officials is completely false ... but it's par for the course for this thread and the left in general when it comes to issues Trump related.

Like I said, semantics.

Why is Barr cross examining his own intelligence staff with the leaders of foreign powers? What a bizarre scenario you find yourself defending: a political appointee trying to find dirt on his own side. But as bizarre as all that is, its nor even the most ludicrous detail.

He asked him about their dealing with "their agent" Mifsud, in an effort to support a baseless looney right wing CT about efforts to disrepute the Trump campaign. He forced the Italians into having to state that the academic "was considered to be of no value or use” by Italian intelligence. Oh dear.

BTW, it's funny how you replied to my post almost EXACTLY as I said you would.

Sure, if you promise you wont play any semantic games , Iike saying "that article only says he tried to get information about the activities of IC in Italy (despite that he would have access to these records from his own office so the only motive would be to engineer a scenario where he could charge the IC with acting outside their remit) and does not say 'Frame'!!"

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

Hey Pete. What’s your opinion on Trump withholding military aid until Ukraine promised announce an investigation into the Bidens?

Good for him, if that's indeed what he did. If the Bidens have done no wrong, as they maintain, then they have nothing to worry about. Obama should never have allowed the situation to get that far to begin with though, but he did, and so here we are in this mess and so it has to be investigated.

FrostyJack wrote: »

When this investigation, if it ever ends, comes back with nothing ..

lol. I love that the vast vast majority of you think that on this thread :P

.. are you going to admit you were dupped or will you disappear and deflect like you always do.

Bizarre question considering everything I have ever posted on this thread has been spot on. What is it that makes you think otherwise? That I don't get the backslaps ye all do? Oh come on. Groupthink consensus is not a barometer on the truth my friend.

Your question reminds me of the hoopla directed at Trump just before the election, asking him would he accept the result and not moan about .. but yet look how that all played out. For three straight years democrats have been simply unable to come to terms with the fact the Hillary lost and Trump won.

Indeed, talk of impeachment started straight away, which is how we know that each instance of the labelling of something Trump has done as being worthy of impeachment, has been disingenuous, and really all just hail mary attempts at reversing the result ...


https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1181285563489386496

The democrats have the numbers though and so can't Trump not being impeached, if that's what they want (as opposed to: if that's what they feel is warranted). Nancy knows of course that this latest stuff is weak af which is why she said some of the 'obstruction of justice' allegations levelled at Trump may be the basis for an article of impeachment. So more a greatest hits collection of Trumps misdemeanours than a high crime.

Truth is they're making a mockery of the impeachment process and anyone that can't see that is blind .. and if they can see it and don't care, cause it's the orange man, well, that's between them and their conscience I suppose.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Good for him, if that's indeed what he did. If the Bidens have done no wrong, as they maintain, then they have nothing to worry about. Obama should never have allowed the situation to get that far to begin with though, but he did, and so here we are in this mess and so it has to be investigated.



lol. I love that the vast vast majority of you think that on this thread :P



Bizarre question considering everything I have ever posted on this thread has been spot on. What is it that makes you think otherwise? That I don't get the backslaps ye all do? Oh come on. Groupthink consensus is not a barometer on the truth my friend.

Your question reminds me of the hoopla directed at Trump just before the election, asking him would he accept the result and not moan about .. but yet look how that all played out. For three straight years democrats have been simply unable to come to terms with the fact the Hillary lost and Trump won.

Indeed, talk of impeachment started straight away, which is how we know that each instance of the labelling of something Trump has done as being worthy of impeachment, has been disingenuous, and really all just hail mary attempts at reversing the result ...


https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1181285563489386496

The democrats have the numbers though and so can't Trump not being impeached, if that's what they want (as opposed to: if that's what they feel is warranted). Nancy knows of course that this latest stuff is weak af which is why she said some of the 'obstruction of justice' allegations levelled at Trump may be the basis for an article of impeachment. So more a greatest hits collection of Trumps misdemeanours than a high crime.

Truth is they're making a mockery of the impeachment process and anyone that can't see that is blind .. and if they can see it and don't care, cause it's the orange man, well, that's between them and their conscience I suppose.

Wait. Surely if Trump did nothing wrong he shouldn't have been worried about the investigations into him? Or does that logic not apply to your side being investigated?

Trump repeatedly called it a witch Hunt ( in spite of it locking criminals up). We know Russia interfered with the election. Even Trump has admitted as much. The mess needed to be investigated.

To rephrase, are you happy with the president using the office for his own personal gains? That he has attempted to (with the G7 summit) is beyond doubt but you are ok with using US foreign policy for his own benefit (and no one else's, let's be clear).

Outlaw Pete

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Like I said, semantics.

Nothing semantical about the truth, what an absurd thing to say, but you're on a thread where such things are overlooked when the Trump administration are in the crosshairs, so you'll be grand.

Why is Barr cross examining his own intelligence staff with the leaders of foreign powers?

Because there is an investigation going on into the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation and the conduct of DOJ officials is part of that. Just because the vast majority of anti-Trumpers have had their heads in the sand for the last few years on such things, doesn't mean the rest of us have.

What a bizarre scenario you find yourself defending: a political appointee trying to find dirt on his own side. But as bizarre as all that is, its nor even the most ludicrous detail.

There goes that word again "dirt" - you all just love inserting that where it doesn't belong don't you. Very Schiffesque but here's what the Italian PM actually said:

"Verify the operations of American agents" and "verify what the American intelligence did".

Note that word "verify" there on both instances - which would seem to me that what they are after is the TRUTH not "dirt" as you baselessly claim.

He asked him about their dealing with "their agent" Mifsud, in an effort to support a baseless looney right wing CT about efforts to disrepute the Trump campaign.

He forced the Italians into having to state that the academic "was considered to be of no value or use” by Italian intelligence. Oh dear.

If you think that the AG Barr-Durham team are asking questions based on "right wing conspiracies theories" then you're quite naive. Trump may spout some nonsense in that regard but the Barr-Durham team have done their homework and are not swallowing the Brennan-Comey claim that Mifsud is a Russian Agent.

BTW, it's funny how you replied to my post almost EXACTLY as I said you would.

Nothing funny about it: You were caught lying about the Italian PM being on record that Barr wanted him to "frame" US officials and so you played the semantics card as you knew I was of course just going to quote what the Italian PM had actually said, which of course nothing remotely close to what you had claimed he'd said. Referring to the truth as semantics is about as laughable as it gets: Barr did NOT ask the Italian PM to frame US officials. That's simply something you unjustifiably inferred.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Good for him, if that's indeed what he did. If the Bidens have done no wrong, as they maintain, then they have nothing to worry about. Obama should never have allowed the situation to get that far to begin with though, but he did, and so here we are in this mess and so it has to be investigated.



lol. I love that the vast vast majority of you think that on this thread :P



Bizarre question considering everything I have ever posted on this thread has been spot on. What is it that makes you think otherwise? That I don't get the backslaps ye all do? Oh come on. Groupthink consensus is not a barometer on the truth my friend.

Your question reminds me of the hoopla directed at Trump just before the election, asking him would he accept the result and not moan about .. but yet look how that all played out. For three straight years democrats have been simply unable to come to terms with the fact the Hillary lost and Trump won.

Indeed, talk of impeachment started straight away, which is how we know that each instance of the labelling of something Trump has done as being worthy of impeachment, has been disingenuous, and really all just hail mary attempts at reversing the result ...


https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1181285563489386496

The democrats have the numbers though and so can't Trump not being impeached, if that's what they want (as opposed to: if that's what they feel is warranted). Nancy knows of course that this latest stuff is weak af which is why she said some of the 'obstruction of justice' allegations levelled at Trump may be the basis for an article of impeachment. So more a greatest hits collection of Trumps misdemeanours than a high crime.

Truth is they're making a mockery of the impeachment process and anyone that can't see that is blind .. and if they can see it and don't care, cause it's the orange man, well, that's between them and their conscience I suppose.

You think Democrats should ignore obstruction of justice, simply because you the foreign outsider looking in think it’s unfair? And unfair how: have you read the articles of impeachment against other presidents? Do you really know how any of this works? It hasn’t been clear from any of your posts that you actually have an objective fact basis of how impeachment works in the framework of the United States constitution, if you would have the lack of wisdom to say obstruction of justice shouldn’t be included in articles of impeachment.

What else is Congress to do, when the Executive won’t cede to impeachment and investigative power? Just pretend the president isn’t obstructing justice because you think it’s disadvantageous to the defense of the president to point out this reality?

SeamusFX

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Truth is they're making a mockery of the impeachment process and anyone that can't see that is blind .. and if they can see it and don't care, cause it's the orange man, well, that's between them and their conscience I suppose.

Truth is, Trump is making a mockery of America, the GOP and his followers. Now I know many of his GOP followers are aware of who Trump is, but they don’t care, because they’re in it for the money and/or judicial appointments. The rest are just completely blind and Trump is making a real mockery of them!

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.

For three straight years democrats have been simply unable to come to terms with the fact the Hillary lost and Trump won.

Indeed, talk of impeachment started straight away, which is how we know that each instance of the labelling of something Trump has done as being worthy of impeachment, has been disingenuous, and really all just hail mary attempts at reversing the result ....

For three straight years Trump and his cronies have been breaking the law. He should have been impeached long ago. The constant violations of the emoluments clause, KAC has violated the hatch act how many times now, more than 50?
One of his lawyers in prison and Guiliani up to his neck in it as well. His first national security advisor is probably going to jail too.
Also nobody brings up Hillary except Trump supporters. It's safe to say everyone accepts that she lost. What people don't accept is the constant stream of scandals and blatant corruption that Trump has enabled.
As the resident Trump apologist how do you feel about the way he's dealing with immigrants. Splitting up families and putting children in camps?
Is it right that he goes golfing all the time at his own resorts and (probably overcharges) the taxpayer for it?
He promised the best people but he's hired nothing but incompetent yes men for most cabinet posts, only good ones were McMaster and Mattis and look at what they say about him!
Why do you waste your time defending him?

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nothing semantical about the truth, what an absurd thing to say, but you're on a thread where such things are overlooked when the Trump administration are in the crosshairs, so you'll be grand.

You have nothing. Absolutely nothing. Barr has nothing. Apart from making a complete idiot of himself on the international stage. It takes very little for even mediocre politicians to expose guys like Barr for what they are: short sighted grifters interested only in narratives and not reality. He went there looking for dirt and he got zero - as you pointed out - he VERIFIED that what the IC guys REPORTED was indeed what HAPPENED. Which kinda scotches you CT dead in the water. What did you think he was VERIFYING?

As for Mifsud, nice try to deny Barr had mentioned him: it's right there in Contes comments. But dont limit yourself to Italy, their UK counterparts have also been scratching their heads with Barr turning up to flog his favourite dead horse.

Outlaw Pete

Christy42 wrote: »

Wait. Surely if Trump did nothing wrong he shouldn't have been worried about the investigations into him? Or does that logic not apply to your side being investigated?

Well, the two investigations are incompatible. The investigations into the Bidens are about specific alleged crimes and if they have done no wrong, they'll be fine. Whereas the kangaroo court the democrats are running is more a smear campaign than anything else. Leaking of cherry picked quotes from testimony just so Trump's name can be further muddied in the eyes of the electorate. Trump, I'm sure, would happily swap that for an investigation that happens without all that palava, were facts are paramount.

Trump repeatedly called it a witch Hunt ( in spite of it locking criminals up). We know Russia interfered with the election. Even Trump has admitted as much. The mess needed to be investigated.

Nobody argues with that. It's the using of unreliable sources and not telling the FISA court that they were such, nor revealing to them that the dossier was funded by the DNC. Certain DOJ/CIA officials also leaked information about the investigation to the media PURPOSEFULLY so that it would sway the electorate. That is FBI/CIA officials inferring in an presidential election and these people continued to abuse their power when Trump was elected also.

To rephrase, are you happy with the president using the office for his own personal gains? That he has attempted to (with the G7 summit) is beyond doubt but you are ok with using US foreign policy for his own benefit (and no one else's, let's be clear).

I would not be okay with any president using the office of presidency for personal gain but there are levels to this stuff and if someone uses it to get a better table in a restaurant, or to seduce an intern, I don't think that warrants being removed from office ... and that shouldn't change just because Donald Trump is in office. Perspective still matters.

Now, having said that, I do not think that asking Zelensky to look into the Biden corruption rumours was him using the office for personal gain whatsoever. I have however condemned him for publicly saying he believes the Bidens are corrupt though, and took 'pay offs' if for no other reason than it could result in them getting away with what they are alleged to be guilty of, given that any decent lawyer worth their salt could make the argument that they couldn't possibly now have a fair trial after the POTUS has publicly stated their guilt.

Overheal

Trump QPQ for conspiracy to violate federal law: “on the same level of corruption as getting the good window booth at Denny’s”

Outlaw Pete

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you waste your time defending him?

Almost everything you have said I have addressed on the thread. For example the situation at the border was worse under Obama in most ways and a new way was needed. Catch and release laws incentivised bringing a child to the border for example and I have posted videos showing how in 2012-2015 children slept in cages and had no access to showers for upwards of two weeks. The mainstream western media largely ignored all these issues when a liberal was in the Oval Office though.

All the theatrics we saw this year was just that. AOC faux howling at the border fence was just an effort to make Trump look bad so she (and all those sanctimonious leftists) could act like he does not care about child suffering. We even saw Time magazine joining in and putting a photo of him on the cover looking down at a crying child. Pure propaganda. Same people voted no the following week on giving Trump the funds his administration had been requesting for a year to end the crisis they denied existed. Here's two (quite long) posts if you're genuinely interested in my views on those issues: (1,2).

Not the only crap Trump has levelled at him unfairly. He's also labelled a racist constantly and even members of congress claim he "wants every black and brown person deported" and so you ask me why waste my time defending him? Well, that's just incidental (I don't even like the guy all that much) as what I'm actually doing is defending the truth as I am sick to the back teeth of leftists spreading lies in western society. They have no shame and it doesn't matter who they lie about and label a racist (in the case of Trump) or a rapist (in the case of Kavanaugh) they will just keep doing it until society stands up to them and makes it clear that what they do is abhorrent.

Outlaw Pete

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Barr has nothing. Apart from making a complete idiot of himself on the international stage.

You'll eat those words.

He went there looking for dirt and he got zero - as you pointed out - he VERIFIED that what the IC guys REPORTED was indeed what HAPPENED. Which kinda scotches you CT dead in the water. What did you think he was VERIFYING?

Again: he didn't go looking for "dirt" - he went looking for the truth and he is informed by much more than right wing conspiracy theories. He has records, calls and emails of all the officials who worked the case for a start. You seem to think these people are fools but the only fools are those that thought they could get away with what they've done.

As for Mifsud, nice try to deny Barr had mentioned him: it's right there in Contes comments. But dont limit yourself to Italy, their UK counterparts have also been scratching their heads with Barr turning up to flog his favourite dead horse.

I did no such thing. Sure Durham & Barr were in Italy specifically to hear a recording of a deposition Mifsud gave to Italian intelligence. Stop accusing people of saying things which they haven't. First the Italian PM, now me.

As for those in the UK scratching their heads - well, that's part of the investigation. As you see it's protocol for intelligence from a foreign country to make an ally aware of any surveillance operations that are being untaken in that country. As MP Ben Bradshaw has said:

"It’s inconceivable that the FBI didn’t tell their UK counterparts about Mifsud … so how was this allowed to happen?"

Mifsud was photographed with Boris too. They really should have told UK intelligence about that this "Russian agent" operating in their capital, unless that is ... ah, but sure that's all just a right wing conspiracy theory, right

everlast75

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1191191109759832064?s=19

Time for some real consequences

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1191191109759832064?s=19

Time for some real consequences

It may depend on why scheduled Counsel is unavailable. If he/she called in sick or family emergency or some such, it may well be a justifiable no-show. Whatever about the administration, a no-show is a fairly significant deal for an individual, unless they are on reasonable footing.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Good for him, if that's indeed what he did. If the Bidens have done no wrong, as they maintain, then they have nothing to worry about. Obama should never have allowed the situation to get that far to begin with though, but he did, and so here we are in this mess and so it has to be investigated.



lol. I love that the vast vast majority of you think that on this thread :P



Bizarre question considering everything I have ever posted on this thread has been spot on. What is it that makes you think otherwise? That I don't get the backslaps ye all do? Oh come on. Groupthink consensus is not a barometer on the truth my friend.

Your question reminds me of the hoopla directed at Trump just before the election, asking him would he accept the result and not moan about .. but yet look how that all played out. For three straight years democrats have been simply unable to come to terms with the fact the Hillary lost and Trump won.

Indeed, talk of impeachment started straight away, which is how we know that each instance of the labelling of something Trump has done as being worthy of impeachment, has been disingenuous, and really all just hail mary attempts at reversing the result ...


https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1181285563489386496

The democrats have the numbers though and so can't Trump not being impeached, if that's what they want (as opposed to: if that's what they feel is warranted). Nancy knows of course that this latest stuff is weak af which is why she said some of the 'obstruction of justice' allegations levelled at Trump may be the basis for an article of impeachment. So more a greatest hits collection of Trumps misdemeanours than a high crime.

Truth is they're making a mockery of the impeachment process and anyone that can't see that is blind .. and if they can see it and don't care, cause it's the orange man, well, that's between them and their conscience I suppose.

Your posts follow the same pattern.

1) *eventually* state that Trump done nothing wrong
2) attack this thread of being an echo chamber
3) accuse the Democrats of worse.

It's quite predictable and transparent.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

It may depend on why scheduled Counsel is unavailable. If he/she called in sick or family emergency or some such, it may well be a justifiable no-show. Whatever about the administration, a no-show is a fairly significant deal for an individual, unless they are on reasonable footing.

You're right.

However, there is a history of stonewalling, witnesses not turning up and here we have FOUR not attending. What are the chances of the WH not intimidating them to not turn up along with four family emergencies?

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Good for him, if that's indeed what he did. If the Bidens have done no wrong, as they maintain, then they have nothing to worry about. Obama should never have allowed the situation to get that far to begin with though, but he did, and so here we are in this mess and so it has to be investigated.

Thanks for finally answering. It is indeed what he did. He threatened a geopolitical ally, fighting a war against a belligerent country for political gain. And you’re ok with that. Thanks.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

It may depend on why scheduled Counsel is unavailable. If he/she called in sick or family emergency or some such, it may well be a justifiable no-show. Whatever about the administration, a no-show is a fairly significant deal for an individual, unless they are on reasonable footing.

What about a series of no shows? When does it become a real problem?

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

You're right.

However, there is a history of stonewalling, witnesses not turning up and here we have FOUR not attending. What are the chances of the WH not intimidating them to not turn up along with four family emergencies?

The reporting seems clear on this stonewalling: Eisenberg has cited executive privilege and the other 3 won't testify without having an Administration lawyer present. No family emergencies... Just the ongoing obstruction of Congress, every incidence of which will be included in another Article of Impeachment. The House is not going to play into the stonewalling game that the WH has devised: it certainly won't wait until the end of the year for the Courts to decide on the Kupperman case before moving on. The House has the power to Impeach as set out in the Constitution. The investigative process pursuant to that impeachment role is simply being obstructed on almost all levels by the President.

Stop debating it... Move on and charge them with obstruction... You have enough evidence of that for one of your Articles...

Next!!!

everlast75

Brian? wrote: »

What about a series of no shows? When does it become a real problem?

Trump and his surrogates wanted open and transparency (despite the Dems complying with the existing practice and procedures)

*Democrats move to hold open hearings and release transcripts*

Trump then attacks the veracity of any transcripts released, attacks the character of witnesses and intimates them, WH directs witnesses not to comply with subpoenas.

I cannot wait for this 2 bit thug to be politically and financially eviscerated.

Gbear

Brian? wrote: »

Thanks for finally answering. It is indeed what he did. He threatened a geopolitical ally, fighting a war against a belligerent country for political gain. And you’re ok with that. Thanks.

And you can actually debate with people who are open and honest about their desire for a monarchy, rather than hiding behind obfuscation and bull****.

Monarchys of one kind or another were the standard for thousands of years, so presumably, even among the general population, there can be strong support for being led.

It might display an especially poor grasp of systematic thought, in that the supporter is unable to understand the capacity for it being abused, or for what happens when you end up with a monarch that doesn't exist solely on the basis of owning the libs, but at least if they're open about wanting a clear hierarchy of power with a single sovereign ruler on top you can either debate on the merits of such a proposition, on policy within such a structure, or you can ignore each other and not waste time talking past each other.

The issue seems to be that virtue has been tied up in the value of democracy and the rule of law so that there's a social cost to going against it, to the point where it's a key part of the mythos of the founding of the US, but the conservative mindset still has a tendency to support strong hierarchies, so they can only do so in a roundabout way or risk ostracisation.