- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
First of all you are way wrong on the 32 guilty pleas.SO…you think misdirection is in order with the above. :roll:
How do you explain guilty pleas from 32 people and three companies so far?:2wave:
First of all you are way wrong on the 32 guilty pleas.
How many on collusion again? None you say? How many for anything at all associated with their dealing with Trump? Zero.
But you deflect. Doesn't matter, however. Trump will get around to having criminal investigations for the criminal activities already exhibited by above referenced.
Not to worry... but I am sure "we" will all be shocked when it happens. Yano?
How many on collusion again? None you say? How many for anything at all associated with their dealing with Trump? Zero.
Your thumbs up guy is already blue in the face...Waiting for the PERP walk outta the oval office.:thumbs:
LOL, talk about ME splitting hairs. :roll:You are really splitting hairs.... the goal of an investigation is understanding. If you do not have understanding, then you have an inconclusive investigation.
https://what-buddha-said.net/drops/III/Investigation_Vicaya.htm
https://www.nap.edu/read/11625/chapter/8
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-russia-investigations-explained/
I think he's certainly on his way, and his move with Whitaker brings him much closer to that goal than I think most people appreciate.
As to whether he will accomplish that end remains to be seen. We still have yet to see if our Democratic institutions end up overcoming him or are ultimately overcome. As I see it, we still have four steps to contend with before he's a dictator in no uncertain terms:
1. How Trump is able to deal with Mueller. If he's able to subject the Judicial branch and the DOJ to his will, he will formally put himself above the law.
2. How Trump is able to deal with Congressional oversight. Dictators in former democracies are always able to delegitimize the principle of equal branches to the point that the legislature is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Executive, and oversight doesn't exist.
3. Whether the electoral system can be relied upon to be a voice of the people. This is a real problem, since the Electoral College is now in a position to guarantee minority rule, and gerrymandering and voter suppression laws have skewed elections in a large number of Republican states. All of this means that a majority vote is no longer a dominating factor in determining outcomes.
4. And of course, the last and final factor: the Executive stays on past his term limits. Now of course every party tends to act hysterically about this. Democrats were terrified that GWB might do it, Republicans were terrified that Obama would do it, and Democrats have taken up their old role and are shaking at the notion of Trump doing it. That said, none of the past Presidents have so thoroughly and quickly deconstructed Democratic norms and institutions as Trump has, and no past President has so thoroughly embraced authoritarians while condemning Democratic allies.
What an utterly moronic statement, but not surprising coming from you. Can you point out where in Mueller's mandate does even the name Clinton appear?I want to know how Mueller can run such a big operation and tiptoe around Clinton crimes as if they never existed.
Same paragraph that mentions Manafort's tax evasion. :lamoWhat an utterly moronic statement, but not surprising coming from you. Can you point out where in Mueller's mandate does even the name Clinton appear?
I bet you thought that you were making a clever replay, you only managed to demonstrate stupidity and partisan hackery.Same paragraph that mentions Manafort's tax evasion.
Oh, ouch, you really got me that time.I bet you thought that you were making a clever replay, you only managed to demonstrate stupidity and partisan hackery.
No, you got yourself, then again it is of no surprise that you fail to recognize that too.Oh, ouch, you really got me that time.
I've seen this several times. Another example of creative counting. Note that it completely dismisses the 40 criminal convictions under the Whitewater investigation, including a half dozen pardons issued by Clinton for individuals investigated or convicted in the investigation.
Your thumbs up guy is already blue in the face...
Not a viable come back, and...I wouldn't make him hold his breath for too much longer. :lamo:lamo:lamo
How many on collusion again? None you say? How many for anything at all associated with their dealing with Trump?
I think he's certainly on his way, and his move with Whitaker brings him much closer to that goal than I think most people appreciate.
As to whether he will accomplish that end remains to be seen. We still have yet to see if our Democratic institutions end up overcoming him or are ultimately overcome. As I see it, we still have four steps to contend with before he's a dictator in no uncertain terms:
1. How Trump is able to deal with Mueller. If he's able to subject the Judicial branch and the DOJ to his will, he will formally put himself above the law.
2. How Trump is able to deal with Congressional oversight. Dictators in former democracies are always able to delegitimize the principle of equal branches to the point that the legislature is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Executive, and oversight doesn't exist.
3. Whether the electoral system can be relied upon to be a voice of the people. This is a real problem, since the Electoral College is now in a position to guarantee minority rule, and gerrymandering and voter suppression laws have skewed elections in a large number of Republican states. All of this means that a majority vote is no longer a dominating factor in determining outcomes.
4. And of course, the last and final factor: the Executive stays on past his term limits. Now of course every party tends to act hysterically about this. Democrats were terrified that GWB might do it, Republicans were terrified that Obama would do it, and Democrats have taken up their old role and are shaking at the notion of Trump doing it. That said, none of the past Presidents have so thoroughly and quickly deconstructed Democratic norms and institutions as Trump has, and no past President has so thoroughly embraced authoritarians while condemning Democratic allies.
But what you're not taking into account is the survival instinct of the GOP. It's slow, they are reluctantly distancing themselves, but it's happening. They really loved the idea of TRump lowering the bar. They felt like the hate and anti brown people sentiment, could finally be an open part of the platform and it excited them, many jumped on the bandwagon. The mid-terms threw a bit of blue wave on them and they are starting to see how he's political poison. Give it a year of Democratic house, the GOP will turn on him. He's a one trick pony, and now, without radically changing that idiot style that made them love him, he can't grow any support, has his 30% base with no upside. Yeah, the GOP is slow in waking, but they won't back him much longer.
The ****ty part is they will turn on him, not because of distaste for him and his boorishness or ideas, they will turn on him, only because it will cost them votes, has nothing to do with any ethical or personal considerations, they're fine with his behavior largely. They're gonna be bummed when they have to be more discrete with their racism and disdain for non whites.
I am taking the GOP's survival instinct into account. The GOP didn't turn on Nixon until years after Watergate and the recorded tapes. That's what it took. Before this, they were more than willing to pretend for the Party. When Nixon got the word that the GOP was not going to save him, he resigned. They will do the same for Trump today.
But Trump is merely a symptom. He came to represent what right-wing media and conservative interest groups had been creating for a couple decades. This was understood among political scientists and historians long before 2016 shocked even the GOP. Going back to well before the "birther" crap and the official creation of the "Party of No" in 2008, Gingrich pushed and led the GOP down this path throughout Clinton's years. The result of practicing extreme politics throughout Obama's years saw conservatives increasingly embrace a culture of irrationality as an ideology.
This is why when a military-dodging, adulterer, silver-spooned elitist (who helped create the swamp) came along and pushed tp represent every single bitter and hate-filled theme that conservatives had been bombarded with for years, they easily abandoned what used to define them in order to offer blind loyalty along side supremacists and Nazi-wannabes. Many, after witnessing failed ideologies without answers, wiped their slates clean. NeoCon theories not work out? Trickle-Down, with the associated creation of the 1%, a bust? Global Warming not a hoax?
They essentially created a cult where a demagogue instructed them to abandon all sense of morality and standards and they gave him 14 million votes in the Republican Primaries for it. And when the GOP practically begged conservatives not to vote for this disaster of a human being, they were dubbed as "rinos." And now, the GOP is stuck with the reality that if they do not tow a hardened irrational line along side Trump, they will be out of a job as another extremist takes his place. They created a mob, based on Groupthink, that exists on hatred, revisionism, and ignorance in order to feel like "winners."
The GOP won't do anything drastic to upset the mob unless the sin is so great that even his base shakes.
Sorry liberals, but yes Republicans do require clear cut evidence of a crime, we know that gets in liberals way but it’s how this stuff works.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hate to be that pessimitstic but you may be right. I hear some say when Trump's gone this will be over, that I don't believe. We'll be dealing with Trump'
s irrational base for years, and it won't be good.
Answering an accusation of an impossibility would have been silly. Who could have any idea you were pushing something that idiotic?Where did I say something about collusion? I am on the obstruction of justice side of the fence. Do you consider ASKING AND ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION proper debate form? :2wave:
AGH! I meant..."The GOP didn't turn on Nixon until years later, after Watergate and the recorded tapes.
I do believe that as long as Trump exists, conservatives will continue to offer allegiance at all costs. Far too many have attached their souls to his existence as POTUS. Have you noticed that the longer he stays in Office the nastier many of them are getting? It's because they now that he deserved so much of the criticism that he gets, which reflects on what they have been personally supporting. Thus, a criticism towards Trump may as well be a personal criticism on them. This is why they are routinely trying to re-write long-gone history and even recent history in order to validate their loyalty.
It will get better after Trump is tossed in 2020, because conservatives will feel that they no longer "owe" allegiance to this theme. Of course, then they wil re-write history again and pretend that they never "really" liked Trump.
Answering an accusation of an impossibility would have been silly. Who could have any idea you were pushing something that idiotic?
I want to know how Mueller can run such a big operation and tiptoe around Clinton crimes as if they never existed.
That you cannot EVEN find a valid point to argue presupposes you dont have one. The fact that you quickly devolve to ad hom shows you also are wholly unable to debate as well.Your TRump felation skills make all your post a ridiculous and preposterous irrelevancy anyway.:lamo
We know YOU don't see that, but most of us do, very clearly in fact....:2rofll::cheers:
That you cannot EVEN find a valid point to argue presupposes you dont have one. The fact that you quickly devolve to ad hom shows you also are wholly unable to debate as well.
:2wave:
We at least agree on the one main point then, you never established a valid point.What's to debate? You're convinced Trump is competent, and all you do is felate him, enjoy I guess....
The rest of us see the reality here, any "success" of the dumpsterfire of an administration has been in spite of your orange buffoon not because of him, he's nothing more than a failed businessman, born on third base thinking he'd scored a fiel goal, propped up by daddy's money or bailed out by Russians or whoever, nothing but a smily glad hands and you've completely fallen for it. No, there's no debating that, it's a special kind of stupid. You basically worship a flim flam man and aren't even aware of it, why would I wanna debate that? I just come here to scoff at your wealth of ignorance, it's mildly entertaining at a slow moment in my day.:mrgreen:
What is really hilarious is how you guys see him as a tough guy and IRL, he doesn't even have the balls to fire people, has Kelly do it, and you guys revere him, your worship of him is a joke that would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous, it why we come here to gawk in disbelief at his "base".
Yeah that was just weird with Bush, I mean they LOVED that guy till that last year or two, then all of a sudden things fell away andf then it was as if no conservative ever liked Bush, they absolutely deserted the guy support wise, **** talked him for the stimulus and everything else. Six yeaars of Bush Cheney love fest, two years of cool down, then it was as if nobody had ever supported the guy, it was sort of surreal. I expect you're right, all these guys will pretend they never supported the guy or at best tolerated them. Conservatives are better at sticking together through minor differences, and they're also better at eatin their own when they've outlived their usefulness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?