Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 3449 of 4573 (864534)
10-12-2019 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3447 by ICANT
10-12-2019 2:43 AM


Re: Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize
But as of right now there is supposed to be over 3 trillion dollars in the SS trust fund. But all that is there is IOU'S from the federal government. In other words they have spent the money and now the government has to pay interest on that money. But that is the problem when you handle other peoples money. If you were a lawyer, accountant or banker and done what they have done you would go to jail.
Part of the job of the trust fund's trustees is to invest that money wisely and safely. What could be more safe than US government bonds? If the government is going to default on those, then Social Security will be the least of our worries.
But then that is Trump's business model, isn't it? I seem to recall that he did say that he'd run the country like a business. His way of running a business is to suck out of it all the cash that he can and then declare bankruptcy. If he's such a bad businessman that he can make a casino fail, then what hope does a country have against him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3447 by ICANT, posted 10-12-2019 2:43 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3450 by JonF, posted 10-12-2019 5:23 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 3454 by ICANT, posted 10-12-2019 6:41 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3455 of 4573 (864545)
10-12-2019 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3454 by ICANT
10-12-2019 6:41 PM


Re: Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize
I am not sure there are bonds that the trustees have.
Ask a Public Affairs Specialist from the Social Security Administration.
My local OLLI (Oster Lifelong Learning Institutes) at Cal-State Fullerton has its Transitions In Retirement (TIR) series of presentations open to the public every Saturday morning. At least once a year that includes presentations on Medicare from HICAP counselor (called SHIP in most states) and on Social Security by a public affairs specialist from the Social Security Administration. That is where the administration of the Social Security trust fund was described to us and which I had just passed on to this forum.
There are OLLI programs at about 300 college and university campuses throughout the USA, so look for the one nearest to you for similar information. Or just contact your local Social Security Administration office.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3454 by ICANT, posted 10-12-2019 6:41 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3475 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2019 11:55 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3459 of 4573 (864561)
10-12-2019 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3451 by ICANT
10-12-2019 5:34 PM


Re: Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Taq writes:
He has abused his offic to openly solicite foreign interference in our elections to make it an unfair playing field.
Get off that hobby horse and present you evidence that support such accusations.
We have Trump's confession in the form of that "transcript" of that "perfect" phone call. He admitted that he did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3451 by ICANT, posted 10-12-2019 5:34 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3477 by ICANT, posted 10-15-2019 12:15 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3460 of 4573 (864566)
10-12-2019 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3440 by Taq
10-11-2019 3:50 PM


Re: Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize
For the record, I am paying your Social Security. It is not a savings account but a pay-as-you go system where working people pay benefits to retirees.
That's basically true, but not the complete story.
Benefits are paid from your FICA payroll deductions and by your employer. I asked an accountant about it and he said that employers match their employees' FICA deductions, so what SSA gets is twice what you pay -- this might be one of the reasons why corporations want to see Social Security and Medicare to go away. Also, your pay statement might list Social Security and Medicare deductions separately as my last job did, or lump them together as "FICA" as I had seen everywhere else I worked.
For most of Social Security's history, payroll taxes coming in would be more than enough to cover benefit payments, resulting in a surplus. That surplus would go into a special trust fund which may only be used for benefit payments should payroll taxes not be enough to cover it. The current problem we're having is that, because of the baby-boom cohort the payroll taxes coming in from the non-baby-boomers still working is not enough to cover benefits -- there's more of us than them and we're living longer than our predecessors did.
Therefore, we now need to draw money from the trust fund and, since the situation isn't going to change, that will eventually deplete the trust fund.
There are a number of possible solutions to this problem with Republicans only looking at the first one without even mentioning the others:
  1. Reduce benefits. This can be done in a few different ways; eg:
    1. Change how cost of living adjustments are calculated in order to reduce those increases. The GOP has already done this.
    2. Change how new beneficiaries' benefit amount, the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) is calculated. This would be done by playing with the bendpoints (follow the link for an explanation) which are used to define the graph that is used to calculate the PIA. Such bendpoint tweaking is done routinely, but mainly for the purpose of adjusting for inflation.
    3. Enact a across-the-board slashing of benefits.
    4. Change the requirements for qualifying for benefits. For example, as the primary beneficiary you need to have worked for 40 quarters (equivalent to 10 years) in which you earned at least a minimum amount. Changing the number of quarters and/or raising that minimum amount could reduce the number of beneficiaries. BTW, the same requirements are used to qualify for Medicare.
  2. Raise the full retirement age, which would delay retirees' drawing of benefits. This is already being done.
  3. Increase payroll taxes. That would not be popular since it would affect all workers paying into Social Security and have a disproportionate effect on the poorest.
  4. Raise the cap. Currently, you pay FICA on your earnings up to about $125,000 and not for any earnings above that. That's the cap. If we increase the cap, then that would increase payroll deductions for the highest wage earners. Not by much, but it would bring in more contributions with minimal impact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3440 by Taq, posted 10-11-2019 3:50 PM Taq has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3467 of 4573 (864662)
10-14-2019 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3466 by RAZD
10-14-2019 12:39 PM


Re: Trump's Horrid Video ...
Pence wants an evangelical christian theocratic America. Trump wants to destroy America.
I don't think that Trump wants to destroy America. He just doesn't care about America. So if America gets in the way of him getting more money or puffing up his ego or kissing up to his friends like Putin, it's America's own fault for being in the wrong place. He just doesn't care.
Admittedly, that is the absolutely best case scenario. If destroying America would get him more money, then he would not hesitate. Nor if it would offer him revenge against anyone who had ever criticized him or tried to hold him responsible for his actions.
And now there are reports of a horrific video
No news service that I know of is showing it, but I did see the first few seconds from which I recognized the source movie: Kingsman (2014). The scene is where a mind-control tech is first used to drive a mob (a church congregation in this case) into a murderous frenzy. Trump's face is crudely superimposed over Colin Firth's head.
Looks like something a teenager or adolescent would have patched together. The making of the video is not so much the question, but rather the motivation of this grossly misnamed "American Priority" group in showing it at their conference.
Edited by dwise1, : "best case scenario" -- finally remembered what the term is

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3466 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2019 12:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3468 by JonF, posted 10-14-2019 1:16 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 3469 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2019 1:42 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 3470 of 4573 (864676)
10-14-2019 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3469 by RAZD
10-14-2019 1:42 PM


Re: Trump's Horrid Video ...
Well, I did say I was presenting the absolute best-case scenario. Reality is very rarely as rosy.
Amazingly coincidental how just about everything that Trump does ends up working in Putin's favor. Please refer to Nance's Law below.

Honor, Courage, Commitment
(US Navy)
A Christian once asked what I as an atheist believed in. My spontaneous and totally honest answer was sounded corny, but it was true: "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." That's still my answer today.
GOP Values: Hypocrisy, Corruption, Greed, Lying, Cheating, Voter Suppression, Election Fraud, Conspiring with the Enemy
" ... how hard can that be, to say that Nazis are bad?!"
(Barack Obama)
"How are we still fighting Nazis today?"
(Daisy Johnson, S5E15)
"Nance's Law: Coincidence takes a lot of planning."
(Malcolm Nance)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
(Steven Colbert on NPR)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3469 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2019 1:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3471 by 1.61803, posted 10-14-2019 3:38 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 3482 by ringo, posted 10-15-2019 11:53 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3473 of 4573 (864679)
10-14-2019 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3471 by 1.61803
10-14-2019 3:38 PM


Re: Trump's Horrid Video ...
I for one think Trump is too stupid to know wtf he is doing any given time.
I agree. Trump is indeed too stupid come up with these corrupt schemes by himself, let alone implement them. Instead, he serves mainly as a tool through whom others are able to implement their corrupt schemes. Not as an unwitting dupe, but rather as an enthusiastic co-conspirator because of the pay.
Instead of Nance's law I feel Hanlon's razor to be more appropriate.
quote:
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways, including:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stiupidity."
Again, having good intentions but ending up causing harm through your own stiupidity does not describe what Trump is doing. His intentions are to enrich himself and gratify himself by any means necessary. He's just too shtupid to carry it off himself, so others enable him in order to do their own profiteering.
Nance's Law does still apply. We are finding out more and more how many months of planning had gone into the Trump/Giuliani "shadow diplomacy" campaign to extort Ukraine. And everything Trump does "just happens to" benefit Putin and his plans -- even Trump diverting DoD funding for his wall had the side-effect of stopping NATO base and facility upgrades intended to deter Russian expansionism (see European Deterrence Initiative (EDI)). Now those "coincidences" have taken a lot of planning.
Remember, Trump is not the only bad actor here. He's just the impossible-to-ignore boil on our collective ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3471 by 1.61803, posted 10-14-2019 3:38 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 3537 of 4573 (865666)
10-28-2019 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3536 by Taq
10-28-2019 6:04 PM


Re: Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Someone has to be the adult in the room, and it appears to be the Democrats at the moment.
Part of the dysfunctionality of the White House is that all competent people (AKA "the adults in the room") have been driven out, leaving the most incompetent president surrounded by an incompetent staff, AKA "The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight". One item of evidence of this situation is their attempt to cover Trump's signature phone call to the Ukraine by releasing their documentation on what was said in that conversation which demonstrates that Trump did indeed do what the whistle blower had reported.
Not only that, but then after days of the WH and Republicans constantly denying that there had been any quid pro quo in that conversation, Mick Mulvaney freely admitted in a press conference that that had been quid pro quo and insisted that it was normal so get over it, people (he later went back out and back-pedaled, but the cat was already out of the bag).
When I was in the war (USAF-speak for when I was on active duty in the Air Force, whether there was an actual war going on or not, though I did serve in the Cold War), a running joke went something like: "What is the difference between the Air Force and the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts have adult supervision." The Trump Administration has no adult supervision.
ICANT writes:
If the house were to recommend impeaching Trump today the Senate would never convict him (that takes 67 votes) so why waste the time and run the risk of losing the majority in the house?
Because it is the right thing to do.
To correct a detail that ICANT got wrong:
The House does not recommend impeachment, it does impeachment! Impeachment is like an indictment, not a conviction! When the House does impeach the President, then it goes to the Senate who must conduct a trial to decide whether to convict, which would result in removal.
In this entire process, it is the House that impeaches and the Senate that tries and removes.
Historically, Andrew Johnson was impeached, but not convicted and hence not removed from office. Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted and hence not removed from office. Regardless of those historical outcomes, they were both impeached.
First, the dangers of not impeaching are far greater than of impeaching. Trump's offenses are so many and so wide-spread and so egregious and so unconstitutional that, if we were to not impeach him, then that would send a clear signal to all future presidents that they could do whatever they want to do and never have to be held in account for any of their actions. We cannot allow that to happen, so we must impeach Trump in order to set the example for future presidents that they will still be subject to oversight.
Second, the Clinton impeachment was different from the current situation, so the outcome need not be the same. Basically, the Clinton impeachment was a true witchhunt in which Ken Starr tried desperately to find something, anything, to use against President Clinton but couldn't (NOTE: this is where that Whitewater conspiracy theory came from). But then Starr's assistant, Brett Cavanaugh, suggested using Clinton's affairs and even himself wrote the highly detailed and salacious questions to pose to Clinton virtually guaranteeing a perjury charge. OK, that was one telling of the tale that I heard, but still almost all that the Clinton impeachment was based on was a charge of perjury.
Those fairly flimsy grounds for impeachment were not enough to get the public behind what the Republicans were doing, which is why they suffered such defeats in the polls afterwards. That was the lessons learned, which many feel may apply now, but do they? The situation is very much different now, in that there is no actual witch hunt (in which no witches are actually found -- must work better when spoken aloud). Trying to find something, anything, as an excuse to unseat a president is entirely different from dealing with a president whose abuse of power and actions endanger the very security and existence of our country. The provisions for impeachment were clearly placed into the Constitution of the United States of America for the latter reason, not for the former.
It has been stated repeatedly that conviction of a crime is a judicial act, whereas impeachment and removal is a political act. That latter term has been strongly tainted by partisan politics. It doesn't mean an action of one political party against another, but rather that it is a process within the machinery of government by which someone acting against his oath of office and against the public trust placed in him may be removed from office. That is why I had tried to explain to Faithless in my Message 3210 what impeachable offenses, violations of the law, and crimes against humanity are -- typically and sadly far too predictably, she completely misconstrued everything, typical of creationists!
So since impeachment is fundamentally a political process, the public, who are being represented after all, need to know what's going on. For impeachment and removal to work, the public needs to be behind it. For that, they need to know what the president had done and why it's a bad thing.
In the case of Nixon, who was never impeached only because he had resigned first, which speaks to how damning the evidence and public opinion was against him that would force him to decide to resign. It was his actions (eg, the Saturday Night Massacre) and the testimony and the tapes that turned public opinion so much against him that even his own party had to urge him to resign instead of dragging it out. Public opinion mattered!
In the Clinton impeachment, the public was not behind it. As a result, the GOP took massive hits in the next election. Those lessons learned must be analyzed to extract the actual lessons learned. On the surface (which is what ICANT is reading), the lesson is that if you impeach a president then you will suffer defeat in the next elections. But that is only true when your impeachment does not enjoy popular support (part of which depends on whether your actions had any merit to begin with). The GOP suffered in the next elections because they did not have strong public support, nor did their grounds for impeachment have any merit which soured the public against GOP candidates even more.
So then the actual lessons learned from the Clinton impeachment was that you need to get public support for the impeachment. Trump's multitude of violations have been plainly evident to any thinking person, but most of the public doesn't have that much time to stop and think, being far too busy trying to work and make ends meet (something endangered by the GOP, but they don't have the time nor leisure to think about it).
A great many have become frustrated with Pelosi's apparent inaction against Trump's multitude of impeachable violations (my best friend for example, so I've had to suffer through her rants against Pelosi's reticence on the subject of impeachment), but she is a politician and she knows how to do the calculus. You need the numbers and you need the commitment behind those numbers. And you need the public support (lessons learned from the Clinton impeachment). And now that is all finally starting to come together.
Part of the problem with gaining public support for anything is akin to a quote attributed to Mark Twain: "If you make people think that you've made them think, then they will love you. But if you actually make people think then they will hate you." We've been going through the inquiry state gathering evidence and testimony. Now about mid-November we will enter the public hearing phase in which the public starts to be educated in what's been going on and what the evidence is. So far, the evidence has been so overwhelmingly damning that no congressional Republican has been able to even begin to offer any defense of Trump based on the evidence, despite Trump's insistence that they do so. How can you possibly defend the indefensible? (mind you, I am not a lawyer)
Even if the Senate decides not to remove Trump for cause, a small portion of his many crimes will have been presented to the public. That should result in a rejection of both Trump and of the senators who had voted to not remove him. In this calculus, I do not see the Democrats losing.
 
Earlier this month at a free-thinker/skeptic/atheist breakfast, somebody pointed something out. According to the Constitution of the United States of America (sorry, but I have sworn THE OATH at least seven times, if not more), in Article One, Section 3, Clause 6: Trial of Impeachment (emphasis added):
quote:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Members present.
Republican senators who know that Trump should be removed from office but who cannot afford to take that position and remain in office could opt to call in sick on the day of the vote. When police go on strike by calling in sick, it's called the "blue flu". Maybe we could call this the "red flu."
Edited by dwise1, : Typo: "Then police go on strike" should be "When police go on strike"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3536 by Taq, posted 10-28-2019 6:04 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3538 by Percy, posted 10-29-2019 6:40 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3569 of 4573 (865883)
11-01-2019 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3563 by ICANT
10-30-2019 4:48 PM


Re: impeachment
He has lost over a billion dollars since becoming President. Don't sound like he is making a profit to me.
And you know that exactly how?
Because that's what Trump told you? Really?
Hey, here's a real good deal I can offer to you. I own this bridge in New York and I can sell it to you for only one hundred bucks. Are you in?
 
Then there's the Constitution of the United States of America to which every single federal officer swears an oath to support and defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Every single veteran of military service has sworn that oath -- I have done so at least seven times and I meant it every single time (sharing recently with a fellow veteran, our service has instilled in us certain American values which expose Trump's offenses for what they are). I think you've copped to having served, which means that you have yourself sworn the Oath, so why are you turning your back to that Oath now?
 
BTW, corruption has nothing to do with whether you make a profit or not. It's all about directing government funds to your own pocket as in Doral or Trump's innumerable golf trips to his own resorts for about $40,000 revenues to those resorts at a pop. It's all about the government money flowing into your businesses, not whether you actually make a profit off of it. Even just offsetting losses (which is the primary case in the Doral corruption) is still an act of corruption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3563 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 4:48 PM ICANT has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3580 of 4573 (866219)
11-07-2019 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3579 by Taq
11-07-2019 11:32 AM


Re: Further Out of Hand
Yet interestingly, what I heard yesterday is that Trump ordered Barr to have a press conference to tell the public that Trump did not break any law with his Ukrainian phone call and Barr wouldn't do it. For that matter, Barr's reaction to Trump implicating Barr in that entire "drug deal" (Bolton's name for it) has been to distance himself from Trump and deny any knowledge or involvement with that particular shite-show.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3579 by Taq, posted 11-07-2019 11:32 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3582 by Taq, posted 11-07-2019 11:59 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3592 of 4573 (866542)
11-12-2019 2:29 PM


President Zelensky's Prior Gig
Wasn't sure where else to post this.
Volodymyr Zelensky earned a law degree and is listed as a "Ukrainian actor, comedian, screenwriter, film producer, director, economist and politician who is currently the 6th President of Ukraine since May 2019."
Before actually becoming President he played a school teacher reluctantly catapulted into the office of the President on a TV series, (English title: "Servant of the People"):
quote:
The show tells the story of Vasyl Petrovych Holoborodko (Volodymyr Zelensky), a thirty-something high school history teacher who unexpectedly wins election to the presidency of Ukraine, after a viral video filmed by one of his students shows him angrily ranting against government corruption in Ukraine.
The show is currently being carried by Netflix in the USA: Watch Servant of the People | Netflix
Edited by dwise1, : Minor grammatical correction

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(4)
Message 3626 of 4573 (867785)
12-03-2019 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3625 by Percy
12-02-2019 10:41 PM


Re: Doing what’s right versus Doing what’s right for me
Probably leading in with a reference overloaded with connotations, but about half a century ago in high school I read Machiavelli's "The Prince". There was one piece of advice in particular (as well as the advice against relying on mercenaries whose loyalty goes no further than their paycheck) that struck me as being true. His advice was that the ruler's primary concern was to ensure that he remained in power. The argument was that you may have all the best intentions to do the best that you can for your subjects, but if you lose power then all your best intentions would be for naught. For you to do any good at all for your subjects, you must remain in power.
William Claude Fields knew which end of the bull was which ("There comes a time in the affairs of man when you have to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation.")
Then there was that episode of My Favorite Martian where Tim (Bill Bixby) wanted "Uncle Martin" (Ray Walston) to read a local politician's mind to know what he's really thinking. Uncle Martin reported back that it was like a ping-pong game inside that politician's brain, constantly weighing one side against the other against the outcomes.
That TV example was a simplistic example of political calculus in which the local politician has to sense which way the voters are leaning and hence cannot hold a single stable position of his own (realize also that that was the mid-1960's TV). The political calculus in Congress is more complex. In both houses, the calculus is based on vote counts. You know what you want to accomplish, but you also have to factor in how many votes you can count on.
Speaker Pelosi is a master at that kind of calculus, as is Moscow Mitch. Regardless of how much your proposals may be for the nation, if you cannot get the necessary votes then you cannot succeed in benefiting the nation. So what does it take to get those necessary votes? Maybe swaying public opinion?
Democrats have to do what’s right for the nation instead of what’s right for their re-election, otherwise they just become the same as those who have lost their moral compass while caught in Trump’s apparently mesmerizing glare.
If Democrats' only motivation is their own re-election, then their souls are truly lost.
But if their motivation is to obtain and retain control of both houses of Congress (which is needed in order to implement what is needed to save America from the Republicans' dismantling of America), then those efforts to ensure their re-election would be justified.
Basic Machiavellianism (as per that primary lesson I had learned half a century ago). You cannot possibly make those changes that are needed unless you are in power and you cannot be and remain in power without ensuring that you are in power.
For example, how many House bills have piled atop the GOP-controlled Senate's table? More than 100 bills. Over 200 bills? Trump's claims of a "do nothing Democratic House" are pure BS, since the Democratic House has sent a great many bills to the Senate, where Moscow Mitch just sits on them.
Edited by dwise1, : trimmed off a final meaningless line

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3625 by Percy, posted 12-02-2019 10:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3629 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-04-2019 1:35 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 3666 of 4573 (868162)
12-07-2019 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3661 by RAZD
12-07-2019 11:48 AM


Re: Arrest those suckers ...
Perhaps the dems should have those who have ignored the subpoenas arrested -- the way every other citizen would be treated.
I agree fully. But who will do that arresting? US Marshals? The ones working for Bolshevik Barr's subverted Department of Justice? And where would they be detained? In the jails run by that same subverted DoJ?
There is a jail run by Congress which hasn't been used for several decades. I don't know what it would take to get it up and running again, but it seems to be the only alternative. My understanding is that the Sergeant of Arms would be the one to go out and physically arrest the subpoena violators, but how much law enforcement muscle can he pack outside of that subverted DoJ?
Remember that when the inspectors general were becoming aware of wrongdoing surrounding the Trump-Ukraine Affair they did what they were supposed to do: submit to the DoJ criminal referrals (I think that's the term) that call for investigation to determine, at the very least, whether there is any criminal activity. Barr's response was to completely ignore those referrals, not even do the barest minimal investigation to determine whether there was even any there there. That is the subverted and perverted Department of Justice that we have now.
What I'm waiting to see is what the Trump Mob will do when all their legalistic delays play out and the courts issue a final court order that they must honor those subpoenas. Will they just simply ignore a court order? And if they do, then what? Wouldn't it take the DoJ to enforce that court order? Bolshevik Barr's subverted and perverted DoJ? Just how is that going to play out?
Laws are all meaningless unless they are enforced. The Constitution of the United States of America is absolutely meaningless unless it is enforced.
Trump is not only trying to destroy the Constitution (for profit!), but he is succeeding in destroying the Presidency. After Trump, one of the first orders of business will be to enact very explicitly stated laws of what the President is not allowed to do. After Trump has violated almost every presidential norm just because there was no actual law about it, there will most definitely be very specific laws against every single violation of those "norms".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3661 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2019 11:48 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3676 of 4573 (868579)
12-14-2019 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3675 by Percy
12-14-2019 4:36 PM


Re: The Senate Will Collude With the White House in the Upcoming Trial
"Don't worry, Boss. The fix is in!"
McConnell will need to recuse himself, along with any other senator who states that they will violate their oath to fairly listen to and decide on the evidence. Including the senators that Trump has tampered with (eg, the ones he wined and dined at Camp David).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3675 by Percy, posted 12-14-2019 4:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3722 of 4573 (869674)
01-03-2020 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3719 by JonF
01-03-2020 10:34 AM


Re: Iran
Today I kept remembering an SNL skit based on the "carolers at the door" scene in "Love Actually", only it's Hillary pleading via placards to an elector that she vote literally for anyone else: like John Casich, Tom Hanks, Zendaya, The Rock, a rock.
The punchline starting at 2:35 is: "If Donald Trump becomes President, he will kill us all."
And here we are now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3719 by JonF, posted 01-03-2020 10:34 AM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024