Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 4th Sep 2018, 15:12
  #15681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,196
So in a rational country a president who interferes with judicial processes would be seen as a despot, and would be suspended to face charges of perverting the course of justice, but apparently not in the despotic banana republic America seems to aspire to become. In fact if a despot did this anywhere else we would see America invading to topple the despot and bring about regime change.

Will we see America invading itself to topple this lying, crooked piece if excrement, I wonder. Then maybe someone can actually make America great again...

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 15:31
  #15682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
Testing Rational Thought

West Coast:
Rational thought is worth the long haul, stick with it.
So here is a long haul, stick with it rational test for you:

Presidential Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Trump tweet:
"Obama era investigations, of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......"
(Trump was obviously referring to US congressional Representatives Hunter of CA and Collins of NY)

Is Trump affirming his commitment to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States or not? I'm looking for your long haul stick with it thought...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 16:06
  #15683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,495
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
West Coast:

So here is a long haul, stick with it rational test for you:

Presidential Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Trump tweet:
"Obama era investigations, of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......"
(Trump was obviously referring to US congressional Representatives Hunter of CA and Collins of NY)

Is Trump affirming his commitment to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States or not? I'm looking for your long haul stick with it thought...
That’s a fail on your part TD, you wish to nail the president against the wall using the very document that allows you, me and Trump the right to express an opinion even if unpopular.

His commitment to the constitution is rooted in law, not on his expression of opinion that political gaming is occurring. If you can prove that he has hindered investigations in either case, then I would agree with you. You can’t however.
West Coast is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 16:35
  #15684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
West Coast:

So here is a long haul, stick with it rational test for you:

Presidential Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Trump tweet:
"Obama era investigations, of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......"
(Trump was obviously referring to US congressional Representatives Hunter of CA and Collins of NY)

Is affirming his commitment to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States or not? I'm looking for your long haul stick with it thought...
Hi. Without question, though he may not be aware, he is following his oath, explicitly.

In the Federal Government Process, Everything is political. Without exception. The Department of Justice made a political move. With a strong AG, these “exposures” of two political people just before (re-) election, would not have occurred. End of.
Likely guilty, these bozos are after all American citizens, and are presumed “innocent” until convicted by a Jury. Instead the functional head of the DOJ (Rosenstein) chose to act. Sessions is a tool, despite his boldness in standing up to Trump.

Not convicted by the electorate, or the DNC, or TurbineD. Got it? Not cute, but the American way.

Just as the Democrats, without a chance to legitimately prevent the confirmation of the new Supreme, are stalling with ridiculous drama, hoping to cause sufficient emotion to prevent Confirmation. Lawful? Of course. Effective? We will see. To the extent the electorate is fed up with the drama in DC, this might backfire. I for one am tired of the constant dramatic efforts of the DNC.trying to undo the last election. Lawful? Certainly.

The only recourse in DC is politics. Politicians are unique in that they are not entitled to a “speedy trial”. Just like the Russians answered Mueller’s grandstanding indictment, to certify disclosure and discovery, there was no reply by Mueller. They called his ridiculous bluff, he folded. If Trump was to establish a Constitutional argument to order Mueller to poop or pass, he would fold his tent. He can’t recommend indictment of the President; he is very vulnerable to a “call” (showdown).

TurbineD, it is ALL political. Essentially an immune class of reprobates gaming the people.

just sayin

Concours77 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 17:27
  #15685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by Concours77 View Post


Hi. Without question, though he may not be aware, he is following his oath, explicitly.

In the Federal Government Process, Everything is political. Without exception. The Department of Justice made a political move. With a strong AG, these “exposures” of two political people just before (re-) election, would not have occurred. End of.
Likely guilty, these bozos are after all American citizens, and are presumed “innocent” until convicted by a Jury. Instead the functional head of the DOJ (Rosenstein) chose to act. Sessions is a tool, despite his boldness in standing up to Trump.

Not convicted by the electorate, or the DNC, or TurbineD. Got it? Not cute, but the American way.

Just as the Democrats, without a chance to legitimately prevent the confirmation of the new Supreme, are stalling with ridiculous drama, hoping to cause sufficient emotion to prevent Confirmation. Lawful? Of course. Effective? We will see. To the extent the electorate is fed up with the drama in DC, this might backfire. I for one am tired of the constant dramatic efforts of the DNC.trying to undo the last election. Lawful? Certainly.

The only recourse in DC is politics. Politicians are unique in that they are not entitled to a “speedy trial”. Just like the Russians answered Mueller’s grandstanding indictment, to certify disclosure and discovery, there was no reply by Mueller. They called his ridiculous bluff, he folded. If Trump was to establish a Constitutional argument to order Mueller to poop or pass, he would fold his tent. He can’t recommend indictment of the President; he is very vulnerable to a “call” (showdown).

TurbineD, it is ALL political. Essentially an immune class of reprobates gaming the people.

just sayin
That must be why you complained so hard when the FBI announced investigations into Hilary's mail servers during the election campaign, I suppose. Oh hang on, you didn't, because of course these claimed excuses only apply when it's one of dirty donald's own who suffers.

Integrity levels dropping to zero, moral compass switched to standby as usual...

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 17:53
  #15686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
That must be why you complained so hard when the FBI announced investigations into Hilary's mail servers during the election campaign, I suppose. Oh hang on, you didn't, because of course these claimed excuses only apply when it's one of dirty donald's own who suffers.

Integrity levels dropping to zero, moral compass switched to standby as usual...PDR
Ouch. Thought that reads fairly in the middle. Or, maybe you don’t want to see some of it.

Hillary Clinton should be indicted. There are reams of evidence. “Destruction of public records”, which does not require malicious intent, which there was. Destroying one public record is a felony. She erased thousands of emails which were under subpoena. Public records. As a former investigator working for a Grand Jury, I can tell you defrauding the public record is an extremely serious crime. Clinton ranged further afield, let’s address this one first.

The investigation into her “problems” was necessitated by the inescapable, that there was proof in the public domain that she acted illegally. You will of course notice that she was not indicted.

I am waiting for anything that rises to the threshold of impeachment for Trump. A vigorous indictment would be interesting. So far, nothing.

Not wanting to aggravate you further, or dilute the stark political reality of the double standard system of justice, I’ll leave it there.

Care to comment?

Concours77 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 18:24
  #15687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
Concours77,

I was trying to elicit a conversation with West Coast specifically his statement regarding long haul & stick with it jargon, but as usual, he is more interested in personally dissing anyone the writes something opposite of what his beliefs are, so much for his long haul & stick with it, I get it.

Relative to whether or not Trump is following the Presidential Oath of Office, I don't think it is explicit, but rather debatable. In a New York Times interview, President Trump claimed an “absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department.” Article II of the Constitution places the President at the head of the Executive Branch, but it does not cloak the President with unlimited authority to intervene in how the law is enforced against specific parties. Article II, Section 3 states, among other things, that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Nothing in that Clause gives the President an “absolute right” to control specific enforcement matters at DOJ. Nor does it define limits of time before elections when indictments are handed down. Rather, the Take Care Clause places concrete limitations on how the President may enforce the law. The President must act faithfully, in keeping with his Oath of Office to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability. He may not act for corrupt or self-interested reasons. And he must enforce the laws Congress has enacted, not subvert those laws. While he may shape generally applicable enforcement priorities, he may not prevent the enforcement of the laws that Congress has enacted against himself or his allies/friends. The Bill of Rights contains additional constitutional principles that constrain the President’s interactions with the Justice Department. Even when the Constitution empowers a branch of government to act, it may not do so in violation of the Bill of Rights.

To your point, politics does play a role in all aspects of the federal government these days, but there are good reasons why a President shouldn't be using a public platform to setup the dismissal of the US Attorney General. Since the founding of this country, the Office of the Presidency has expanded far greater in power that that of the Congress and Trump is attempting to push expansion even further.

Last edited by Turbine D; 4th Sep 2018 at 18:25. Reason: wording correction
Turbine D is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 20:08
  #15688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by PDR1 View Post
So in a rational country a president who interferes with judicial processes would be seen as a despot, and would be suspended to face charges of perverting the course of justice, but apparently not in the despotic banana republic America seems to aspire to become. In fact if a despot did this anywhere else we would see America invading to topple the despot and bring about regime change.

Will we see America invading itself to topple this lying, crooked piece if excrement, I wonder. Then maybe someone can actually make America great again...

PDR
Well, let's see it. The FBI, NSA, CIA, DOJ, AG all are executive offices. From the justice.gov:

ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT

The Office of the Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93), as a one-person part-time position. The Act specified that the Attorney General was to be "learned in the law," with the duty "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments."

However, the workload quickly became too much for one person, necessitating the hiring of several assistants for the Attorney General. As the work steadily increased along with the size of the new nation, private attorneys were retained to work on cases.

By 1870, after the end of the Civil War, the increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States had required the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload. A concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice (ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162), creating "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head.

If you have something that shows Trump is poking his nose into the judicial branch, we would all like to hear it.

This is what Jefferson has to say on the matter, and woe be it for anyone to refute this: Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” This sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the U.S. Department of Justice.

If you think that the DOJ/AG has been equal and impartial in it's duties, I think we have nothing left to discuss, as you are clearly blind to the machinations of those on the left. This is not to say that wrongdoing is only one sided, but that the blindness of investigation(or once investigated to ignore clear evidence) is clearly biased against Republicans.

BTW, what have we heard anywhere, about the current state of investigation of Senator Ellison? Black, muslim, powerful, and an abuser. But - where's the story? Had it been a white, christian, Republican, it would be on the news 24/7/365. Of course, the media is not the DOJ, but what's the justice dept doing about the alleged sexual abuse complaint? crickets...
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 21:41
  #15689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by ethicalconundrum View Post
Well, let's see it. The FBI, NSA, CIA, DOJ, AG all are executive offices. From the justice.gov:

ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT

The Office of the Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93), as a one-person part-time position. The Act specified that the Attorney General was to be "learned in the law," with the duty "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments."

However, the workload quickly became too much for one person, necessitating the hiring of several assistants for the Attorney General. As the work steadily increased along with the size of the new nation, private attorneys were retained to work on cases.

By 1870, after the end of the Civil War, the increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States had required the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload. A concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice (ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162), creating "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head.

If you have something that shows Trump is poking his nose into the judicial branch, we would all like to hear it.

This is what Jefferson has to say on the matter, and woe be it for anyone to refute this: Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” This sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the U.S. Department of Justice.

If you think that the DOJ/AG has been equal and impartial in it's duties, I think we have nothing left to discuss, as you are clearly blind to the machinations of those on the left. This is not to say that wrongdoing is only one sided, but that the blindness of investigation(or once investigated to ignore clear evidence) is clearly biased against Republicans.

BTW, what have we heard anywhere, about the current state of investigation of Senator Ellison? Black, muslim, powerful, and an abuser. But - where's the story? Had it been a white, christian, Republican, it would be on the news 24/7/365. Of course, the media is not the DOJ, but what's the justice dept doing about the alleged sexual abuse complaint? crickets...
Lord, don’t make Ellison a Senator. I think he is a US Representative. He has eyes on the speakership should the D recapture the House. I posted on Facebook that Ellison should resign, I got a public scold, and a suspension. But Facebook does not censor the conservatism of its clientele. Certainly not.


Concours77 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 21:46
  #15690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
I was just doing a download of liberal, Trump-hating bias from the New Yorker, when I came across this in an article about hyperpolyglots:

"Literate people use one region of their cortex in recognizing letters [ .... ] Illiterate people don't have that region, although it develops if they learn to read." (The New Yorker, 3 September 2018, p. 55, from an article titled "Maltese for Beginners."

Here we have been unloading on Trump for his moronic, sub-literate tweets, when this might be down to his famous distaste for reading. (He reads very, very little, needing his essential briefing material reduced to just one page, even for very complex subjects, while reading for pleasure does not seem to come into it at all. We read about his staff being reduced to pathetic stratagems such as making sure that "Donald Trump" appears on the page in order to hold his attention, just a little bit. Trump's relationship with the written word is very like his relationships with women, it seems: somewhat distant and troubled.)

Trump has probably shrunk his brain over the years by not bothering to become fully literate! (Look at George W. Bush, with his BA from Yale and his MBA from Harvard for another example of someone with good academic credentials who's also famous for mangling his English, albeit not to the degree that much less well-educated Trump does. High school drop-outs, take heart.) If he were not President then this would merely be a problem for Trump himself and for anyone holding stock in one of his surviving companies. As it is, though, if his cerebral cortex is the real source of his losing battles with the English language then that is a problem for all of us. A lot of what we've been taking for his basically low, debased nature might really be down to poor old Donald Trump struggling to compensate for lacking something in the cortex he has allowed to wither.

Another famous figure from history with a name beginning with "H" comes to mind. No, not Hitler but Henry VIII. His extreme wealth and power allowed him to follow a lifestyle, gorging on meat, that may largely have made him into the monster he became, so that there probably was a biological basis for what we mostly take for his vile and choleric nature. (Thinks to self: Dissing Trump and the USMC was all very well, but now fans of the Tudors are going to land on me like a ton of bricks for being down on Henry VIII!)
chuks is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 21:50
  #15691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
TD

”....To your point, politics does play a role in all aspects of the federal government these days, but there are good reasons why a President shouldn't be using a public platform to setup the dismissal of the US Attorney General. Since the founding of this country, the Office of the Presidency has expanded far greater in power that that of the Congress and Trump is attempting to push expansion even further....”

Trump has the power to dismiss AG Sessions for any reason, at any time. It can’t be argued, so,

”Should” has no meaning in law. The President “should...” “ is opinion.

I would rather see in public all the agony of interpersonal power adjustment in the Federal Government. What I cannot abide is a President who scolds and upbraids private parties. to Wit:

”The Police acted stupidly....” Barack Obama. Keep your National pique to yourself sir. Let’s see a little more of that vaunted “most transparent Administration in history...”
Concours77 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 22:27
  #15692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,495
Oh TD, come off your high horse. You used an absolutely horrible argument that tried to tie Trump's tweets (free speech ya know) as evidence of criminal intent. Trump is entitled by the very same document to blast the AG to his hearts content. You were successful in engaging me, dont be mad because I point out that fallacy of your argument. I'm the one who should be disappointed as I had hoped you would offer evidence to your claim. All I have instead is you equating free speech as violating the constitution. Bring the evidence on, specifics please. It would be the rational thing to do if you're accusing him of violating the Constitution. I'll wait.
West Coast is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 23:42
  #15693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Concours77 View Post


Lord, don’t make Ellison a Senator. I think he is a US Representative. He has eyes on the speakership should the D recapture the House. I posted on Facebook that Ellison should resign, I got a public scold, and a suspension. But Facebook does not censor the conservatism of its clientele. Certainly not.
Sorry, I got my houses of congress mixed up. The point remains.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 00:19
  #15694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
DOJ

I appreciated your post and information. I should have said that prior to my correction.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 07:05
  #15695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Free speech?

West Coast, part of the problem with Trump is the way that he violates established protocols. One that is very important is that the President should not interfere with the work of his own Attorney General. Another is that the workings of the DoJ (Department of Justice) should not be put to political purpose. Trump violated both when he scolded Sessions for not waiting to indict these two Republicans. As well he lied, yet again, when he claimed that these two fell victim to an investigation from the Obama period. (The investigation started while Trump had come to power.)

I was not happy to see Obama making that statement that if he'd had a son then the son would have looked just like Trayvon Martin. (Trayvon got himself removed from the general population by beating on a guy with a pistol in his pocket, taking the room temperature challenge followed by a dirt nap.) I assumed then that Obama would not have raised his imaginary son to be some sort of street thug, as young Trayvon certainly was. Then Obama's AG, Eric Holder, went after Trayvon's killer after he'd beat the rap in a Florida court. That made me think that a black-on-white shooting of a similar nature, plugging someone who was beating you like a gong, would not have made Obama react as he did. In other words, Obama was using the DoJ for political purposes, when almost nobody called him out for that. That was a one-off, though.

Trump got into the Manafort trial by telling all of us, including, I assume, the jury, that Manafort was a fine man and that it was a shame, what was being done to him by putting him on trial. Bad timing, or a crude attempt to affect the verdict, plus some sort of encouragement to Manafort to sit tight and hope for a pardon?

Now Trump has got into the coming trials of these two Republicans, when it's clear that ("Lock her up!") he has absolutely no problem with using the justice system in more extreme, unjustified ways against various Democrats. Do you really see nothing wrong with that, West Coast?

The President is not supposed to engage in loose speech, even if there's no law against that. In another matter Trump has repeatedly branded the press the enemy of the people, mainly because he sees them as the enemy of Donald Trump for reporting accurately on his many misdeeds, his shameless lies and his blunders. Where is his respect for freedom of speech then, and where is yours, all you Trump fan-boys? No, you are happy to divide your time between howling at the moon and running around in circles chasing imaginary points of constitutional law.
chuks is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 08:19
  #15696 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,884
I'm starting to feel sorry for Trump.

He was pushed into candidacy by all sorts of people who thought that they could manipulate him and the media to get what they wanted. I'm sure Trump had no idea of the gravitas or responsibility of the Presidency, thinking that it was just another CEOs job ("I never knew HealthCare could be so hard!") and no knowledge of politics, the intricacies of Government or experienced political allies. But it appealed to his massive ego and he thought he could finesse it using the same tactics that he used in business.

Well, it didn't work out well for him - those who pushed him in mostly got what they wanted (corporation tax cuts and deregulation), but he's no politician, temperamentally completely unsuited for the Presidency, and made a hash of it. Now everyone is crapping on him while the real Swamp quietly rakes in the cash and both far Left and far Right combine to take away more of the mechanisms that allow American citizens to pursue their own lives in relative freedom.

A nasty business

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 11:35
  #15697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
That is probably so, but ....

Nobody is forcing Trump to behave as badly as he does. He's an adult, responsible for his actions and his speech, so that it must be up to him to tone all of this down, to pay attention to what his advisors are trying to tell him, and to do as he promised to, "Act Presidential."

It would be nice if Trump kept some of those other promises too. I would really like to see his tax returns, the ones he promised to release just as Hillary had done, just as every other recent President had done. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has told us several times that nobody wants to see his tax returns, but she forgot to ask me; I can hardly wait for that!

Then there is Trump suing those nine women he promised to sue. That would be a very entertaining thing to see, Trump in court, even if not there personally due to some pressing affairs of state out on the golf course. The "discovery" phase of those suits would be downright fascinating for what they would bring to light about Trump's crude, criminal even, behavior towards women.)
chuks is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 12:07
  #15698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife View Post
I'm starting to feel sorry for Trump.

He was pushed into candidacy by all sorts of people who thought that they could manipulate him and the media to get what they wanted. I'm sure Trump had no idea of the gravitas or responsibility of the Presidency, thinking that it was just another CEOs job ("I never knew HealthCare could be so hard!") and no knowledge of politics, the intricacies of Government or experienced political allies. But it appealed to his massive ego and he thought he could finesse it using the same tactics that he used in business.

Well, it didn't work out well for him - those who pushed him in mostly got what they wanted (corporation tax cuts and deregulation), but he's no politician, temperamentally completely unsuited for the Presidency, and made a hash of it. Now everyone is crapping on him while the real Swamp quietly rakes in the cash and both far Left and far Right combine to take away more of the mechanisms that allow American citizens to pursue their own lives in relative freedom.

A nasty business

Mac
That is precisely the way American Presidential politics works, it was ever so. Nothing new. Any standard bearer’s success is roundly condemned by the unsuccessful cabal. The prize is power, the conduit of money. Obama was subject to the self same condemnations and ridicule, couched in “opposition” disappointment.

“...I'm sure Trump had no idea of the gravitas or responsibility of the Presidency, thinking that it was just another CEOs job ("I never knew HealthCare could be so hard!")...”

Mac, you make a good point, but likely inadvertently, for you appear to want to make Trump look bad, which is fine. Bill Clinton had a medical policy paid by taxpayers all his life, he knew absolutely nothing about medical insurance. Hillary, same, but she was tasked with establishing a single payer system for the entire Nation,

Obama was paid by political interests all his working life (are you familiar with a “community organizer”?), he had no knowledge of healthcare; “ObamaCare” was called that because he was prevailed upon by Pelosi to give it his name, as a marketing tool.

Trump has had to pay his employees perhaps tens of millions of his money to keep them happy. He likely knows a bit about healthcare, though certainly, by his own admission, nothing of publicly provided benefit.

We won’t get anywhere dug in to our respective foxholes. Partisanship is a form of malignant hypnosis; as a citizen, I expect to be above the kind of ignorance partisanship enables. I owe that to my constituents as an elected, and responsible citizenship requires critical thinking.

Trump is Trump. After the campaign, my task was to understand, not attack according to scripts created by party architects.

We know something of his personality, to me most off putting. He has the reins of power, my hope is that he listens to better minds to help him steer, America is the strong horse, power is not to be absolute.

There are people in government whose names you know from media attention who have the power to kill, with complete impunity, in the interest of “National Security”.

Politics is not the buffoonery it is meant to seem. It is the real deal. Mindless carping is safe, it fulfills the wish of all power brokers. It takes balls to challenge the entrenched “government staff...”

con

Last edited by Concours77; 5th Sep 2018 at 17:52.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 17:40
  #15699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,495
Originally Posted by chuks View Post
West Coast, part of the problem with Trump is the way that he violates established protocols. One that is very important is that the President should not interfere with the work of his own Attorney General. Another is that the workings of the DoJ (Department of Justice) should not be put to political purpose. Trump violated both when he scolded Sessions for not waiting to indict these two Republicans. As well he lied, yet again, when he claimed that these two fell victim to an investigation from the Obama period. (The investigation started while Trump had come to power.)

I was not happy to see Obama making that statement that if he'd had a son then the son would have looked just like Trayvon Martin. (Trayvon got himself removed from the general population by beating on a guy with a pistol in his pocket, taking the room temperature challenge followed by a dirt nap.) I assumed then that Obama would not have raised his imaginary son to be some sort of street thug, as young Trayvon certainly was. Then Obama's AG, Eric Holder, went after Trayvon's killer after he'd beat the rap in a Florida court. That made me think that a black-on-white shooting of a similar nature, plugging someone who was beating you like a gong, would not have made Obama react as he did. In other words, Obama was using the DoJ for political purposes, when almost nobody called him out for that. That was a one-off, though.

Trump got into the Manafort trial by telling all of us, including, I assume, the jury, that Manafort was a fine man and that it was a shame, what was being done to him by putting him on trial. Bad timing, or a crude attempt to affect the verdict, plus some sort of encouragement to Manafort to sit tight and hope for a pardon?

Now Trump has got into the coming trials of these two Republicans, when it's clear that ("Lock her up!") he has absolutely no problem with using the justice system in more extreme, unjustified ways against various Democrats. Do you really see nothing wrong with that, West Coast?

The President is not supposed to engage in loose speech, even if there's no law against that. In another matter Trump has repeatedly branded the press the enemy of the people, mainly because he sees them as the enemy of Donald Trump for reporting accurately on his many misdeeds, his shameless lies and his blunders. Where is his respect for freedom of speech then, and where is yours, all you Trump fan-boys? No, you are happy to divide your time between howling at the moon and running around in circles chasing imaginary points of constitutional law.
The AG is proceeding with the indictments despite Trump questioning the politics of it. Tell me again where Trump has influenced the investigations by his use of free speech?
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 18:19
  #15700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
The single most important tool of the Presidency is the “bully pulpit”. It has no instructions, yet it is the most powerful weapon in a very extensive Presidential quiver.
those here who scold the President re his office make me chukle.

Those who think the President must adhere to a protocol (their own) demonstrate their ignorance of the position.

“Ignoring the Department of Justice, (DOJ)...“ Like Holder did, when running guns into Mexico? Into Libya? (Which got the Ambassador killed, btw).

Last edited by Concours77; 5th Sep 2018 at 18:39.
Concours77 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.