The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Partisanship has killed democracy in our country. 

The stupidity of people not understanding that the president doesn't make the laws has fucked our entire system of government and now the power creep has been realized to it's maximum. 

Facts we now know:

1) there will never be another time more dangerous to our country and it's representative government than one party holding complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency. 

2) as long as the president and Senate are from the same party the president has unlimited power and is above the law since he cannot be stopped or removed from office. The president can also apparently just say everything is classified under executive privilege

3) there will be absolute deadlock in the event of a party split along the legislative and executive branch where 4 years of policymaking will come to a complete halt including setting budgets in a stupid game of chicken which results in the American people being the casualties. 

You people in here acting like Hillary wasn't just as bad as Trump are really something else - the only difference is she wouldn't have been gloating publicly about most of it and she's a "more political" public speaker. 

There are only a few paths to fix this, one is bloody and one makes too much sense to work so I guess we are headed for revolution. 

The bloody way is obvious. Gerrymandering, lack of representation in government and abuse of power finally breaks the camel's back of the MAJORITY of Americans who are voting one way or another. People start killing each other and government officials until the Constitution is amended to allow for better representation.

The way that makes too much sense is to just amend the fucking constitution so elections are fair and balanced. No gerrymandering, no corporate funding, cap election campaign finance or restrict it to individual donors only, within the scope of the election (house reps can't take individual financing from individuals outside the state, pres can take from anyone naturalized or with permanent residency).  This will destroy the 2 party system as we know it overnight and allow for a true representative government where partisanship isn't the focus and actual constituent representation becomes the focus again. 

Basically stop paying our political parties like fucking pro sports teams and feeling like you have to "pick a side" and it'll work again. 

Hillary is Abraham Fucking Lincoln compared to Trump. Don't be ridiculous. Trump is completely unique, and uniquely abhorrent. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

9 minutes ago, horn4life said:

So now we go from a Soviet soviet style fake trail. To soviet style dismissal of religion and morality. Soon to be followed by using the powers of office for personal revenge and persecution.

Just remember that while our many of our neighbors, friends and associates have shown no sense of a moral compass.  They are not Christians despite attendance in buildings that have crosses on top. They cannot fairly judge, and would prefer in all political circumstance to believe a lie rather than the obvious truth. So when the next step of using the power of the executive branch to persecute political enemies do not expect to hear a peep from many of your neighbors. friends and associates. The slide away from the expectation of equal protection under the law will have been just as easily dismissed, disregarded, looked away from or otherwise ignored. Instead it will be embraced and extolled. Some will even say, "it's the will of God." 

This is where we are now.  It's so sad what this President has done to morally corrupt our country.  Something he could only do as a result of an immoral Republican party.

It's easy enough. If one reads the various comments showing viewpoints underneath articles and social media, or call-ins on shows. So, yes, so much for equal protection under the law.

"Those people deserve it."

"They got what's coming to them."

"They think they're above the law."

"This Administration is looking out for us, protecting our rights."

Consider this, GOP friends. HIstory tells the story and  we knew this was coming once more but we turned away. Is Trump Hitler? No, but he is a fascist wanna be dictator and you do not give people like him the keys to the car or the house or he will set up shop and wreak havoc.
 

Quote

 

Senator Susan Collins, one of the Republicans who voted to acquit, had taken Trump at his word. Returning to reporters, she proudly announced that she believed "Trump has learned from this case"  and "he will be more cautious in the future. He will behave lawfully."

A day later, the investigations began.

 

Quote

 

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, one of the signers of the Munich pact, had taken Hitler at his word. Returning to Britain with this agreement in hand, he proudly announced that he had achieved “peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time.” 

A year later, German troops stormed into Poland.

 

The second quote is from the National WWII museum. Godwined the thread but hey, it's Friday and I love me some hyperbole on a Friday.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

 

You people in here acting like Hillary wasn't just as bad as Trump are really something else - the only difference is she wouldn't have been gloating publicly about most of it and she's a "more political" public speaker. 

 

trying to both sides this shit still huh.  i wonder what you guys are witnessing?

 

hillary would probably be telling everyone not to trust the news.  hillary would probably be undercutting our intelligence agencies' abilities to warn and protect about weaknesses in our elections. hillary would probably be trying to curry favor with the authoritarians where she just happens to have substantial real property investments.  hillary probably would have facilitated canning career public servants executing policy because it was inconvenient for friends' businesses.  hillary probably would be stocking the appellate courts with a bunch of thirty year old ideologues that got straight c's.  hillary would probably be cooking up ways to stir racial hatred, like building a monument to her racism with money stolen from the defense budget.  hillary would be targeting states that didn't vote for her for political retribution.  she is just so sneaky though because she is a 'more political' public speaker, so we wouldn't have noticed.

[TXSG8R 3362]

7 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

trying to both sides this shit still huh.  i wonder what you guys are witnessing?

 

hillary would probably be telling everyone not to trust the news.  hillary would probably be undercutting our intelligence agencies' abilities to warn and protect about weaknesses in our elections. hillary would probably be trying to curry favor with the authoritarians where she just happens to have substantial real property investments.  hillary probably would have facilitated canning career public servants executing policy because it was inconvenient for friends' businesses.  hillary probably would be stocking the appellate courts with a bunch of thirty year old ideologues that got straight c's.  hillary would probably be cooking up ways to stir racial hatred, like building a monument to her racism with money stolen from the defense budget.  hillary would be targeting states that didn't vote for her for political retribution.  she is just so sneaky though because she is a 'more political' public speaker, so we wouldn't have noticed.

Hillary would certainly have an agenda, but she would play within the rules.  I guess that makes her deep state.  

[DDD Dad 14346]

7 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

 

You incorrectly assumed the person was joining a company that offered a healthcare plan. If there was no health benefits offered, a person could not go purchase individual insurance themselves with certain pre-existing conditions without going to a state run exchange. Your incorrect assumption demonstrates you really have no idea of the struggles a significant portion of this population faces every day. You’d do well to go do some volunteering to see outside the country club bubble you live in.

 

Edit - just read the requests to not continue healthcare discussion in. here. No more comments, except he’s wrong, as usual.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

5 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Hillary would certainly have an agenda, but she would play within the rules.  I guess that makes her deep state.  

All Presidents have egos.  All want glory.  But every other one in our history -- let's go back to WWII, since that is the history we all know the best -- has sought there glory through the reflected glow of "look what I built."  They tried to make some aspect of the country the best it can be, knowing that they in turn get to stroke off on their greatness when everyone attributes it to them.  Trump is unique in his quest just for praise, money, and watching people grovel.  There is no attempt at reflected glow.  

[immamac 42878]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

You are completely wrong.

I see that everyone here thought I meant Hillary was going to do the same exact things as Trump. I meant she would have "abused" the office of the President the same way for HER agenda, which you may think is better for you or the country, but that's besides the point. 

Executive power creep is not a partisan issue was my point not that Hillary is as evil as Trump or visa versa - you and others made it a partisan issue because you can't see the forest from the fucking trees per usual. Abuse of power in the executive branch doesn't exist in the current partisan capitalist funded government we have now. The new normal is exactly that - the new normal the face of that doesn't change the reality. Believing your candidate has more respect for the office or whatever bullshit you want to believe is not the reality. 

@TXSG8R the rules are clear - the president can do anything and no one can stop them. Why would Hillary (or any President)stop herself/themselves? What are these "rules" you keep referencing? 

Since FDR the president keeps crossing the line and nothing happens, just because Trump can tolerate everyone freaking out more than some other presidents because he's delusional doesn't make it that much different, it's just an accelerated path every president goes further and further. Literally FDR was so powerful we decided we could never have something like this happen again and limited terms to 2. We are at the point of another amendment needing to happen. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

we need a viable 3rd (or 4th... or 5th) party. the 2 party system is largely responsible for where are now. that and voter apathy

[thrillhammer 684]

13 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

trying to both sides this shit still huh.  i wonder what you guys are witnessing?

 

hillary would probably be telling everyone not to trust the news.  hillary would probably be undercutting our intelligence agencies' abilities to warn and protect about weaknesses in our elections. hillary would probably be trying to curry favor with the authoritarians where she just happens to have substantial real property investments.  hillary probably would have facilitated canning career public servants executing policy because it was inconvenient for friends' businesses.  hillary probably would be stocking the appellate courts with a bunch of thirty year old ideologues that got straight c's.  hillary would probably be cooking up ways to stir racial hatred, like building a monument to her racism with money stolen from the defense budget.  hillary would be targeting states that didn't vote for her for political retribution.  she is just so sneaky though because she is a 'more political' public speaker, so we wouldn't have noticed.

its all conjecture at this point, but the main difference as i see it is that our society would be more civil.  trump has done well with the economy and jobs, but that alone does not make america great.  we are worse off than before he took office, and hillary would have done a better job of accomplishing the bs maga slogan.  he has divided our country in a way that i dont foresee it being repaired.  it would take a real leader (which he is not) with real ethics (which he has none of) to lead us and teach us how to have public discussions and debates and hash out policy for the future of the country.  because he gets away with trampling on the constitution, running roughshod over the checks and balances system, grabbing them by the pussy, insulting, demeaning, bullying all those that oppose him, all the gop congress does it too.  the president should set the example, and the gop is shit now because of him.

the other difference in where we would be had hillary won is we would have more solid partnerships with our allies.  trump has weakened all our alliances.  germany, uk, france, canada, china, middle east, mexico, and on and on and on consider him a buffoon and a laughing stock, which makes us a laughing stock for electing him.  they are all biding their time until he gets the boot.  

one last difference.  trump has sold us down the river.  i'm surprised the gop doesn't see it from all the dollar signs blocking their vision.  he has weakened the endangered species act, weakened the clean water act, weakened the clean air act, selling off public lands, we're drilling and polluting land and sea not seen since the 70's.  we're overdeveloping, overfishing, reducing the banking laws that went into effect after the last collapse.  future generations will be worse off from the years he's been in office.

 

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

I see that everyone here thought I meant Hillary was going to do the same exact things as Trump. I meant she would have "abused" the office of the President the same way for HER agenda, which you may think is better for you or the country, but that's besides the point. 

Executive power creep is not a partisan issue was my point not that Hillary is as evil as Trump or visa versa - you and others made it a partisan issue because you can't see the forest from the fucking trees per usual. Abuse of power in the executive branch doesn't exist in the current partisan capitalist funded government we have now. The new normal is exactly that - the new normal the face of that doesn't change the reality. Believing your candidate has more respect for the office or whatever bullshit you want to believe is not the reality. 

@TXSG8R the rules are clear - the president can do anything and no one can stop them. Why would Hillary (or any President)stop herself/themselves? What are these "rules" you keep referencing? 

Since FDR the president keeps crossing the line and nothing happens, just because Trump can tolerate everyone freaking out more than some other presidents because he's delusional doesn't make it that much different, it's just an accelerated path every president goes further and further. Literally FDR was so powerful we decided we could never have something like this happen again and limited terms to 2. We are at the point of another amendment needing to happen. 

The rules have certainly expanded before Trump, but I seriously doubt she would have taken things where Trump has.  He set that precedent, I would have expected her to have worked within the norms of the office before Trump.  Maybe push the limits some more on executive orders, but thats as far as I think she would have gotten.  Remember, she would have had a hostile senate, not a friendly one that would give her the unchecked power Trump has.  

[immamac 42878]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

we need a viable 3rd (or 4th... or 5th) party. the 2 party system is largely responsible for where are now. that and voter apathy

This is a bit naive. We've had a largely 2 party system for the entirety of our country's existence. The problem is the way parties are funded, and can influence national levels with money that comes from literally anywhere. If the purple team need a senator in an orange team state they can spend infinity money to get them elected. Just like a fucking pro athlete. It's literally insane and broken. Then once they get that seat they can just realign the voter districts to hold it forever. 

[jimmyjazz 46004]

Well, for starters, Hillary would have been stonewalled by a (R) Congress (both sides), at least through 2018, and it's reasonable to assume the midterm flip in the House wouldn't have happened, either.

But I think it's preposterous to say that Hillary would have made the power grab Trump did EVEN IF she had both Congress and the courts on her side.  There just isn't any evidence that this is true, nor that it has been true in the past.  Degree matters.

[Incredulity 11680]

 

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

we need a viable 3rd (or 4th... or 5th) party. the 2 party system is largely responsible for where are now. that and voter apathy

So you want a party to hold power with 22% of the vote?  That will go over well.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

 

So you want a party to hold power with 22% of the vote?  That will go over well.

yeah, because what we have is working swimmingly.

[Brandywine 1316]

35 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

trying to both sides this shit still huh.  i wonder what you guys are witnessing?

 

hillary would probably be telling everyone not to trust the news.  hillary would probably be undercutting our intelligence agencies' abilities to warn and protect about weaknesses in our elections. hillary would probably be trying to curry favor with the authoritarians where she just happens to have substantial real property investments.  hillary probably would have facilitated canning career public servants executing policy because it was inconvenient for friends' businesses.  hillary probably would be stocking the appellate courts with a bunch of thirty year old ideologues that got straight c's.  hillary would probably be cooking up ways to stir racial hatred, like building a monument to her racism with money stolen from the defense budget.  hillary would be targeting states that didn't vote for her for political retribution.  she is just so sneaky though because she is a 'more political' public speaker, so we wouldn't have noticed.

She’d still be better than Trump. 

[Continental Op 3934]

That is some mighty fine both sidesing by imamac but the Both Sides Champion of the Universe Title remains with Anastasis.

 

 

[TXSG8R 3362]

18 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

All Presidents have egos.  All want glory.  But every other one in our history -- let's go back to WWII, since that is the history we all know the best -- has sought there glory through the reflected glow of "look what I built."  They tried to make some aspect of the country the best it can be, knowing that they in turn get to stroke off on their greatness when everyone attributes it to them.  Trump is unique in his quest just for praise, money, and watching people grovel.  There is no attempt at reflected glow.  

I think Trump wants his wall/immigration lockdown to be his historical achievement.  

[TwiceHorn 31516]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm curious, though. (not trolling). Given the rancor surrounding her from the GOP et al, were she in office for the past three years she would have had no House, no Senate but the economy continuing the climb it started prior to the election. Would the midterms have been as successful? How would things stand now w/respect to people's views given the economy? Would there have been an impeachment w/respect to the Bidens coming from the GOP and trying to tie it to her?

That would be successive Democratic presidents which is somewhat rare. If this was discussed elsewhere, I'm happy to go off and read about it in another topic so as not to derail.

I'm a little skeptical of the idea that the stock market would have climbed like this under Hildawg.  I think a big part of the stock market is a belief by the 1% that under Trump it's a fucking free-for-all.

Note bene, this is to be distinguished from actual sound economic policies, but rather a cynical belief that the market can get away with anyfuckingthing and that that ability may be short-lived.

Now, the economy would probably be doing about the same.

[David Dennison 18941]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

It's almost like they are deliberately trying to get Trump a second term and more Republicans elected to office.  The most absurdly farcical and ineffectual "opposition" party one could possibly imagine.

 

It's amazing how one poll can make people crazy.

Donald Trump is as unpopular now as he's always been. He's at 43%. That's where he's been for three years and it's where he will be in November.

[immamac 42878]

2 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

The rules have certainly expanded before Trump, but I seriously doubt she would have taken things where Trump has.  He set that precedent, I would have expected her to have worked within the norms of the office before Trump.  Maybe push the limits some more on executive orders, but thats as far as I think she would have gotten.  Remember, she would have had a hostile senate, not a friendly one that would give her the unchecked power Trump has.  

You think Democrats get 2/3 majority to remove her from office if she does anything? 

If you do then you are sadly sadly deluded. 

I've made my stance on Trump clear, but just to clarify I DO NOT APPROVE of him or his administration, however that doesn't make EVERY policy that is aligned with something that has happened in his term bad or evil or overreaching. 

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, for starters, Hillary would have been stonewalled by a (R) Congress (both sides), at least through 2018, and it's reasonable to assume the midterm flip in the House wouldn't have happened, either.

But I think it's preposterous to say that Hillary would have made the power grab Trump did EVEN IF she had both Congress and the courts on her side.  There just isn't any evidence that this is true, nor that it has been true in the past.  Degree matters.

Never said degree didn't matter, I said he accelerated the path in my clarification post, let's not kid ourselves with the "she's of a higher moral standard than Trump" bullshit though. If it wasn't her it would have been someone else is what I'm trying to convey. Maybe I should just use random names and made up parties so people can understand better without putting their "FUCKIN HILLARY SAINT" or "MAGA MOFUCKER" hats on

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

 

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm curious, though. (not trolling). Given the rancor surrounding her from the GOP et al, were she in office for the past three years she would have had no House, no Senate but the economy continuing the climb it started prior to the election. Would the midterms have been as successful? How would things stand now w/respect to people's views given the economy? Would there have been an impeachment w/respect to the Bidens coming from the GOP and trying to tie it to her?

That would be successive Democratic presidents which is somewhat rare. If this was discussed elsewhere, I'm happy to go off and read about it in another topic so as not to derail.

Agree with TwiceHorn, but wanted to chime in that I'd give up the 2018 blue wave for hillary over trump 100 times out of 100.  trump is an existential crises to the jeffersonian experiment.

[burntorangebongos 10750]

I agree that there is too much executive power and it must be rebalanced. Expecting any President to self restrain is crazy. Congress needs to wrest some power back. Klobuchar was asked about the bill limiting the president's war powers and  if she favored it and she did for Trump but side stepped saying she favors limiting powers. None of them will self restrain, not even her. It has to be remedied. Hillary has big balls and hates Putin so you know she would have gung ho'd toward "conflicts" where she could fuck him over. I have no doubt her hawkish ass needs the restraint the new bill provides. The congress needs to claw more power back, imo.

[jimmyjazz 46004]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

let's not kid ourselves with the "she's of a higher moral standard than Trump" bullshit though. 

Well, she IS of a higher moral standard than Trump.  A far higher moral standard.  I fundamentally disagree with your premise.  I find it ignorant and poorly thought out.  Sorry.

[David Dennison 18941]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Agree with TwiceHorn, but wanted to chime in that I'd give up the 2018 blue wave for hillary over trump 100 times out of 100.  trump is an existential crises to the jeffersonian experiment.

The Jeffersonian experiment ended in the 19th century. Hamilton's vision of America won.

[immamac 42878]

4 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

That is some mighty fine both sidesing by imamac but the Both Sides Champion of the Universe Title remains with Anastasis.

 

 

I'm no sidesing. You fucking rubes can't get the 2 party retardation out of your brains so you think I'm straddling or picking Hillary or Trump to hitch my trailer to. Both would have sucked maybe not equally but they both will have exacerbated the executive branch issues.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

let's not kid ourselves with the "[career public servant]'s of a higher moral standard than [guy who has literally been sued for fraud by half the states in the country, including the one we are sitting in right now]" bullshit though

 

 

[immamac 42878]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, she IS of a higher moral standard than Trump.  A far higher moral standard.  I fundamentally disagree with your premise.  I find it ignorant and poorly thought out.  Sorry.

Well politely fuck you then 😂.

You can believe whatever you want, I'm making an argument independent of your obvious love affair with this human who ran for president named Hillary Clinton. 

[TXSG8R 3362]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

You think Democrats get 2/3 majority to remove her from office if she does anything? 

If you do then you are sadly sadly deluded. 

I've made my stance on Trump clear, but just to clarify I DO NOT APPROVE of him or his administration, however that doesn't make EVERY policy that is aligned with something that has happened in his term bad or evil or overreaching. 

Never said degree didn't matter, I said he accelerated the path in my clarification post, let's not kid ourselves with the "she's of a higher moral standard than Trump" bullshit though. If it wasn't her it would have been someone else is what I'm trying to convey. Maybe I should just use random names and made up parties so people can understand better without putting their "FUCKIN HILLARY SAINT" or "MAGA MOFUCKER" hats on

I didn't say that, I just think since shes a political creature, she would work within the structure that's already there.  If anything, she would probably have been way more cautious about getting into anything impeachable since her husband already went down that path.  I think shes more worried about her legacy as much as she is about any agenda, so she wouldn't give the Rs any more ammo to use.  

[immamac 42878]

4 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I agree that there is too much executive power and it must be rebalanced. Expecting any President to self restrain is crazy. Congress needs to wrest some power back. Klobuchar was asked about the bill limiting the president's war powers and  if she favored it and she did for Trump but side stepped saying she favors limiting powers. None of them will self restrain, not even her. It has to be remedied. Hillary has big balls and hates Putin so you know she would have gung ho'd toward "conflicts" where she could fuck him over. I have no doubt her hawkish ass needs the restraint the new bill provides. The congress needs to claw more power back, imo.

This is exactly what I'm trying to convey. Regardless of who or what the issue was the president will always do as much as they can and since the line in the Sand can seemingly just be redrawn further and further it just will. 

Am I saying Hillary would have sprinted past it and said fuck it there is no line suckers like Trump seemingly has. Absolutely not, but I am saying ANYONE who is president is going to redraw that line in the Sand to where they are comfortable pushing it. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Jeffersonian experiment ended in the 19th century. Hamilton's vision of America won.

yeah, i don't really know what i'm talking about.  just thought the phrase served as good verbal flair instead of 'the country's bedrock principles'.

[jimmyjazz 46004]

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

Well politely fuck you then 😂.

You can believe whatever you want, I'm making an argument independent of your obvious love affair with this human who ran for president named Hillary Clinton. 

Well, that's a reach, and a bad one.  I voted for the person whom I though was the FAR lesser "evil".  I don't actually think she's evil, but she was a pretty lousy choice.  Your perception of my "obvious love affair" with Hillary is equally as ignorant as your earlier points. 

[Incredulity 11680]

3 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

yeah, i don't really know what i'm talking about.  just thought the phrase served as good verbal flair instead of 'the country's bedrock principles'.

New Surly Motto?

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm no sidesing. You fucking rubes can't get the 2 party retardation out of your brains so you think I'm straddling or picking Hillary or Trump to hitch my trailer to. Both would have sucked maybe not equally but they both will have exacerbated the executive branch issues.

Mainly cause one party has paved the way for the mechanisms that you outlined that need to be removed from government. 

Gerrymandering? GOP

Corporate funding ("Corporations are people too" Romney)? GOP

Cap election campaign finance or restrict it to individual donors only? Here is Clinton's proposal https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/ Looks pretty close to your "too much sense" plan

The GOP's base is shrinking and they have spent decades making changes to have an outsized voice. To have a Clinton or another candidate say, "I'm not going to play within these shitty rules to be the more moral/ethical person." will have them not have a chance to get elected. You win the Presidency with dark money now, she played the game because that is the game. That game doesn't change until someone plays it to win and decides to tear it down to make it more fair. Good luck with that. 

[TXSG8R 3362]

Just now, immamac said:

This is exactly what I'm trying to convey. Regardless of who or what the issue was the president will always do as much as they can and since the line in the Sand can seemingly just be redrawn further and further it just will. 

Am I saying Hillary would have sprinted past it and said fuck it there is no line suckers like Trump seemingly has. Absolutely not, but I am saying ANYONE who is president is going to redraw that line in the Sand to where they are comfortable pushing it. 

I think the executive power creep is a larger symptom of the partisan gridlock in congress though.  If you don't have executive and congress in the same party, things are stuck.  So presidents are using executive orders more and more to pass even moderate agenda issues forward.  It goes back to the larger point of your post.  Tribalism has ruined everything.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm a little skeptical of the idea that the stock market would have climbed like this under Hildawg.  I think a big part of the stock market is a belief by the 1% that under Trump it's a fucking free-for-all.

Note bene, this is to be distinguished from actual sound economic policies, but rather a cynical belief that the market can get away with anyfuckingthing and that that ability may be short-lived.

Now, the economy would probably be doing about the same.

Thank you for very tactfully and kindly reminding me that economy =/ stock market. I need to pound that into my head a few more times. I can see your point-there is a certain risk taking personality that seems amped up at the moment. Problem is that I would prefer their wings get singed not mine.

 

 

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

This is exactly what I'm trying to convey. Regardless of who or what the issue was the president will always do as much as they can and since the line in the Sand can seemingly just be redrawn further and further it just will. 

Am I saying Hillary would have sprinted past it and said fuck it there is no line suckers like Trump seemingly has. Absolutely not, but I am saying ANYONE who is president is going to redraw that line in the Sand to where they are comfortable pushing it. 

I understood your point when you made it and I think presidential powers need to have a little more reign on them. It is entertaining to discuss the what ifs w/respect to HC but it does distract from your original post, so I would agree that the three branches are out of whack and the team player politics and the money that funds them also needs a reset. Not sure the best way to do that.

[Brian Fantana 6690]

23 minutes ago, immamac said:

You think Democrats get 2/3 majority to remove her from office if she does anything? 

If you do then you are sadly sadly deluded. 

I've made my stance on Trump clear, but just to clarify I DO NOT APPROVE of him or his administration, however that doesn't make EVERY policy that is aligned with something that has happened in his term bad or evil or overreaching. 

Never said degree didn't matter, I said he accelerated the path in my clarification post, let's not kid ourselves with the "she's of a higher moral standard than Trump" bullshit though. If it wasn't her it would have been someone else is what I'm trying to convey. Maybe I should just use random names and made up parties so people can understand better without putting their "FUCKIN HILLARY SAINT" or "MAGA MOFUCKER" hats on

Nobody thinks Hillary is a saint except Hillary so why don't you can it with the fucking strawmen. Your other points are good but dying on this Hillary=Trump hill makes you look like a fucking fool.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

11 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I think the executive power creep is a larger symptom of the partisan gridlock in congress though.  If you don't have executive and congress in the same party, things are stuck.  So presidents are using executive orders more and more to pass even moderate agenda issues forward.  It goes back to the larger point of your post.  Tribalism has ruined everything.  

Another part of it is Congress ceding authority to agencies under executive control.  Part of that is necessary because Congress simply lacks the expertise to legislate/regulate a lot of areas.  They could probably do a better job with a more comprehensive framework that makes the agency hew to congressional intent and gives them more oversight.  But they're also lazy and incompetent.

But there has been a more or less concerted effort by the executives of #bothsides to usurp power through the agencies and through executive orders and other shenanigans.  As a stated doctrine, it's been more a GOP thing.  In actual execution, it's #bothsides in no small part to the gridlock you note.

Edited February 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Continental Op 3934]

I'm no sidesing. You fucking rubes can't get the 2 party retardation out of your brains so you think I'm straddling or picking Hillary or Trump to hitch my trailer to. Both would have sucked maybe not equally but they both will have exacerbated the executive branch issues.

I've voted in half a dozen presidential elections and have voted for a republican once and a democrat once so I'm definitely not some partisan hack. However, one doesn't need to be a partisan hack to see that Trump has turned the volume up to 11 on the kind of shit you're complaining about. Clinton, for all of her problems, wouldn't have been close to this bad.

[Nivek 16949]

2 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

That's the biggest problem, neither side wants to compromise, so the government cant function without one side or the other controlling multiple bodies.........Negotiation and compromise with the other side is considered treason at this point.  

The ACA was a Republican plan, written with by a bipartisan team, and then voted on and passed by a single party.  It is not both sides.   The current republican party wants to allow foreign interference into our election process.  This isn't both sides, this is one side opening the gates to the barbarians.

[Tuco 5077]

17 hours ago, David Dennison said:

If Trump wins re-election, Russia is going to attempt to take back the rest of Ukraine. 

So there's that.

Just to be clear, Russia has been trying to take back the rest of Ukraine for a while.  They aren't going to invade.  By restoring the systematic corruption and kleptocracy, the are able to control the government.  Bill Taylor explained this in his testimony, when he was explaining why fighting corruption in Ukraine was not just an altruistic effort, it was a matter of our national security/foreign policy in countering a hostile foreign power.  When you control the politicians and law enforcement, you control the country.  

[wildcat09 29360]

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm a little skeptical of the idea that the stock market would have climbed like this under Hildawg.  I think a big part of the stock market is a belief by the 1% that under Trump it's a fucking free-for-all.

Note bene, this is to be distinguished from actual sound economic policies, but rather a cynical belief that the market can get away with anyfuckingthing and that that ability may be short-lived.

Now, the economy would probably be doing about the same.

The Fed also wouldn't have bent to President Hillary's demands to lower interest rates and restart QE. The overall economy would probably be doing slightly better under President Hillary (who presumably would have stuck with TPP despite her campaign stance against it and wouldn't have tried to leverage tariffs in a bunch of stupid trade disputes)  but the stock market certainly wouldn't be going as gangbusters.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Just to be clear, Russia has been trying to take back the rest of Ukraine for a while.  They aren't going to invade.  By restoring the systematic corruption and kleptocracy, the are able to control the government.  Bill Taylor explained this in his testimony, when he was explaining why fighting corruption in Ukraine was not just an altruistic effort, it was a matter of our national security/foreign policy in countering a hostile foreign power.  When you control the politicians and law enforcement, you control the country.  

Do you even Crimea, bro? They have invaded. They are there, in Ukrainian territory right now. 

[Nivek 16949]

14 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Nobody thinks Hillary is a saint except Hillary so why don't you can it with the fucking strawmen. Your other points are good but dying on this Hillary=Trump hill makes you look like a fucking fool.

That isn't what he is trying to say, but it is coming across that way because he is an aggy and sucks at communicating with humans.

I believe he is saying that regardless of candidate, they all tend to push boundaries especially when they have the support of the other branches of government.  But he has not conveyed evidence to back up the statement.  The Hillary hate, IMO is just a propaganda project by the GOP/Right and it has been so effective that most people cannot actually articulate why she is so demonized and loathed by so many.  Even funnier is when they say how much of a terrible person she was while ignoring the pussy grabbing, con man, trump university, philanderer, multiple kids by different women family values, fake christian, making fun of handicapped, supports police abuse/soldier misconduct, economic moron who lacks the basic capacity to understand foundations ideas which a high school kid can easily grasp, grifter.  Oh an he even lies about his weight.   But hey, she has a bad laugh, so I guess that is all the same then.

[clapclapclap 9000]

16 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

I've voted in half a dozen presidential elections and have voted for a republican once and a democrat once so  

 

I'm assuming you wrote in Mike Hunt four times?

[Incredulity 11680]

1 minute ago, clapclapclap said:

I'm assuming you wrote in Mike Hunt four times?

Twice, Mike Hawk the other two.

[clapclapclap 9000]

Very bi-partisan

[Nivek 16949]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yes now lie = exaggeration ? $2,500 for every family is not an exaggeration it was wrong, and he shouldn't have been touting something with that economic affect on millions of families if it wasn't known to be true, he made it dozens of times on the campaign trail. Jesus, is honesty like holy water to you ?  The man lied.  END OF STORY.

Lets really blow your mind , google his speech about stopping, arresting, and immediately returning illegals at the border.. no wai he did that right ?

 

Link posted above say's otherwise.  Your second attempt of equivocating kids in cages and family separation (losing kids) is yet another example of the cult not knowing what they are talking about.   Mexico will pay for it!  $19 health care!  Will get rid of the debt in 8 years (only to have blown it up).  Trade wars are easy and only 17000 others.  WMDs?    Come on which one of you cultists will respond to these outright lies?  

[TwiceHorn 31516]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The Fed also wouldn't have bent to President Hillary's demands to lower interest rates and restart QE. The overall economy would probably be doing slightly better under President Hillary (who presumably would have stuck with TPP despite her campaign stance against it and wouldn't have tried to leverage tariffs in a bunch of stupid trade disputes)  but the stock market certainly wouldn't be going as gangbusters.

Pretty fair analysis.

[jimmyjazz 46004]

The stock market wouldn't be going as gangbusters because Hillary wouldn't have advocated a corporate tax cut that drove public companies to buy back shares (as opposed to hiring more people, investing in R&D and infrastructure, etc.).

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

9 minutes ago, Nivek said:

That isn't what he is trying to say, but it is coming across that way because he is an aggy and sucks at communicating with humans.

I believe he is saying that regardless of candidate, they all tend to push boundaries especially when they have the support of the other branches of government.  But he has not conveyed evidence to back up the statement.  The Hillary hate, IMO is just a propaganda project by the GOP/Right and it has been so effective that most people cannot actually articulate why she is so demonized and loathed by so many.  Even funnier is when they say how much of a terrible person she was while ignoring the pussy grabbing, con man, trump university, philanderer, multiple kids by different women family values, fake christian, making fun of handicapped, supports police abuse/soldier misconduct, economic moron who lacks the basic capacity to understand foundations ideas which a high school kid can easily grasp, grifter.  Oh an he even lies about his weight.   But hey, she has a bad laugh, so I guess that is all the same then.

Let me know if she has a tan dress and I'll get back to you on who is worse.

 

 

 

Just kidding.