• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it time to be very afraid?

A worst-case-scenario president: Why we need constitutional literacy in America | TheHill

"...think about the hypothetical worst-case-scenario president — whomever that may be. Imagine that person having unchecked power to declare wars, to send troops into battle, to declare national emergencies. Imagine a president who decides which laws are “real” ones and which are optional, arbitrarily sets tariffs and trade policy, says anything to the American public regardless of truth. Imagine someone who picks and chooses the political viability of members of Congress based on abject loyalty. If you are comfortable with that scenario, then at least one of us can sleep at night."

Republicans these days want a president with - to say the least - extraordinary powers. A man above the law, beyond investigation, who can do or say as he pleases with no consequences; who can ignore checks and balances and instruct his subordinates to defy congressional oversight. This is not what the constitution had in mind.
 
1. I suggest you stay away from multimedia echo chamber talking potato heads. They rarely give you reasoned, factual information because they always have their own spin to feed you.

2. Regarding Trump's orders on declassification, you have a totally wrong idea what is going on. This has nothing to do with "policing" or "disloyalty". It has everything to do with the actions of the Obama administration and letting you, me and the rest of the public know about those actions. If you want a very good analysis and explanation of the declassification process that Trump has started, I suggest this: BOOM! – Process Started – President Trump Issues Authorization Memorandum for Declassification…. | The Last Refuge

3. Here is a good analysis of the Assange indictment: What Does the Julian Assange Indictment Mean? | Law & Crime

It's not Trump's call. It's up to Barr.

Now...it very well might come to Barr assigning a special prosecutor to deal with the corrupt Obama admin pukes.


Making America Russia Instead.
 
Making America Russia Instead.

Sorry, but the stuff Barr is looking at has nothing to do with Russia. It's all Obama.
 
Sorry, but the stuff Barr is looking at has nothing to do with Russia. It's all Obama.

Barr is an old Soviet Politburo kind of guy in USA. This takes us back to the time Putin was strictly KGB in contrast to the present in which Putin is the president who assassinates you. Which brings us to Trump and the Rowers of which you are one. I'm afraid the logic is impeccable which means you can't hide it no matter how much the Right tries to deflect and deny. Obama is the Right's crutch same as Hillary has been the crutch of Republicans / Conservatives who are Making America Russia Instead. Busily and fiercely so.
 
A worst-case-scenario president: Why we need constitutional literacy in America | TheHill

"...think about the hypothetical worst-case-scenario president — whomever that may be. Imagine that person having unchecked power to declare wars, to send troops into battle, to declare national emergencies. Imagine a president who decides which laws are “real” ones and which are optional, arbitrarily sets tariffs and trade policy, says anything to the American public regardless of truth. Imagine someone who picks and chooses the political viability of members of Congress based on abject loyalty. If you are comfortable with that scenario, then at least one of us can sleep at night."

Republicans these days want a president with - to say the least - extraordinary powers. A man above the law, beyond investigation, who can do or say as he pleases with no consequences; who can ignore checks and balances and instruct his subordinates to defy congressional oversight. This is not what the constitution had in mind.

The duties of the President are defined in Articel II of the Constitution, if the POTUS has "extra powers" not defined then it was Congress that gave him those powers, Congress gives the power Congress can take away those powers. No person should be above the law and no person includes everyone.
 
Barr is an old Soviet Politburo kind of guy in USA. This takes us back to the time Putin was strictly KGB in contrast to the present in which Putin is the president who assassinates you. Which brings us to Trump and the Rowers of which you are one. I'm afraid the logic is impeccable which means you can't hide it no matter how much the Right tries to deflect and deny. Obama is the Right's crutch same as Hillary has been the crutch of Republicans / Conservatives who are Making America Russia Instead. Busily and fiercely so.

Nonsensical hyperbole with no basis in fact.

Dismissed.
 
Nonsensical hyperbole with no basis in fact.

Dismissed.

Your exiting with a new limp is noticeable. Very.

I'd think Trump needs all the healthy Rowers he can get these dayze.

Because Trump took the oath of office then he wiped his ass with it on a same day turnaround. The Fanboys have been daily handing Trump copies of the Constitution on a tissue roll since.
 
Your exiting with a new limp is noticeable. Very.

I'd think Trump needs all the healthy Rowers he can get these dayze.

Because Trump took the oath of office then he wiped his ass with it on a same day turnaround. The Fanboys have been daily handing Trump copies of the Constitution on a tissue roll since.

Actually he called it out for what it was. Hyperbole and nothing more.

Unless you actually have the information to prove Mycroft wrong?
 
Actually he called it out for what it was. Hyperbole and nothing more.

Unless you actually have the information to prove Mycroft wrong?

Mycroft chose himself and voluntarily to limp away in his new self inflicted condition.

If you have a post containing an argument you'd be welcome to make one. I'd welcome it from you too of course as with virtually any poster.
 
Mycroft chose himself and voluntarily to limp away in his new self inflicted condition.

If you have a post containing an argument you'd be welcome to make one. I'd welcome it from you too of course as with virtually any poster.

So you're just going to opt out and run from my original question?
 
Violent discourse.

So you say. It would be interesting if you could prove that. I'm thinking that cops were in schools before Columbine.
 
Fake News is not reporting the front end crimes of the Democrats. Therefore, the Democrat base only has limited information. They are reasoning and drawing reasonable conclusions, but based on selected and limited information. One's reasoning can be sound, but if the data is not complete, one can draw the wrong conclusion.

The investigation by Barr will add some key data, to the collective knowledge, so the proper conclusions can be reached. This extra data is being resisted and spun by the Democrats, since they know this extra data will change public inference and deductions.

There is a old eastern parable of a wise old man that can demonstrate this data anomaly. One day a young man walked in the jungle to seek out an old master, from whom he wish to learn. The master looked at the young man, and said he was too young, and will not be able to understand. But the student was persistent, so the old master agreed to let him follow him for a day. He set the condition that he needed to remain quiet and just watch.

As they were walking through the jungle path, they both saw a boy hiding a bag in the ground. They stood and watched until the boy finished burying the bag and then left. At that point, the old master walks down the hill, digs up the bag and put it in his sack. The student, who had been quiet, is beside himself. He suddenly speaks up and says to the old master, "I though you were a special person, but it turns out you are nothing but a thief."

The old master tells him, I know your heart, so let me explain. We were not the only ones who saw the boy bury his possessions. There were two thieves, in the distance, who also saw him. I went down first to get his possessions before they did. I know the boy and his family and I will return it to him later, after I finish my rounds.

The moral of the story is conclusions are often in the context of what we know and what we think we know. Once more data is provided, even contradictory conclusions now become possible. Once Barr presents the background data to show how the collusion delusion began, then the overall conclusions will be different.

The Democrats want to gag the old master and let the young man be angry and disappointed for nothing. This is why you will not see any new data in Fake News, that can alter the current conclusions. This will change with the public release of declassified data, since real journalists will have a hard time resisting the eye opening news. The NY times is already making room for itself.
 
Last edited:
I was struck today by the confluence of these two events:
Trump orders intel agencies to assist Barr with review of Russia probe (CNN) and Trump Justice Department Crosses New Line, Charges Assange With Publishing U.S. Secrets (Daily Beast).
I am aware that there is at least one thread addressing one of these topics, but, seriously, this is the way a police state behaves.

In the first event, the Attorney General is being tasked to police other agencies for "disloyalty". One can call it something else, but that it what is going on. He's looking for "enemies" of the President within the agencies. In the second, he is trying to extend prosecution of espionage to journalists. Thankfully, there are constitutional proscriptions against that, but maybe they think they've adequately co-opted the judiciary to get away with it. The point is, they're trying, which is chilling enough.

Now, in fairness, I detest Assange and I am not a fan of what he has done, but, significantly, they are not pursuing him for his interference with the election, but for the Manning disclosure. There were adequate, and in my view, appropriate charges already pending against him for assisting in breaching government computers - something that any journalist would be susceptible of prosecution for. And, I think, a legitimate case could be made for electoral fraud in the 2016 election regarding the coordination with a foreign adversary (I think Assange himself has been a Russian operative for some time). But, that is not what he is being charged with.

On the other hand, it may be that they deliberately targeted Assange in this was to prevent his extradition. (That seems too clever by half, but it is a theory.)

Who else but the DOJ with cooperation from the CIA, would be more suited to investigate if there was abuse of the investigative powers of the DOJ and the CIA?
 
I was struck today by the confluence of these two events:
Trump orders intel agencies to assist Barr with review of Russia probe (CNN) and Trump Justice Department Crosses New Line, Charges Assange With Publishing U.S. Secrets (Daily Beast).
I am aware that there is at least one thread addressing one of these topics, but, seriously, this is the way a police state behaves.

In the first event, the Attorney General is being tasked to police other agencies for "disloyalty". One can call it something else, but that it what is going on. He's looking for "enemies" of the President within the agencies. In the second, he is trying to extend prosecution of espionage to journalists. Thankfully, there are constitutional proscriptions against that, but maybe they think they've adequately co-opted the judiciary to get away with it. The point is, they're trying, which is chilling enough.

Now, in fairness, I detest Assange and I am not a fan of what he has done, but, significantly, they are not pursuing him for his interference with the election, but for the Manning disclosure. There were adequate, and in my view, appropriate charges already pending against him for assisting in breaching government computers - something that any journalist would be susceptible of prosecution for. And, I think, a legitimate case could be made for electoral fraud in the 2016 election regarding the coordination with a foreign adversary (I think Assange himself has been a Russian operative for some time). But, that is not what he is being charged with.

On the other hand, it may be that they deliberately targeted Assange in this was to prevent his extradition. (That seems too clever by half, but it is a theory.)

You have an amazingly wild imagination. Police state? Barr is supposed to look for wrong doing in the govt. Assange is hardly a journalist, and the fact that he is charging a guy that leaking Hillary's emails should make Democrats happy right??? I wonder what the Lefties wouldn't applaud this. Interesting, we should find out why they wouldn't like this. Brennan, Comey and Clapper all lied, they should be prosecuted.
 
1. I suggest you stay away from multimedia echo chamber talking potato heads. They rarely give you reasoned, factual information because they always have their own spin to feed you.

2. Regarding Trump's orders on declassification, you have a totally wrong idea what is going on. This has nothing to do with "policing" or "disloyalty". It has everything to do with the actions of the Obama administration and letting you, me and the rest of the public know about those actions. If you want a very good analysis and explanation of the declassification process that Trump has started, I suggest this: BOOM! – Process Started – President Trump Issues Authorization Memorandum for Declassification…. | The Last Refuge

3. Here is a good analysis of the Assange indictment: What Does the Julian Assange Indictment Mean? | Law & Crime

The declassification has a more important purpose than making the data publicly available. Documents can be declassified and still not be publicly available. Declassification strips away interdepartmental firewalls that would allow the protection of key evidence from investigators, or at least severely delay it through subpoena fights.

There are really two stages to classification, there is the classification itself which is a broad protection of documents from people who don't hold a requisite classification level, and then there is the need-to-know. Arguably the second is the more important since it limits access even when you hold the appropriate clearance. The data owner must have you on the need-to-know list or you have as much access as the average civilian. My guess is that the declassification process is not going to drop all need-to-know limits, just enough to give investigation access to some sensitive material, while making other less sensitive materials open to the public.
 
Why do Americans keep electing people then do nothing but complain about them. Why? Because Americans don't like people who are smarter than they are, so they elect morons. Anyone who is smart like Ralph Nader doesn't stand a chance.

If you elect idiots, then deal with it.
 
You have an amazingly wild imagination. Police state? Barr is supposed to look for wrong doing in the govt. Assange is hardly a journalist, and the fact that he is charging a guy that leaking Hillary's emails should make Democrats happy right??? I wonder what the Lefties wouldn't applaud this. Interesting, we should find out why they wouldn't like this. Brennan, Comey and Clapper all lied, they should be prosecuted.

Barr is an old style Soviet Politburo type from the time Putin was KGB.

And now we have Trump.

Putin-Trump and Their Rowers. With Barr pounding the beat and the pace. The logic of it is impeccable. The reality of it is terrible. There are limits however to what will be tolerated by 'em. We keep inching closer and closer.
 
Barr is an old style Soviet Politburo type from the time Putin was KGB.

And now we have Trump.

Putin-Trump and Their Rowers. With Barr pounding the beat and the pace. The logic of it is impeccable. The reality of it is terrible. There are limits however to what will be tolerated by 'em. We keep inching closer and closer.

Sounds like leftwing jibberish.
 
America consolidating the Unitary Executive delivered by GWB you mean?

You stumbled across some excellent words there -- unitary executive. It's a euphemism of course for strongman leader. Toward dictator.

Republicans / Conservatives got to love the strongman, er, unitary executive during Reagan's eight years. Reagan's one slipup was when he decided unilaterally to declare "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants in the US. The Right howled and the stunned Reagan backed down right away. The Right cared more about Latino immigrants in USA than they did for Reagan's authority or his charm toward the Right. The Right has been on fire about immigration for decades.

Still and overall the Right also adored Reagan's strongman, er, unitary executive approach to so many things. GWB was from the Family of War. War does strengthen the strongman leader yet I wouldn't call either Bush a Strongman. If Saddam had been half clever or smart he'd have started correspondence with Barbara cause when Barbara said sit they sat.
 
I'm confused, we have an AG who is going to declassify information to give Americans a clearer way to see what actually happened to trigger the Mueller SC, isn't that a good thing?
 
You stumbled across some excellent words there -- unitary executive. It's a euphemism of course for strongman leader. Toward dictator.

Republicans / Conservatives got to love the strongman, er, unitary executive during Reagan's eight years. Reagan's one slipup was when he decided unilaterally to declare "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants in the US. The Right howled and the stunned Reagan backed down right away. The Right cared more about Latino immigrants in USA than they did for Reagan's authority or his charm toward the Right. The Right has been on fire about immigration for decades.

Still and overall the Right also adored Reagan's strongman, er, unitary executive approach to so many things. GWB was from the Family of War. War does strengthen the strongman leader yet I wouldn't call either Bush a Strongman. If Saddam had been half clever or smart he'd have started correspondence with Barbara cause when Barbara said sit they sat.

The 'conventional wisdom' is that the Unitary Executive theme and concept was begun by the neocons during the Bush administration. I tend to agree with that analysis.

I found it amusing that Gunslinger Obama rather enjoyed the mantle and strongly embraced it. :lol:

The Donald seems to like it even more.
 
Back
Top Bottom