The Robert Mueller Investigation

[hobbes2702 13051]

2 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

High crimes and misdemeanors.  Embraced Lincoln's more lenient plans for Reconstruction.

I knew the answer. And technically it was for violating the tenure act which was eventually deemed unconstitutional. 

But in reality you are correct and that is why they did it.

[F250 28809]

8 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Thread. Read the whole thing. 

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah good for Amash on this one thing but he’s a Freedom Caucus fuckstick, has voted with Trump 92% of the time, is anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, and a bunch of other odious things.

Hooray he called out Trump being a criminal because duh but fuck him for everything else he stands for.

I’m not getting a lady boner for this dude because literally everything else he believes is abhorrent and he’s using this anti-Trump stance as a grandstand. He’s sniffing the political winds and taking a chance that he’s ahead of the wave. He’s in a gerrymandered as fuck district and he can always start shouting about god, guns, and gays to keep his local nutters on side.

In short, fuck Justin Amash.

[Bozo_Casanova 26521]

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What data are you referring to?

There aren't a lot of large-scale data because 9/11 and what came after nipped an emerging trend in the bud, but what exists is pretty consistent   Here is one of the more comprehensive skeptical surveys of the issue from the narrow window between the 2000 election and 9/11.

I tend to agree with what Grover Norquist famously (infamously in some GOP quarters) said:  “George W. Bush was elected President of the United States of America because of the Muslim vote.”

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

22 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There aren't a lot of large-scale data because 9/11 and what came after nipped an emerging trend in the bud, but what exists is pretty consistent   Here is one of the more comprehensive skeptical surveys of the issue from the narrow window between the 2000 election and 9/11.

I tend to agree with what Grover Norquist famously (infamously in some GOP quarters) said:  “George W. Bush was elected President of the United States of America because of the Muslim vote.”

Grover Norquist is a partisan bullshit artist. Bush won because Ralph Nader stole votes from Gore (including Muslim votes). If Nader had sat that one out, Gore would've been president.

Then there was also the whole Florida fiasco where George's brother just happened to be governor, and the Sec. of State who ruled in Dubya's favor was rewarded with a position in his administration. Who knows what the result would've been if they had allowed a full recount? (Or if Florida had a decent and reliable election system in the first place. And absent Karl Rove's dirty tricks.)

[Bozo_Casanova 26521]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Grover Norquist is a partisan bullshit artist. Bush won because Ralph Nader stole votes from Gore (including Muslim votes). If Nader had sat that one out, Gore would've been president.

Then there was also the whole Florida fiasco where George's brother just happened to be governor, and the Sec. of State who ruled in Dubya's favor was rewarded with a position in his administration. Who knows what the result would've been if they had allowed a full recount? (Or if Florida had a decent and reliable election system in the first place. And absent Karl Rove's dirty tricks.)

OK,  But Nader didn't sit it out. Neither did Patrick Buchanan. Neither did the libertarians.  The fact remains that Bush got somewhere between 70-90% of the Muslim vote in Florida. Bring that down to a 50/50 split and Gore wins Florida by about 10-15k votes.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[4th&Five 41574]

 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

A total lightweight! 

[retread 2951]

The words of a totally innocent man.

[Red Five 40879]

"Justin is a loser!" -The President of the United States

[DanRydell 799]

It’s hard to take Amash’s “I’m a principled conservative” schtick totally seriously when he claims to be a deficit/debt hawk but votes for every tax cut

[Anastasis 23481]

7 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

It’s hard to take Amash’s “I’m a principled conservative” schtick totally seriously when he claims to be a deficit/debt hawk but votes for every tax cut

It's not like the guy doesn't explain almost every one of his votes on social media.

 

 

 

Justin Amash

November 16, 2017 at 10:50 AM · 

 

 · 

I voted yes on #HR1, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

This bill is the House's effort to significantly reform the tax code. For individuals' income taxes, it changes some tax rates, doubles the standard deduction, eliminates or limits many deductions and credits, and repeals the estate tax (or "death tax"). For corporate taxes, it lowers the rate, eliminates or limits many deductions and loopholes, and changes our international tax system to a territorial tax system, allowing American companies that earn profits overseas to bring that money into the United States without facing an additional tax on it.

The major benefits of this bill come from the fact that it lowers taxes and reduces the complexity of the tax code.

Lowering rates and eliminating deductions and credits will likely result in less time and money spent on filing taxes, fewer resources wasted on designing and executing strategies to avoid taxes, less social engineering through the tax code, and a fairer tax code overall.

For individuals, the increase in the standard deduction will allow many taxpayers to avoid needing to itemize their deductions. This means many taxpayers will no longer need to spend the time and money to find and claim each of their deductions and, coupled with some of the lower rates and the elimination of deductions and credits, also reduces the relative advantage for those who have the resources to afford better tax advice. This will also result in fewer people being subject to the coercive incentives of itemized deductions, which encourage people to make choices they otherwise would not make.

For corporations, the elimination of deductions and loopholes, and the change to a territorial system, will reduce the opportunities and incentives to avoid taxation and may help to limit corporations' massive efforts to do so. Billions of dollars are wasted each year when corporations hire tax attorneys and accountants to find contrived ways to structure transactions to avoid taxes. Our current tax code gives large companies an advantage over smaller competitors who do not have the resources to use those strategies. This bill simplifies the corporate tax code, reducing the opportunities to manipulate it.

I believe firmly in limited, constitutional government. That means, among other things, support for less government spending and lower, fairer taxes.

This bill will probably result in additional borrowing in the short run—but only because my Republican and Democratic colleagues continue to vote for higher spending. Republicans and Democrats recently voted along party lines for separate budgets (both of which I opposed) that increase spending and grow our debt by many trillions of dollars. Since entering Congress, I have voted for the least spending of any member of Congress:

https://spendingtracker.org/rankings…

The tax cuts in H R 1 won't directly benefit every taxpayer, and it's likely some people will even see tax increases. This is not the bill I would have written, but the cuts in this bill are very broad, and the substantial reduction in the complexity of the tax code will benefit even those who do not see direct cuts to their income taxes.

It passed 227-205.

[jimmyjazz 46028]

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Yeah good for Amash on this one thing but he’s a Freedom Caucus fuckstick, has voted with Trump 92% of the time, is anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, and a bunch of other odious things.

Hooray he called out Trump being a criminal because duh but fuck him for everything else he stands for.

Can't have it both ways.  The left (including myself) has been screaming about the right's inability to see Trump's malfeasance for what it is, regardless of their stand on political and social issues.  Now someone has stood up and essentially said "despite the fact that I align with Donald Trump more often than I don't, he is not fit for office and should be impeached".  That's exactly what should be happening on that side of the aisle, with EVERYONE.

[GRHorn 105]

7 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Yeah good for Amash on this one thing but he’s a Freedom Caucus fuckstick, has voted with Trump 92% of the time, is anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, and a bunch of other odious things.

Hooray he called out Trump being a criminal because duh but fuck him for everything else he stands for.

I’m not getting a lady boner for this dude because literally everything else he believes is abhorrent and he’s using this anti-Trump stance as a grandstand. He’s sniffing the political winds and taking a chance that he’s ahead of the wave. He’s in a gerrymandered as fuck district and he can always start shouting about god, guns, and gays to keep his local nutters on side.

In short, fuck Justin Amash.

I think you’re on to something. Justin is playing the long game. Impeach Trump, install Pence. Then start opening the homosexual shock therapy centers and start producing red habits, white bonnets, and it’s on. 

But seriously, your post illustrates part of the problem with partisanship. A Republican Congressman comes out and publicly says they should impeach his party’s President. Your response is fuck that guy. Ok. Maybe you should work with people on things that you agree upon. Just my unsolicited advice. 

Isn’t your boy Beto’s big theme the idea that we can come together and make things happen? Like Hope and Change 2020?

[GRHorn 105]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can't have it both ways.  The left (including myself) has been screaming about the right's inability to see Trump's malfeasance for what it is, regardless of their stand on political and social issues.  Now someone has stood up and essentially said "despite the fact that I align with Donald Trump more often than I don't, he is not fit for office and should be impeached".  That's exactly what should be happening on that side of the aisle, with EVERYONE.

You beat me to it, but everyone on your side should have your attitude about someone like Amash. 

[GRHorn 105]

19 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

and when the president talks, or the ag talks, or when the press secretary talks...all the media outlets air the same clip, typically live and unedited.

a lot of people tune out the talking heads, regardless or what channel they're on, but they'll pay attention when important people are talking.  by never having briefings they're actually negatively affecting their abilities to control the narrative even more, which seems like a mistake.

"controlling the narrative" has nothing to do with what anderson cooper says.  or sean hannity.  but in the meantime, let's call that part a wash.

You’re right. The briefings and statements are sparse, but even if there is a statement, then there’s an 8 person panel on multiple networks discussing how it’s all bullshit and unprecedented etc. This is followed up by blue check mark twitter running wild fact checking, editorializing, well...actually and so on. Then the next day all the major newspapers (besides maybe the WSJ) write news stories and columns slanted to the Left explaining how wrong everything is and what you should think about it. 

Who controls the narrative better?  That sophisticated apparatus or POTUS twitter account? That’s basically the question. 

[David Dennison 18944]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

You’re right. The briefings and statements are sparse, but even if there is a statement, then there’s an 8 person panel on multiple networks discussing how it’s all bullshit and unprecedented etc. This is followed up by blue check mark twitter running wild fact checking, editorializing, well...actually and so on. Then the next day all the major newspapers (besides maybe the WSJ) write news stories and columns slanted to the Left explaining how wrong everything is and what you should think about it. 

Who controls the narrative better?  That sophisticated apparatus or POTUS twitter account? That’s basically the question. 

You conveniently left out a whole lot of right wing echo chambers with equally sophisticated apparatuses.

[Goredho 17413]

1 hour ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

A total lightweight! 

Relative to Trump’s mass, this is absolutely true.

[bolverk 29705]

24 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I think you’re on to something. Justin is playing the long game. Impeach Trump, install Pence. Then start opening the homosexual shock therapy centers and start producing red habits, white bonnets, and it’s on. 

But seriously, your post illustrates part of the problem with partisanship. A Republican Congressman comes out and publicly says they should impeach his party’s President. Your response is fuck that guy. Ok. Maybe you should work with people on things that you agree upon. Just my unsolicited advice. 

Isn’t your boy Beto’s big theme the idea that we can come together and make things happen? Like Hope and Change 2020?

A lecture about partisanship is cute coming from you.

[retread 2951]

When's the last time the Rs and Ds regularly worked together on legislation during a session?

[Anastasis 23481]

4 minutes ago, retread said:

When's the last time the Rs and Ds regularly worked together on legislation during a session?

Patriot Act. 

 

More serious answer: 21st Century Cures Act. 

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

OK,  But Nader didn't sit it out. Neither did Patrick Buchanan. Neither did the libertarians.  The fact remains that Bush got somewhere between 70-90% of the Muslim vote in Florida. Bring that down to a 50/50 split and Gore wins Florida by about 10-15k votes.

In Florida? The most questionable outcome of the 2000 election? Did Norquist make that declaration before or after 9/11? Sounds like something he'd be more likely to say after 9/11. 

If we looked at all the results, I'm sure we could find other constituencies in other States that, had they gone the other way, would've flipped the outcome. Depending on how we wanted to spin it, we might say they won the election for Bush. Norquist certainly would, depending on what political end he was trying to serve. 

[GRHorn 105]

9 minutes ago, retread said:

When's the last time the Rs and Ds regularly worked together on legislation during a session?

The recent criminal justice reform?

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

A lecture about partisanship is cute coming from you.

When Cory Booker comes out saying we need criminal justice reform, which I agree with, I don’t start by saying fuck Cory Booker he wants to take our guns, and so on. Take what you can get from people.

Then when you work with people on things, you see other areas where you may find other common ground or places where you’re willing to give ground. This isn’t hard. 

Fuck Justin Amash is a losing stance to take for Lefties. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Yeah good for Amash on this one thing but he’s a Freedom Caucus fuckstick, has voted with Trump 92% of the time, is anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, and a bunch of other odious things.

Hooray he called out Trump being a criminal because duh but fuck him for everything else he stands for.

I’m not getting a lady boner for this dude because literally everything else he believes is abhorrent and he’s using this anti-Trump stance as a grandstand. He’s sniffing the political winds and taking a chance that he’s ahead of the wave. He’s in a gerrymandered as fuck district and he can always start shouting about god, guns, and gays to keep his local nutters on side.

In short, fuck Justin Amash.

i think the point may have been missed here. it’s not who he is, it’s what he represents. 

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

15 minutes ago, retread said:

When's the last time the Rs and Ds regularly worked together on legislation during a session?

What about the bill that authorized $25B for Trump's wall but that he killed because it offered DACA protections?

[Bozo_Casanova 26521]

Norquist and others said it a lot both before and after

Also (and this is obviously anecdotal but whatever) I was told by a Bush staffer at the time that Muslims and Arab Americans were a crucial part of the overall GOP go-forward national strategy, the third leg of the minority values voter coalition they were trying to assemble along with evangelical blacks and Hispanic Catholics, because they didn’t want to become a rural white party.

 

[Js1 85485]

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

4 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i think the point may have been missed here. it’s not who he is, it’s what he represents. 

Yes. His hypocritical ethics and morality. It's like murderers and rapists taking a stand on pedophiles. Sure, they are right that pedophiles are the scum of the earth, but their moral compass is still fucked. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Yes. His hypocritical ethics and morality. It's like murderers and rapists taking a stand on pedophiles. Sure, they are right that pedophiles are the scum of the earth, but their moral compass is still fucked. 

nope, you missed it too.  well done.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

nope, you missed it too.  well done.

What he represents is certain ideology that stretches the bounds of what is ethical and moral, but maybe I'm still missing your point. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

What he represents is certain ideology that stretches the bounds of what is ethical and moral, but maybe I'm still missing your point. 

a lot of republicans don't agree with the nonsense spewing from this white house, but up until recently, everyone was too scared to do shit or say shit about it.

that has been slowly changing, and we'll only get there one tiny hypocrite at a time.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

a lot of republicans don't agree with the nonsense spewing from this white house, but up until recently, everyone was too scared to do shit or say shit about it.

that has been slowly changing, and we'll only get there one tiny hypocrite at a time.

I don't disagree. However, taking some principled stance while also assisting in getting us to our current situation is a tough pill to swallow. I appreciate Flake and others doing the same, but they spent their political career building a beast that now is biting them back. They need to vote to make the change then get out of politics. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

I don’t think anyone, especially a republican, should ever call for impeachment unless they perfectly hold all of my progressive ideas and policies. 

[Blotto 23563]

Amash is almost assuredly committing political suicide. I applaud him for calling out  Trump and the GOP that enables  him, and also for getting his own idiotic ass voted out of office. It could be the classic win-win.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I’ll give Amash some credit when he does something more than tweet about this.

Like signing on to the impeachment resolution some of the New Democrats are pushing or withholds his votes on Trump policies in protest or changes to independent.

If all he’s going to do is tweet and talk but still vote to advance Trump’s agenda then he’s as useless as Susan Collins and Jeff Flake.

Talk is fucking cheap at this point. And same goes for the democrats in the house.

DO SOMETHING.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

11 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I’ll give Amash some credit when he does something more than tweet about this.

Like signing on to the impeachment resolution some of the New Democrats are pushing or withholds his votes on Trump policies in protest or changes to independent.

If all he’s going to do is tweet and talk but still vote to advance Trump’s agenda then he’s as useless as Susan Collins and Jeff Flake.

Talk is fucking cheap at this point. And same goes for the democrats in the house.

DO SOMETHING.

Are you weighing whether to vote for Amash for president? Is there a popularity contest somewhere that I don’t know about? Is Amash asking you to go door to door for him?

It is so weird some are blinded from the significance of the first sitting GOP congressman to call for impeachment simply because he is a republican. It makes me hark back to the phenomenon of echo chambers, Fox News, and the idea that the other side is “bad” or “evil” or “unpatriotic” because that’s what I believe and my chamber of information reinforces that belief.

[Goredho 17413]

13 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I’ll give Amash some credit when he does something more than tweet about this.

Like signing on to the impeachment resolution some of the New Democrats are pushing or withholds his votes on Trump policies in protest or changes to independent.

If all he’s going to do is tweet and talk but still vote to advance Trump’s agenda then he’s as useless as Susan Collins and Jeff Flake.

Talk is fucking cheap at this point. And same goes for the democrats in the house.

DO SOMETHING.

As much as Trump is a lightning rod for hardening support in the his base, he is a lightning rod for hardening support against himself and the GOP.  Those people become part of the Dem's base.  I think that explains a lot of the Democrat's actions or lack thereof.

Its not necessarily what I want to see, but it makes some political sense for the dem's to slow play their Trump hand to try to have maximum gains across the board in the next election.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, Goredho said:

but it makes some political sense for the dem's to slow play their Trump hand to try to have maximum gains across the board in the next election.

Also seems like enabling and missing the forest for the trees.  They can't see past the next election and it will end up costing everyone. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

The primary and most important goal is to get the current travesty out of the White House. 

Voting for impeachment in the house and then not having it pass the senate doesn’t remove the travesty. 

A political case could be made that moving for impeachment now, even with low poll numbers, and then failing with impeachment maximizes the potential that trump’s is removed by the electorate. The opposite political case can also be made.

Current strategy is to continue to push information out to the public. See what other crimes can be found. Watch the polls. Watch for any turning GOP senators. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Voting for impeachment in the house and then not having it pass the senate doesn’t remove the travesty. 

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT IF THIS WILL HAPPEN.

If you never TRY to remove Trump, he will never be removed.  

If you try and fail, nothing changes the situation. 

No president wants to get impeached.

 

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT IF THIS WILL HAPPEN.

If you never TRY to remove Trump, he will never be removed.  

If you try and fail, nothing changes the situation. 

No president wants to get impeached.

 

 

Agreed. But I would guess many on the left are saying the election is more important that trying to impeach Trump. I would hope that those in the middle and independents that voted for Trump and those on the left that didn't vote will realize the errors of their way and things should take care of themselves. 

I think the biggest question for a lot of people is what's more important for you- Winning in 2020 or having Trump be impeached?

Sadly I think a lot of people just want him impeached and can't get passed it, regardless if it's good for the democrats or not in 2020. 

 

[hobbes2702 13051]

1 minute ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

Agreed. But I would guess many on the left are saying the election is more important that trying to impeach Trump. I would hope that those in the middle and independents that voted for Trump and those on the left that didn't vote will realize the errors of their way and things should take care of themselves. 

I think the biggest question for a lot of people is what's more important for you- Winning in 2020 or having Trump be impeached?

Sadly I think a lot of people just want him impeached and can't get passed it, regardless if it's good for the democrats or not in 2020. 

 

Winning in 2020 and having Trump impeached are not mutually exclusive. In fact the latter likely helps make the former a reality.

[retread 2951]

If they impeach, the Ds will probably get more credit from the voters than they think.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT IF THIS WILL HAPPEN.

If you never TRY to remove Trump, he will never be removed.  

If you try and fail, nothing changes the situation. 

No president wants to get impeached.

 

It is widely accepted the senate wouldn’t impeach. This isn’t a secret or anything that reasonable people would disagree on.

[hobbes2702 13051]

Who cares if the Senate convicts or not. Make them put themselves on record as supporting criminal obstruction of justice.

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Winning in 2020 and having Trump impeached are not mutually exclusive. In fact the latter likely helps make the former a reality.

We can't possibly know that. I think we all know the arguments both for and against impeachment. None of us know what will happen in either case. 

I think if a failed impeachment can help the Dems win the WH in 2020, it has to be seen by the public as a last resort after all other avenues to get at the truth have been thwarted. They have to be able to sell it as something they know can't succeed in removing Trump from office because of the complicity of Senate Republicans, but that the ongoing obstruction on the part of the Executive obligates them to do. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

28 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

It is widely accepted the senate wouldn’t impeach. This isn’t a secret or anything that reasonable people would disagree on.

That’s by design and part of the problem.  If people keep saying the Senate will never convict it becomes an accepted truth which is really nothing more than an uneducated guess intended to neutralize any opposition.  

Nothing is set in stone.  

The situation can change.  The Senate could force Trump to resign to avoid taking a recorded vote if it got bad enough.  

The democrats are being cowards almost as much as republicans. 

[TornACL 7722]

If the economy was down, Trump's impeachment would already be underway.

The economy is not down, and politicians are by their nature self-interested cowards, so no one is going to break rank. If unemployment was at 8% these shitheads would be climbing over each other to be the first in line to make big theatrics about breaking from Team Trump. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s by design and part of the problem.  If people keep saying the Senate will never convict it becomes an accepted truth which is really nothing more than an uneducated guess intended to neutralize any opposition.  

Nothing is set in stone.  

The situation can change.  The Senate could force Trump to resign to avoid taking a recorded vote if it got bad enough.  

The democrats are being cowards almost as much as republicans. 

No one is saying the senate will never impeach. Weird strawman.

They won’t right now. Every reasonable person knows that.

I wonder if further disclosure of information and crimes should be done?  I wish there was a political party trying to do that right now. I wonder if more disclosure has potential to affect the polls, the electorate, and eventually the GOP senate? Hmmm. I think we should give that a try. 

It is almost like the situation isn’t complicated

[David Dennison 18944]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s by design and part of the problem.  If people keep saying the Senate will never convict it becomes an accepted truth which is really nothing more than an uneducated guess intended to neutralize any opposition.  

Nothing is set in stone.  

The situation can change.  The Senate could force Trump to resign to avoid taking a recorded vote if it got bad enough.  

The democrats are being cowards almost as much as republicans. 

It's a guess, but it's an educated guess.