# Trump impeachment



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm glad to see that impeachment proceedings have finally started. This crook and con artist is finally being called out... frankly I think it's shameful (and embarrassing for America) that Trump has been getting away with abuse of power for this long.

Recent developments are incredible. Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton, has apparently written a book. National Post reports:



> The New York Times cited the manuscript by Bolton as saying that Trump told him he wanted to freeze $391 million in security aid to Ukraine until it helped with investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.


If this is true (and obviously Bolton would have to verify this) this is a figure who worked directly with Trump and have reliable first hand information. There's so much damning evidence now on Trump that he has lost all credibility, if he ever had any. His personal lawyer going around, interfering with diplomatic relations to seek political dirt to use against enemies, plus withholding aid to a country in need for personal gains. Just awful stuff.

The only way this guy is able to stay in power is by feeding conspiracy theories and a bizarre cult-like following. Truly the downfall of America in progress.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

The fact is that there is no crime and no evidence of a crime. But even if Trump did what you said, so what? Every single president in history has had strings attached to foreign aid.

Joe Biden bragged on camera that he extorted the corrupt Ukraine for $1 billion to protect his son. That was the real abuse of power and it should be investigated.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> This crook and con artist is finally being called out... frankly I think it's shameful (and embarrassing for America) that Trump has been getting away with abuse of power for this long..


I'd be really surprised if this sort of behind the scenes behavior hasn't always gone on, it's just that Trump got caught because he's so braggadocio and clumsy. That's not really a crime. He seems to have done wonders for the economy and employment.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The big difference is that Trump wasn't supporting US foreign policy with Ukraine. He was illegally withholding funds designated by Congress to the Ukraine for personal political gain.

The Pentagon had finished their security report on corruption in Ukraine that allowed the release of the funds by Congress.

Trump put a hold on the funds illegally, trying to blackmail Ukraine into "announcing" an investigation into Joe Biden.......a political rival.

Trump's argument that the money was eventually released is akin to a bank robber getting caught and saying the bank got their money back so it is all okay.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Republicans have a choice to make.

Do they stick with Trump all the way down as more information is released, or ditch him now.

More Republicans are saying they want witnesses, which they know would doom Trump. 

I always said when push came to shove, Trump has outlived his "useful idiot" status and would be set adrift.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags falls for every single lie the media feeds him/her...they probably shouldn't be calling people "useful idiots"


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Does strongly appear that Trump blackmailed (or at least threatened the ally) for his petty personal/political grudge. Plenty of supporting evidence from multiple angles and sources. Including many people directly in the know!

This kind of thing cannot be permitted. I don't know to what extent it happens in politics but that's irrelevant. When someone is going around flaunting this kind of behaviour in plain view, directly undermining the interests of the country he's elected to serve, and has left a trail of destruction in their path, the public has to put a stop to it.

A president which is endangering military alliance, diplomatic relations, US reputation, and in fact the reputation of all western allies for his petty personal battles is unacceptable!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If Donald Trump is not impeached for his conduct then future Presidents, including Democrats, will be untouchable.

The US will no longer be a republic governed by law. It will become a monarchy or dictatorship where the President has unlimited power to do anything they wish.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Trump certainly is testing America's tolerance of authoritarian style of rule. This is a slippery slope and he has shown dangerous authoritarian tendencies right from the start, especially villainizing his political enemies (Hillary etc) and trying to establish opponents as "evil", which historically works well with less educated and more impressionable people. Demanding ultimate loyalty and purging government of people who don't suck up to him. Whipping up extreme anger and fear, more classic authoritarian technique. "I'm the big daddy and I'll keep you safe from those bad people".

Those things are unacceptable in western democracy (they are un American) but not illegal. Now he's getting nailed on more authoritarian behaviour, but this time it's explicit abuse of his power.

If he's not nailed on this, America is unable to protect itself from authoritarian rule and far worse leaders.


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

I see parallels to SNC bribing being accepted/allowed/wink wink by JT because it saves jobs and that's the way the world works in some locales if you want their business. I'll bet SNC, and other EPC's all over the world have been bribing for Middle East contracts for years - the way they do business. Trump for sure the same. Bidens are crooks too. 
Seems again that he who has the gold makes the rules - the trick is not to get caught and if you are, don't admit anything. But standing on the soapbox and saying all others are crooks is the pot calling the kettle black. Doesn't make it right but the world doesn't work that way except in Eden.

Don't think Obama, Clinton, Bush and the list goes on, didn't hold foreign aid or defense over other countries heads? Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
I read a book years ago called "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" - a discussion detailing US economic foreign policy. Pretty disgusting to hear what they have been up to.
Again - doesn't make it right but that's what they're up to - but they don't admit it and rely on moral authority. Trump is just not a good politician because he is too used to running his own business and doing what he wants with minimal pushback because he is the boss.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump was doing it solely to benefit Donald Trump. US economic foreign policy is a different bushel of apples.


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

Oh and Little Castro wasn't supporting SNC for Quebec votes??? it was for the jobs and economic policy. That's why it's OK to support bribery.
I think I understand it now. LOL


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Trump was doing it solely to benefit Donald Trump. US economic foreign policy is a different bushel of apples.


Exactly. Acting in the interest of the country (and doing it according to decided upon policy directions) is what a President/PM is supposed to do. That's their job.

Taking unilateral actions for *personal* gains with your personal lawyer (Giuliani) acting as a henchman is deplorable.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Trump criminal cartel is falling apart and they are pecking away at each other. It is going to get bloody before it is finished.

Giuliani is miffed because the White House called him a nobody. Bolton wants to testify and is telling all. John Kelley said Bolton is telling the truth.

And Donnie is eating ice cream (2 scoops for him and 1 for everyone else) and fuming at Fox News because they dare to question him.

I expect the GOP to get off the sinking ship any time now. 

Susan Collins has moved from "some concern, furrowed brows, deep concern, to possibly, maybe she might like to see witnesses...........or not.

So that is progress.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Brian K said:


> Oh and Little Castro wasn't supporting SNC for Quebec votes??? it was for the jobs and economic policy. That's why it's OK to support bribery.
> I think I understand it now. LOL


It's different when liberals do it. They actually believe that they're better than everyone else.

That's why Trudeau can let a Liberal donor slide and it's fine, and why Biden can extort Ukraine but Trump can't investigate it.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

James, you should prepare yourself. Trump will not be thrown out by the Senate, and could very well be re-elected this fall.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Retired Peasant said:


> James, you should prepare yourself. Trump will not be thrown out by the Senate, and could very well be re-elected this fall.



is there anyone anywhere in north america today who fails to understand that the Senate will never remove donald trump from office?

the US president has, however, been impeached.

it's entirely possible that an impeached president could be re-elected for a 2nd term. The US is funny that way. Crooked boss mayor Jim Curley was re-elected as mayor of boston even while he was serving time in jail for crimes he'd committed while in office.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Retired Peasant said:


> James, you should prepare yourself. Trump will not be thrown out by the Senate, and could very well be re-elected this fall.


I'm aware of that, and know he might be re-elected. There is a lot of public support of Trump. After all, he's a master con artist... this should be expected.

Personally I predict he will be legitimately elected again in the coming election.

His team, and Republicans in general, have been very effectively making use of media and social weaknesses (conspiracy theories, religious fundamentalism) to keep Trump popular. They have been masters of adapting to modern media and leveraging social media, plus shady and ridiculous social media that seemed like only a joke before 2018. He's also developed a cult-like following, and has the support of armed militias and far right extremists.

The fact remains, though, he's a crook and is violating laws of the United States. It's practically a guarantee that the FBI and the state of New York will bring criminal charges against him in the coming years, though his position in office has protected him so far.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

When all else fails "The snuff option" will be deployed.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Trump is being impeached for winning the election. The Dems know they can't beat him fairly in 2020 so their only option is to try to overturn a fair and democratic election. 

Democracy is under threat and the far left on this site support it fully.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Democracy is under threat and the far left on this site support it fully.



absolutely we support democracy. Thank you tygrus/bass player/prairie guy for finally getting at least this solitary fact straight, for once in your chequered career on cmf forum.

peter macKay, who might be the next prime minister of canada, also supports democracy. Along with reasonableness, good governance & strong foreign policy. Everything that donald trump does not know how to do.

PS we are not the "far left." We are the centrists. Mainstream canada. Thomas Mulcair could have been elected in 2015 & we would have been happy. Stephen Harper could have been elected in 2015 & we would have been happy. Jagmeet Singh did not have enough experience on parliament hill in 2019, but his politic since arriving in ottawa has been progressive middle of the road; give Singh a few more years & he could be a formidable contender for the office of PM.

left up the crick are the andrew scheers, the wexits, the yellow vests & the alt-right hate-mongering extremists though

.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump has high support among Republicans.....90% or higher, but Republicans only make up 30% of the population.

The other 70% don't support him and he has lost the independents and moderates within that group.

His only hope is to try to win the electoral college again, but that isn't going to happen.

He only won a group of States by a few votes and millions of people didn't come out to vote because they thought Hillary Clinton would win anyways.

This election people can't wait to get the chance to vote against Trump. They may not even care who the Democrat candidate is.......anybody but Trump.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> The fact remains, though, he's a crook and is violating laws of the United States. It's practically a guarantee that the FBI and the state of New York will bring criminal charges against him in the coming years, though his position in office has protected him so far.


Imagine that...Trump has committed actual crimes but yet the Democrats instead chose to make up non-crimes to impeach him. And the FBI illegally spied on Trump in an attempt to prevent his election but they are holding back this evidence of real crimes until after he leaves office.

It doesn't surprise me that you actually believe something that ridiculous. :biggrin:


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

Funny how people think their views are 'normal' and the others that don't agree are hate-mongering extremists. 

I thought Andrew Sheer was reasonable, just not charismatic which unfortunately is how politicians are judged; I liked the proposed PC Carbon plan better than the Lib's. I've done the math - I'll get more of a rebate than my Carbon tax will be. How is that an incentive to cut emissions? Now when the rebate comes, I'll bet it will get spent on beer in many houses rather than on more energy efficient appliances or LED light bulbs.
Alberta had and NDP Gov't for 4 years and the debt is ridiculous now. I really doubt that the NDP would be good for Canada. I do like Mr Singh though. Too bad I don't like the NDP policies after seeing the results in Alberta. And wasn't Kathleen wonderful?????

Wexit is a frustration with all the money Alberta sends to Canada with not much in return and inequities in voter representation in favour of Quebec and 905; and for example different rules apply to getting EI - much more stringent in AB to qualify when many need it. among other things. 

How is any of that hate mongering extremism???


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ha, now Trump is calling Bolton's accusations nonsense. Giuliani is calling Bolton a backstabber.

Bolton was the US Ambassador to the United Nations, and later the National Security Advisor to Trump.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Brian K said:


> I liked the proposed PC Carbon plan better than the Lib's. I've done the math - I'll get more of a rebate than my Carbon tax will be. How is that an incentive to cut emissions?


How is this difficult to understand? You get the rebate regardless of how much carbon emissions you produce. You don't have to keep burning fossil fuels to get the rebate. You can spend it on anything else and still get the same amount.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Dershowitz Doctrine....

Republicans are now floating the ridiculous argument by Alan Dershowitz that the US Constitution allows a President to do anything they want, as long as they personally believe their election is vital to the country.

So a President could accept any assistance, legal or otherwise, that would help their re-election. It would make Presidents dictators.

This is how liberty and freedom are lost. The Republicans have completely lost their minds if they continue to support Donald Trump and this kind of nonsense.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Ha, now Trump is calling Bolton's accusations nonsense. Giuliani is calling Bolton a backstabber.
> 
> Bolton was the US Ambassador to the United Nations, and later the National Security Advisor to Trump.


And John Kelley says Bolton is telling the truth and Trump is a liar. 

The Republicans will not be able to keep the information from becoming public. It is coming out one way or another.

Lev Parnas and his lawyer were on CNN and said he has more tapes, more emails and all kinds of information yet to be released.

Parnas received a lot of information from his partner and himself that was immediately forwarded to the Icloud. He is going through it to see what is stored there.

A steady drumbeat of information is going to come out.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The Dershowitz Doctrine....
> 
> Republicans are now floating the ridiculous argument by Alan Dershowitz that the US Constitution allows a President to do anything they want, as long as they personally believe their election is vital to the country.
> 
> ...


Who cares what Dershowitz says. The fact remains that Trump has committed no impeachable offense or crime.

Liberty and freedom are lost when one party with the help of the FBI illegally spy on the opposition and try to overturn a fair and democratic election.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Kim Jong Trudeau recently sent the RCMP to investigate Ezra Levant for writing a book about him. Obama spied on reporters who asked him hard questions and even had one person jailed.

The left in Canada and the US use the police and intelligence agencies as their own personal hitmen.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The Dershowitz Doctrine....
> 
> Republicans are now floating the ridiculous argument by Alan Dershowitz that the US Constitution allows a President to do anything they want, as long as they personally believe their election is vital to the country.


Kind of thing a dictator would argue. Maybe Republicans are starting to pivot from "he didn't do it" to "yeah of course he did, but he can do anything he wants"


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Alan Dershowitz for the Defense: L’État, C’est Trump


On Wednesday, he took that further—much further. “If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he argued. Dershowitz was offering Trump—and all future Presidents—a free pass. His argument seemed unbelievable: as long as the President thinks his reelection will benefit the country, he can do anything in pursuit of it without fear of impeachment. Really?

Trump has already said that he considers himself empowered by Article II of the Constitution “to do whatever I want.” Video of this extraordinary moment has been played, repeatedly, by House managers in the trial. They clearly saw it as a damning statement made by a power-grabbing President—and then the President’s counsel, in effect, endorsed Trump’s power grab on the floor of the Senate. So long as Trump believes himself to be acting in the national interest, Dershowitz said, he can do whatever he wants. If the past three years have taught us anything, it is that Trump is a President who is comfortable conflating his own interest with the national interest. L’état, c’est Trump.​
[HR][/HR]

I don't think these arguments are meant for educated people or for those who know how American government and democracy work. Nobody in their right mind would listen to this garbage. These arguments are meant to direct the cult followers watching Fox News and glued to social media to take the next step in behavioural change, next leap in thinking to support their Dear Leader.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Republicans put Dershowitz front and center in the 3rd impeachment trial in history and he says this ? 

They are desperate for any branch to cling to as the river pulls them downstream.

Today Dershowitz is tweeting and on television saying he didn't say what he said. It was broadcast live. There is video tape. There are transcripts.

Poor Dersh....a whole life spent to gain credibility and stature flushed away to protect a "stable genius" President, both of whom have become cartoon characters.

Same as AG Barr, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and a whole lot of others who worship at the feet of "The Donald".

It makes a person wonder what wizardly spell Trump holds over them. Maybe there is a troublesome genetic defect buried deep within Trump supporters.

I don't understand it, as every time I listen to Trump snort, sniffle and stumble through a speech I feel like I am in danger of losing brain cells.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Trump never broke the law but there are 5 times Obama broke the law but wasn't impeached:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/5-times-obama-broke-the-law-but-democrats-didnt-impeach-him/

sags wants Trump impeached for something Dershowitz said


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This trial is about Trump, not Obama or Clinton or Biden or the whistleblower, or anyone else.

Clinton is gone. Obama is gone. People want Trump gone. VP Pence should be gone with him.

President Nancy Pelosi would restore America's stature in the world.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> It makes a person wonder what magical spell Trump holds over them. Maybe there is a troublesome genetic defect buried deep within Trump supporters.


Remember, this is a self selecting group. Think about how Trump came onto the stage as a candidate. These (voters) are people who were willing to elect TV's Apprentice boss as leader of the most powerful country on earth, basically because they recognize him from TV and admire his bluster. They are people who liked the public image Trump has fostered going back to the 1980s as a successful capitalist. These people lack the common sense and sharpness to identify a con man or to recognize fakery.

Trump's team also skilfully marketed, using social media, to Americans who believe in conspiracy theories, grand cover-ups, that kind of thing.

Trump's voters and cult members are _not_ the sharpest tools in the shed. Sprinkle in a few other special interest groups, like religious fundamentalists and gun nuts, and that gives you enough American voters to Make America Great Again.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Nice summary.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> Trump never broke the law but there are 5 times Obama broke the law but wasn't impeached:
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/trending/5-times-obama-broke-the-law-but-democrats-didnt-impeach-him/
> 
> sags wants Trump impeached for something Dershowitz said


If 10 Presidents in the past had done something similar to what Trump tried to do by withholding aid, what would that change Prairie Guy? 

Try to use LOGIC. It makes no difference whether 10 people did something wrong but just didn't get caught, or not. Logic does not say that if that were the case, the 11th person to do something wrong but DID get caught, should get a free pass. That's like saying that logically, if 10 people got away with murder, an 11th person if caught should not be punished. 

You are not providing an argument to not remove Trump from office, you are simply trying to say he shouldn't be if others did something similar and were not removed from office. We don't catch everyone who speeds on the highways but those we do catch are punished.

Also try to understand the process. Trump HAS been impeached. No one needs to 'want Trump impeached'. That is in the past now. Impeached is just like being 'charged' with a crime. When a prosecuter decides there is enough evidence to charge you with robbery, they bring a charge to court and a judge or jury then decides whether you are 'guilty as charge' or 'innocent.' In this case Trump has been charged/impeached and the jury (the Senate) are now to decide whether he is 'guilty as charged' or 'innocent'. If they find him guilty, the punishment is removal from office. If they find him 'innocent', he gets to stay in office.

Many currently believe the Republican dominated Senate will not vote him guilty. The problem with that is like the justice system, where the often quoted aphorism is, "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.", and that refers to being seen by the PEOPLE. If you take the time to Google what the PEOPLE think, even if you choose to look at Fox News, the best you will find is that 50% of Americans believe he should be removed from office. https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...f-americans-say-trump-should-be-convicted-and
Here is a good article that lays out a lot of the complexity involved in how people see it all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-want-him-convicted/5e2924d0602ff14e66057c1d/
Even just among Repuplicans, the numbers are quite significant.

Going back to justice having to be SEEN to be done, no matter what way it all falls out, the fact is that probably at least 50% of Americans will not see it as having been done. What that means is that the American people will continue to be divided as only the American Civil War of 1861 managed to do and that is NOT a good thing in any way Prairie Guy.

Even if everyone were to agree that Trump 'never broke the law' as you want to believe, that makes no difference as to what he HAS done to America.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Remember, this is a self selecting group. Think about how Trump came onto the stage as a candidate. These (voters) are people who were willing to elect TV's Apprentice boss as leader of the most powerful country on earth, basically because they recognize him from TV and admire his bluster. They are people who liked the public image Trump has fostered going back to the 1980s as a successful capitalist. These people lack the common sense and sharpness to identify a con man or to recognize fakery.
> 
> Trump's team also skilfully marketed, using social media, to Americans who believe in conspiracy theories, grand cover-ups, that kind of thing.
> 
> Trump's voters and cult members are _not_ the sharpest tools in the shed. Sprinkle in a few other special interest groups, like religious fundamentalists and gun nuts, and that gives you enough American voters to Make America Great Again.


Just like Hillary and Don Lemon have publicly stated, the left thinks they are smarter than everyone else. History has proven them wrong time and time again but they cling to their feeling of superiority.

The man the left calls an idiot beat the Clintons who had the full help of 90% the media. Even with the FBI spying on Trump, fake Russian collusion, and a sham of an impeachment, the left still can't beat him. They call Trump a con man yet the biggest con man in US history (Obama) fooled them twice and they still haven't figured it out.

Now the Dems top candidates are a communist, a senile groper, a woman who lied about her ancestry to get minority employment, and a fake Hispanic. They are so bad that 2 time loser and criminal Hillary is talking about trying a 3rd time.

Good luck :biggrin:


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Just like Hillary and Don Lemon have publicly stated, the left thinks they are smarter than everyone else. History has proven them wrong time and time again but they cling to their feeling of superiority.
> 
> The man the left calls an idiot beat the Clintons who had the full help of 90% the media. Even with the FBI spying on Trump, fake Russian collusion, and a sham of an impeachment, the left still can't beat him. They call Trump a con man yet the biggest con man in US history (Obama) fooled them twice and they still haven't figured it out.
> 
> ...



Well said prairie guy,

Trump must be laughing right now as the dems implode..he will win in a landslide in 2020..the dems know it and their desperation is on full display on CNN with this impeachment hoax..

Also, I dont think Trump is innocent in a lot of things he is accused of, or that he isnt dirty, but lets not kid each other he isnt doing anything Obama or the Clintons havent done 10x over..


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Obama was first elected in 2008 (12 years ago). Clinton in 1992 ( 28 years ago) Republicans/Conservatives need to get over them.......LOL


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> This trial is about Trump, not Obama or Clinton or Biden or the whistleblower, or anyone else.
> 
> Clinton is gone. Obama is gone. People want Trump gone. VP Pence should be gone with him.
> 
> President Nancy Pelosi would restore America's stature in the world.


Of course that will never happen.
Even if they magically impeach Trump, they'll get President Pence, who to many Leftists is even worse.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Obama was first elected in 2008 (12 years ago). Clinton in 1992 ( 28 years ago) Republicans/Conservatives need to get over them.......LOL


I was pointing out the very recent Democrat standards for impeachment. It wasn't 28 years ago. Obama was in office just 3 years ago and the Dems never impeached him for several actual crimes. But now they want to impeach Trump based on their interpretation of a phone call.

The only people dumb enough to fall for it are on the left, and even some of them know it's wrong.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A phone call attempting to extort Ukraine into "announcing" an investigation into the Biden family. It didn't even need to be an investigation....just an announcement would suffice.

Republicans have spun this into what appears to be their final position that the President can do anything he wants, if he deems his own re-election in the national interest.

Think of the real life consequences of such an outrageous and ridiculous proposal.

Imagine a President using the US military to quarantine black neighborhoods on election day to prevent them from voting for a political opponent, in the name of national interest.

Trump has reduced the Republicans to shuffling around the loony bin (Senate) in their house coats and slippers.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Imagine a President using the US military to quarantine black neighborhoods on election day to prevent them from voting for a political opponent, in the name of national interest.


It's amazing the scenarios you can dream up out of thin air.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You should be concerned about the scenarios that an unfettered Trump could dream up. After all he did say he can do anything he wants under Article 2 of the Constitution.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> You should be concerned about the scenarios that an unfettered Trump could dream up. After all he did say he can do anything he wants under Article 2 of the Constitution.


So, punish him in advance for what his opposition (who can't beat him in a fair election) fantasizes that he might do. That's not a slippery slope at all... :biggrin:


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Republicans have spun this into what appears to be their final position that the President can do anything he wants, if he deems his own re-election in the national interest.


I don't know if the Republicans have settled on that line yet. This is a complex situation where some Republicans believe in government systems and democracy. Other's don't. Some are only interested in their own re-election and personal career paths.

Others only care about serving the interests of the very wealthy. Trump has been extremely good to the rich, and corporate America, with a massive tax cut which was a total game-changer. It instantly boosted corporate profits in every sector of the economy by radically reducing the government's take. I personally benefited. Everyone I work with benefited.

All rich Americans have seen a huge personal benefit under Trump's cuts.

As you might imagine, the very wealthy people in America don't want to give that up. The Republicans are fundamentally a party serving the interests of the ultra-rich and largest corporations. Personally I think their money concerns are a higher priority than issues of democracy, morality, and health of the USA. So there will be some divide within the party, as some say "guys this is too crazy, it's gone far enough" while others say "no it's fine, this is just politics".


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

You "forgot" the massive middle class tax cut James....one of the biggest in US history. And the reduction of the deduction to $10,000 of property taxes that the rich can write off. Now the middle class no longer has to support millionaires and billionaires who have $50,000 property taxes.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> All rich Americans have seen a huge personal benefit under Trump's cuts.


So have low income workers, particularly black workers have seen great improvements.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/economy/black-unemployment-rate/index.html

By many objective measures the economy is doing well under Trump, particularly with "historically disadvantaged groups"


Personally I don't think the government really "makes the economy go". 
The best we can hope for is that they don't just make too much of a mess out of it. As such I only give Trump to credit for not messing it up as bad as he could have.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Now that the Trump thing is over it looks like Biden will be under more scrutiny...from The Hill...

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.



Say it isn't so Joe!( sucks because he would be my preference for the next pres...)


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> Say it isn't so Joe!( sucks because he would be my preference for the next pres...)


Because creepy joe the hair sniffer is somehow better?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

In case you haven't read the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky here is the relevant part. Trump asks Zelensky to look into two things, the Crowdstrike affair and the firing of the prosecutor. Talk was going around that Biden was bragging that it was his doing and that he did it to protect his son from investigation. Zelensky agreed that these things should be investigated. There was no mention of any quid pro quo or threat. This copy paste did not come through very well if you want a better version follow the link at the bottom of this post.

"BEORET//OftOO�UtOf©fi!tf 3.•t:�;'HP) The· President: I would like you to do us a favor thoughbecause our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows alot about it. I would like you to find out what happened withthis whole si�uation with Ukraine, they s_ay Crowdstrike ... I guessyou have one of your weal thy people... The server, they sayUkraine has.it� There-are a lot. of things that went on, the·:whole situation .. I think you1 re _surrounding yourse·lf with someof the same people. I .would like to have the Attorney Generalcall you or your people and I would like you t� ·get to the bottom of it�. As you sa� yest�rday, that whole nonsetise ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mue�le_r, an incompetent performance-, _but they. say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, ·it's very important that· you. do it if that's possible. (l!l-,'HP) President Zelenskyy: Yes it is. very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President,-· it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to· open a new page on �ooperation in . relations between the United· States and Ukraine.· For that·purpose, I just recalled our.ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who wtll work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting clciser. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and y9ur .confidence and _have persona·1 relations·with you so we c�n cooperate even �ore so. I·wili.personally tell you that one· of my assistants·spoke with Mr.Giuliani just.recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. G1uliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and.we will meet once·he co�es to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again_thatyou _have nobody but friends around-us. I w.ill make sure -that-Isurro�nd myself with the best and most experienced people._ Ialso· wanted to·tell you that we are friends. We are great·friends and you Mr. President have. friends -in our country so wecan continue our strategic·�artn�rship. I also plan to surround· myself with great people ·and in addition to that investigation,I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all theinvestigations.will be done_openly and candidly .. That I canassure you ..9/MF� The Pre·sident: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutorwho· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair._·A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your�ery good prosecutor down and you had some �ery bad peopleinvolved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_mayor bf New York Ci:ty, a great mayor, and I would like him toUN CLJ�s�]]F1fIE:1U> �l!Ctffl'fHO!tCOM;'HOPO!ttf 
�ECKiS1'//0RCO�cJR,Of O:EMt 4 call you. I will ask him to call yoti along with the Attorney·_ ··General.· :Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a verycapable guy. If you could _speak to him that would be great. Theformer ambassador from the United $tates,· the woman., was badnews �nd th� people she was dealing with in.the Ukraine.were badnews so I jtist wan� to_let you know that� The ot�er thing,There's a lot 6f.talk about Biden's son,. that Eiden stopped theprosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that sowhatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so ifyou ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.(S;'ti!F) President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell ·you about theprosecutor� First df �11 I understand arid I'm kn6wledgeable.abotit the situation. Sine� we ha�e �on· the ab�olute majority inour Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100%_ myperson, my c'andidate, who will be approved, by the parliament andwill start. a_s a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look.into the situation, specifically to the company that you-mentioned in :this issue. The issue of the investigation of thecase is �ctually the issui of �aking sure to res�o�e the honestyso we will take care of.that and wi11·wo:tk on the investigationof the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you haveany additional information that you can provide ·to μs, it would_be very helpful · for the investigation t·o make· su.re that weadminister justice i':r1 our country with regc:ird: to the Ambassadorto the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her namewas Ivanovicli. It was great that you were the first one. who toldme that she was a bad ambassador because I agree·with you 100%.Her attitude to.wards me was far from the best as she admired theprevious President and she was on his· side. She would not accept�e as a new President· well enough"

Complete transcript here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The White House won't release the actual transcript. That is a Whitehouse memorandum of the call.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And as soon as there's a thread which points out their King is a crook and is abusing power of the office, here come our local MAGA boys to the rescue.

Right away we can see the mentality of the MAGA people. Obsessed with conspiracy theories. "What about this" and "What about that" is the type of diversion technique they have learned from Trump himself, and right wing social media. "What about Biden".... "What about Hillary".

They can't help but focus on other things... _anything_ else other than how corrupt their King is.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Poor Joe Biden...an honest man only looking out for his kid who was unfairly targeted by a bully


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Well I guess Americans can have their say again in about 9 months, I'm good with either party they choose, but at this point I would say the orange guy is in the drivers seat while the Dem's are looking silly...I'm not good with the communist or the one that believes she's an Indian though.


----------



## capricorn (Dec 3, 2013)

No one agreed that orange man did not do improper stuff. But, I am glad the trial turned the way it did. House should not run roughshod over minority and have partisan impeachment. This is a good precedent. If it was bipartisan, maybe result in senate might have been different. Not a conviction but definitely some willingness to hear more.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The Dem's act like they are special but are as bad as the Republican's

1) Joe Biden uses a quid pro quo with Ukraine and accuses Trump of it.
2) The Clintons employ Russians to spy on Trump and create a fake dossier then accuse Trump of being aided by Russians.
3) The Democrats run a lawless impeachment in the House then accuse the Repulicans of the same thing in the Senate.

Can't make this stuff up.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There's good reason to believe Trump broke the laws of the country, and elected representatives have a duty to the United States to fairly and honestly investigate wrongdoing by the president. Instead, the way this process has occurred (completely partisan with both sides prejudiced) is completely ineffective. This is a disservice to the American people.

The problem remains that Trump is a crook who is breaking serious laws. This is extremely destructive to America and it's even worse that the government has, apparently, no checks and balances to stop a rogue president.

[HR][/HR]
*Here are some laws that Trump is breaking*

(A) The GAO, which is the government auditor, reported that Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by unilaterally withholding $214 million of legislatively appropriated Defense Department aid for Ukraine without obtaining authorization from Congress. This law was passed to limit damage from a a rogue president (reference1, reference2)

(B) 18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” Members of government using their role to conduct extortion, up to 3 years in prison.

(C) 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,” for Trump refusing to cooperate with lawful subpoenas, up to 1 year in prison.

(D) 18 U.S. Code § 610, "Coercion of political activity." for Trump exerting pressure on government members to assist his political interests, up to 3 years in prison.

(E) 52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals." for Trump soliciting contributions from foreign nationals

There are others as well, but I stopped here. Sources for the above.

[HR][/HR]
Trump acts like a dictator or third world strong man. He has no concern about breaking laws of the country, because he doesn't plan to answer for them. Instead he is surrounding himself with loyal yes-men, and filling government agencies (and of course the justice department) with his henchmen. This is what corrupt rulers of third world countries do.

The USA will steadily deteriorate with the precedents and norms that are now being established. MAGA cult followers, with no understanding or appreciation of government and law, will help accelerate the decline of America. Sad.

People like Prairie Guy, MrMatt and Eder (who I believe is American) sound similar to other American voters who don't care that Trump is corrupt. They don't care that Trump breaks laws, or it's just not a big deal to them.

When voters, and indeed elected politicians, no longer care that a president is deeply corrupt, you've got a big problem. America's values are rapidly changing now and I personally think we are watching a sharp decline in the empire.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

We get it James...your politics showed when you were recently writing glowing reports of our own idiot in chief. It's OK for people to have their own opinions.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

If the FBI investigated Biden there would be no big deal. The whistle blowers lawyer said he was going to form a cue against Trump long before this all started. I doubt very much that the whistle blower actually listened to a private phone call by the president. Nancy forced the individual dems to vote for impeachment instead of letting them do their own thinking.

The whole bogus impeachment is making a mess no matter who gets in now the other side will just say he/she is not my president & lets just impeach.Treason charges should be laid for the guilty.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Have you ever heard the story of the boy who called wolf ?

The Dems have been trying to impeach Trump since day 1, its getting old.

Trump is not classy at all and he is not who I would choose but really ?

The dossier Hillary QB'd with the Dems vs Trump originally wit the Russians went no where... then there was something else no ? and now this... I mean George Bush couldn't put a sentence together but they left him alone. If the Dems are determined, they should just win the election this fall. 

life would be easier, but they feel some calling against Trump...


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> *Here are some laws that Trump is breaking*
> 
> (A) The GAO, which is the government auditor, reported that Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by unilaterally withholding $214 million of legislatively appropriated Defense Department aid for Ukraine without obtaining authorization from Congress. This law was passed to limit damage from a a rogue president (reference1, reference2)


The GAO determined that Obama violated federal law 7 times:

https://www.thenewscommenter.com/ne...a-administration-violated-federal-law/1259937


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eder said:


> The Dem's act like they are special but are as bad as the Republican's
> 
> 1) Joe Biden uses a quid pro quo with Ukraine and accuses Trump of it.
> 2) The Clintons employ Russians to spy on Trump and create a fake dossier then accuse Trump of being aided by Russians.
> ...


Pure 3rd world politics and dictatorship tactics by the Democrats and the socialists on this site defend them heartedly.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

And now the Democrats are looking at changing their own rules to push out Sanders:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If they've got the goods on Trump why did they make such a big deal about a nothingburger like the Ukraine phone call? Why didn't they prosecute an actual crime, if they can find one?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump is now an impeached President. Republicans blocked all witnesses to hide Trump's criminal activities. That is what the history books will say.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I have people on my facebook page who are praising god and trump in same sentence , he was forgiven for screwing the women and Paula White god bless her has said he is very devoted Christian man so they need to elect him to create the next Christian state .One bimbo even said the Jews have Israel , Muslims have Saudi Arabia so Christians need United states.Stop the baby killing and get rid of the gays and anyone different , that is the United States they want.You have to be blind and stupid to see he is just lining his own pockets and the people supporting him probably have made millions too.The issue will be in 5 years when he comes out wearing his crown and does away with the rule that you can only serve 8 years as president.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Trump is now an impeached President. Republicans blocked all witnesses to hide Trump's criminal activities. That is what the history books will say.


The Democrats called 17 witnesses in their hearing and none were blocked and none of them provided anything other than Trump daring to disagree with Democrat policies. The Senate is in charge of this phase of impeachment and they'll acquit Trump as they should.

If they weren't ready or had no evidence of crimes then starting the impeachment was premature and nothing but a grandstanding ploy to appeal to their demographic and their media masters. The media did their duty and tried to convict him on air but no one fell for it. Now they can brag about their moral victory of impeachment but it's meaningless. You can post on here every day that they impeached Trump but no one will care.

Trump won again and made the Democrats and media look even worse than before. Next up the Dems will cook the books to get rid of Sanders and they'll fall even further in the eyes of the moderate liberals that are fleeing the party in droves.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Next up the Dems will cook the books to get rid of Sanders and they'll fall even further in the eyes of the moderate liberals that are fleeing the party in droves.



PG/tygrus/bass player, this ^^ is just some sick fantasy that you have. Moderate liberals are not fleeing the democratic party in droves.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Look up the word "impeachment" in the dictionary and there will be a picture of Donald Trump for all the world to see.

He will spend the rest of his life trying to convince people it was all a miscarriage of justice, but the people will know...........and they will smile and laugh.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It will be forever remembered in the minds and hearts of man and beast, that Donald Trump was but a trivial placeholder in history awaiting the arrival of President Bernie Sanders.


----------



## capricorn (Dec 3, 2013)

sags;2068960
He will spend the rest of his life trying to convince people... [/QUOTE said:


> OR, he could bask in full glory for whatever years that are given to him by God that he outsmarted both the republican and democrat establishments more than once. Supposedly better names than him have tried multiple times and failed. His legacy will live on for generations because of judicial appointments.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Judicial appointments that can now be changed at the whim of any President, if they deem it will assist in their re-election campaigns for the good of the country.

Sorry Supreme Court Justices.......but you Conservatives won't be needed on the bench anymore.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

marina628 said:


> I have people on my facebook page who are praising god and trump in same sentence , he was forgiven for screwing the women and Paula White god bless her has said he is very devoted Christian man so they need to elect him to create the next Christian state .One bimbo even said the Jews have Israel , Muslims have Saudi Arabia so Christians need United states.Stop the baby killing and get rid of the gays and anyone different , that is the United States they want.


Yup. Those are the religious fundamentalists, one of the groups the Republicans stay close to, in order to maintain power
https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/...-impeachment?p=2068480&viewfull=1#post2068480


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Smug liberalism is what got the orange guy elected...not religious zealots...it may be that it will happen again


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eder said:


> Smug liberalism is what got the orange guy elected...not religious zealots...it may be that it will happen again


Probably. I've never seen a group of people lose so often for so long and still think that they're better.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Could be that GOP win because the system is rigged in their favour. More people vote for Democrats in House, Senate and Presidency. Only in US does that translate into being shut out of power like in 2016. Of course, Democrats could/should take a leaf from GOP book and do some rigging of their own. Republicans are making great strides in eliminating any sense of duty to hold the president to account.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

When all else fails someone will table the "snuff" option.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder and Prairie Guy are showing us how MAGA people think. They are totally obsessed with various non-issues, which is what the Republicans, Fox News, and right wing social media directs them to focus on. *It's a misdirection tactic* that energizes his base and makes people like Eder and Prairie Guy cheer. "Go get'em Trump! Go get those... border invaders"

The misdirection trick is to make voters focus on: conspiracy theories, border invaders, terrorism, the radical left, liberal elitism -- all of which our resident MAGA'ers post about incessantly.

While the American public focuses on these non-issues (taking the misdirection bait) they turn a blind eye to the highly corrupt leader which is violating rules and protocols of government. Trump is violating laws and safeguards which are there to keep the government honest. He's also violating well-established norms of government and norms of global relations, including with allies.

Worst of all, Trump is violating the core American/western value that elected politicians have a duty to act in the best interest of the country. He's supposed to serve the public, but he does not.

This will continue through the next election. Using a combination of these kinds of nonsense distractions to energize his base, Trump will stay in office, and keep abusing the office and violating the laws of the USA.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Don Lemon and Hillary publicly said what the left has always thought...they think they're better. That's why James keeps saying that it wasn't the Democrat's fault for losing the election...blame it on Fox News, social media, or a miniscule percentage of extremists. There just HAS to be a reason why they lost that doesn't involve their own actions or failings. 

Hillary's book listed 46 reasons why she lost...none of the reasons touched on the fact that she had no accomplishments in spite of decades in office, she is married to a sex offender, she's a known criminal, and she has no personality. Nope...the reason she lost was because of all the stupid boors on the right who can't see how awesome she really was.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> Hillary's book listed 46 reasons why she lost...none of the reasons touched on the fact that she had no accomplishments in spite of decades in office, she is married to a sex offender, she's a known criminal, and she has no personality. Nope...the reason she lost was because of all the stupid boors on the right who can't see how awesome she really was.


Thanks PG! Beautiful example right here of the misdirections and distractions which keep the MAGA base going. None of these things PG listed has anything to do with the fact that Trump is a crook who is violating laws and violating his duty to serve the public.

But this is exactly the kind of thinking the MAGA base is trained in by their media sources. Obsession with Hillary, even obsession with Bill Clinton's sexual habits.

Completely irrelevant to Trump breaking laws, abusing the power of the office, and failing to act in the best interests of America.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

You may have meant to say.."Failing in the best interests of America because I know whats better for America more than any ignorant deplorable".


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

james4beach said:


> Eder and Prairie Guy are showing us how MAGA people think. They are totally obsessed with various non-issues, which is what the Republicans, Fox News, and right wing social media directs them to focus on. *It's a misdirection tactic* that energizes his base and makes people like Eder and Prairie Guy cheer. "Go get'em Trump! Go get those... border invaders"
> 
> The misdirection trick is to make voters focus on: conspiracy theories, border invaders, terrorism, the radical left, liberal elitism -- all of which our resident MAGA'ers post about incessantly.
> 
> ...


That's funny, I would have thought secure borders, possible invasion, troublemaking radicals and possible anti American conspiracies were all legitimate concerns of a US President.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> While the American public focuses on these non-issues (taking the misdirection bait) they turn a blind eye to the highly corrupt leader which is violating rules and protocols of government. Trump is violating laws and safeguards which are there to keep the government honest. He's also violating well-established norms of government and norms of global relations, including with allies.
> 
> Worst of all, Trump is violating the core American/western value that elected politicians have a duty to act in the best interest of the country. He's supposed to serve the public, but he does not.
> 
> This will continue through the next election. Using a combination of these kinds of nonsense distractions to energize his base, Trump will stay in office, and keep abusing the office and violating the laws of the USA.


Trump says he cares and he'll fight for you.

The Democrats are calling everyday ordinary people all sorts of nasty names and accusing them of various *isms, and being Nazi's and racist etc.

For example, there are legitimate concerns illegal immigration.
The Democratic party wants to pretend it's racist for some reason.

So when one person says "I understand that you have concerns, and I want to address them", and the other says "How dare you, you're a horrible person". Who do you think they're going to vote for?

The rest doesn't matter, one guy pretends he cares, the other pretends they hate you.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Thanks PG! Beautiful example right here of the misdirections and distractions which keep the MAGA base going. None of these things PG listed has anything to do with the fact that Trump is a crook who is violating laws and violating his duty to serve the public.
> 
> But this is exactly the kind of thinking the MAGA base is trained in by their media sources. Obsession with Hillary, even obsession with Bill Clinton's sexual habits.
> 
> Completely irrelevant to Trump breaking laws, abusing the power of the office, and failing to act in the best interests of America.


You keep saying Trump committed crimes yet the FBI and the Mueller investigation couldn't find any in spite of 3 years of searching. The Democrats had to settle for impeaching him for disagreeing with a policy hack.

So, your claims of a crime are pure BS and even a deplorable rube can see that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump just keeps repeating the same old bumper sticker slogans.

If he has improved the lives of ordinary Americans half as much as he says he did, he wouldn't have such low approval ratings.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.

In 2016 Trump had no previous record of accomplishments. Today he has 4 years of governing as a record of what he has accomplished.........or not.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Trump just keeps repeating the same old bumper sticker slogans.
> 
> If he has improved the lives of ordinary Americans half as much as he says he did, he wouldn't have such low approval ratings.
> 
> ...


He doesn't have to fool anyone. 
The point is that all he has to do is repeat the same slogans.

He doesn't say "I'm just like you", because we all know that they're not. There isn't a single possibly presidential candidate who isn't a filthy rich well connected politician.

They're not normal people, and he's the only one who admits it.

Look at the Democrats, even the communist loving Bernie doesn't want to share his millions. They're all a bunch of greedy #%@%@%.


----------



## jdc (Feb 1, 2016)

sags said:


> If he has improved the lives of ordinary Americans half as much as he says he did, he wouldn't have such low approval ratings.


Fact: Trump has approximately the same approval rating as Obama had during his presidency. Check it out for yourself.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> You keep saying Trump committed crimes yet the FBI and the Mueller investigation couldn't find any in spite of 3 years of searching. The Democrats had to settle for impeaching him for disagreeing with a policy hack.
> 
> So, your claims of a crime are pure BS and even a deplorable rube can see that.


Before the Mueller report came out I discussed the case with a retired police detective. When I said they had been investigating the case for 2 years he laughed and said if you investigate a crime for 2 months and can't find any evidence it's because there isn't any.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Bill Maher: All the Democrats have to do to beat Trump in 2020 is be less crazy than he is.

Democrats: Hold my beer and watch this.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

jdc said:


> Fact: Trump has approximately the same approval rating as Obama had during his presidency. Check it out for yourself.


yes and apparently he has had a higher approval rating than our prime minister for a good part of his term.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Could be that GOP win because the system is rigged in their favour. More people vote for Democrats in House, Senate and Presidency. Only in US does that translate into being shut out of power like in 2016. Of course, Democrats could/should take a leaf from GOP book and do some rigging of their own. Republicans are making great strides in eliminating any sense of duty to hold the president to account.


Are you sure that only happens in the US. Who won the popular vote in Canada last election, and who is in power now?

Lib 5,915,950 votes Cons 6,155,662


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

At any rate Trump should have a few choice barbs for the Dems at his state of the union speech coming up as the Dems showed they can't even run a small vote in Iowa without screwing up. 

CBS commentary said "How can the Democrats think they will run the health care system when they show they are unable to run their own caucus."

Maybe they will blame it on Russian meddling again lol.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think Trump would handle the laughing and boos very well.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I realize that Republicans and even many voters think Trump is all cool, and I get that, but the problem remains is that it looks like this guy is running afoul of many laws. He's even admitted to wrongdoing in public broadcasts.

These aren't insignificant laws either. They relate to getting election assistance from foreign entities and abusing the power of the office by using coercion for purely personal needs. These are _major_ abuses of the office of President.

(And no, I don't like Biden either. It sounds like he may be corrupt as well, but he's also not president so it really doesn't matter).

Once Trump is out of office there might be a mountain of criminal charges to answer for. He was impeached for a reason.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Once he's out of office there might be a mountain of criminal charges to answer for.


We heard that during the Mueller investigation and during the impeachment. So far nothing.



> He was impeached for a reason.


We know...the Democrats can't beat him in a fair election.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> We know...the Democrats can't beat him in a fair election.


In case you forgot, all US intelligence agencies reported foreign interference in the last election, and say that Russia is continuing to influence US elections for 2020. The Russians prefer Trump over other candidates.

Doesn't it bother you that a foreign adversary is manipulating US elections to give one candidate an advantage?


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Prairie Guy said:


> ..the Democrats can't beat him in a fair election.


Yeah, fascinating for sure.

Everyone seems to agree that the biggest problem is that the Democrats will never get over Hillary losing the election. It just sticks in their craw, and even though it seems so long ago, every avenue they pursue to remove Trump from office (and there have been an embarrassment of attempts) is directly related to the fact that they simply cannot accept losing that election. And even today with the huge advantage of a left ideological bias of pretty much all the media in the USA (and heck, even in Canada), few people seem to have really changed their minds. Fascinating.

ltr


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

Don't like other countries manipulating elections??? Nobody said too much when Obama endorsed with Trudeau - and I'm sure given a chance, Castro would have promoted his look-alike son too! LOL. Good thing for him the popular vote doesn't count!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> We heard that during the Mueller investigation and during the impeachment. So far nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> We know...the Democrats can't beat him in a fair election.


it's one of the reasons they're trying to get non citizens to vote.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Brian K said:


> Don't like other countries manipulating elections??? Nobody said too much when Obama endorsed with Trudeau - and I'm sure given a chance, Castro would have promoted his look-alike son too! LOL. Good thing for him the popular vote doesn't count!


Obama did not set up entire fleets of bots and pay online social media actors to sway public opinion in Canada. You seem to be clueless about the extent to which the US experienced foreign interference.

This is not just about a foreign leader expressing their support verbally. It's about an extensive intelligence campaign to manipulate American voters.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> an embarrassment of attempts
> ltr


I love this adverb...worthy of a Conrad Black editorial


Anyway I think most people undecided will have to see that the Dem's botched even a small vote...will be hard for them to show they are competent after all these missteps...but you never know...JT over came his black face fiasco although the bar was set pretty low by Sheer.


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

Yeah - thanks Jimmy. Unless we agree with you, we're clueless. I don't think I mentioned anything about US experiencing foreign interference. Oh let me re-read my post. Nope I didn't. Why don't you actually READ the post before commenting. But I'll guess that it was OK with you for Obama to endorse Trudeau. I wonder what side of the fence you are on.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Obama did not set up entire fleets of bots and pay online social media actors to sway public opinion in Canada. You seem to be clueless about the extent to which the US experienced foreign interference ...


You mean like the clandestine work Kennedy's pollster did in the Canadian election?
https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...-for-the-history-of-canada-plenty-experts-say
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...diefenbaker-lose-an-election/article10844078/

Interestingly, Kennedy told the pollster to stay home instead of helping with the British election.


Cheers


*PS*
A twitter post seems tame in comparison. 

Though I did recall friends criticising it and a couple of articles along the same line.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Yes ^ this example of Kennedy's man is a much better example. That's interference. What Brian K writes about (Obama's endorsement) is not interference.

Kennedy's agent trying to affect the Canadian election is a close parallel to Russia using intelligence agents and paid contractors to spread propaganda.

There was interference in the US elections. We can never know to what extent, if any, this impacted the outcome.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I guess Americans are not impressed 

*Donald Trump just got the best polling news of his presidency....*



from CNN of all ridic places lol


Latest tweet
Nothing works, just like they ran the Country. Remember the 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare Website, that should have cost 2% of that.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

dupe


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I have no doubt that he's popular. I know he's popular. But just because someone is popular or has a cult following, doesn't mean they should not be held to account for crimes or wrongdoings.

Yes the US has a system in which people vote for who they want to elect, but their system also has rules and laws which constrain the powers of people in office. *Laws, and checks and balances, are fundamental to fair democracy*. If these laws are not obeyed, you don't have a president in a democracy.

Instead, you've got a third-world style autocrat or dictator. It's shocking to me that Americans are so comfortable with this.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> Everyone seems to agree that the biggest problem is that the Democrats will never get over Hillary losing the election. It just sticks in their craw, and even though it seems so long ago, every avenue they pursue to remove Trump from office (and there have been an embarrassment of attempts) is directly related to the fact that they simply cannot accept losing that election.




in realitiy, the opposite is the case. It's the neo krypto alt rights in the forum who can never let go of hillary, bill & barack.

here's the forum's resident sandbox alt-right hating on hillary clinton only 2 days ago:



Prairie Guy said:


> Hillary's book listed 46 reasons why she lost...none of the reasons touched on the fact that she had no accomplishments in spite of decades in office, she is married to a sex offender, she's a known criminal, and she has no personality. Nope...the reason she lost was because of all the stupid boors on the right who can't see how awesome she really was.



relentlessly, every few weeks on here, the neo kryptos revive Benghazi, although it's not likely they even know where it is any more, let alone what happened there.

.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> It's about an extensive intelligence campaign to manipulate American voters.


The FBI pushing the fake pee dossier when they knew it was fake? Comey letting Hillary off the hook for breach of national security? Yes, it's bad when the intelligence agencies try to influence an election.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Garth explains the poll quite succinctly...


As the Dems drift left, with the irascible Sanders spouting socialism atop the shoulders of his clueless Millennial army, the more the current president looks normal. Now, who ever thought that would happen?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Comey letting Hillary off the hook for breach of national security?



there they go again. Obsessed with yesteryear.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> there they go again. Obsessed with yesteryear.


It's not a surprise that conspiracy theories and paranoia go hand in hand with Trump support. A good amount of his voter base is unable to distinguish reality from fantasy.

As I wrote about here, it's a self-selecting group with certain behaviours:
https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/...-impeachment?p=2068480&viewfull=1#post2068480

Once they've bought into the cult (an accepting place where conspiracy theories are celebrated, not scorned) they enter a kind of parallel universe. Any negative press about Trump is more likely to be a Democrat or FBI conspiracy. But oh wait, did Trump just openly admit to foreign interference in the elections? No... must be something something Hillary or damned Obama! _Grrrrr_ it's always Obama!!

I don't think we should underestimate the power of social inclusiveness and belonging. MAGA is a welcoming place for believers in conspiracy theories. It's validation and brotherhood; a true cult. But unlike most cults, it has the corporate backing of Murdoch's Fox News which give it some legitimacy.

Left unchecked, this condition will melt one's brain.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

humble_pie said:


> there they go again. Obsessed with yesteryear.


That happened at the very same time as the supposed Russian collusion, so it guess it was "yesteryear" and not important?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Perhaps you would care to impeach (ban) any that disagree with your view. Sure sounds like it, and there's nothing wrong with a private forum that wants to steer the drift of discussion to reflect their own views. Lots of forums already are left wing havens that seem quite popular and perhaps are profitable.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Every single time the Democrats fail it's Russia's fault or the rube right wingers for not seeing how brilliant they are. Democrat crimes don't count but made up accusations about Trump require impeachment.

But even with the deck stacked against him, they still can't beat Trump. It must really burn to be beaten so often by someone you think is dumber than you. But, the fact is that Trump isn't stupid. He uses the Democrats belief that he is against them and comes out on top every single time. They're too arrogant in their superiority to catch on.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't think there's any danger of this forum being mistaken for a left wing haven


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Anyway it looks like either Trump will repeat or Tulsi Gabbard (as vice president) will assume the reigns eventually if Bernie wins.Either outcome would be good for financial markets.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I follow another forum which is more of a right wing hangout full of MAGA people. The kinds of things they write provide some insight into their character and personality. Here are things they posted tonight regarding the Trump speech. I should point out that these were posted in the span of just an hour or two!

[HR][/HR]
"And he [Trump] basically ignored the *b**** [Pelosi]. bravo"
.....^ these are almost always men, and it's common to swear at women, gays, etc

"Pelosi goes to shake Trump's hand he turns his back *LMAO*"

"[Trump] is killing it. The democrats look just like the British Labor party with their long faces and *loser* mentality."
.....^ repeating Trump's slang and catch phrases is common behaviour. Following the schoolyard bully.

"Pelosi looks like she is going to *stroke out*."
.....^ _this is similar to the alt-right theme that Hillary is very sick, i.e. women are weak_

"[Democrats only offer] living as a slave on the *demonrat plantation*"
.....^ idea of the other side being downright evil is a common alt-right theme

"The *demonrats* just sitting there while Trump points out the successes"
.....^ demonrat appears to be one of the cute new MAGA / alt right slangs

"demonrats do want free healthcare for *illegals*, Evidently they have lost their minds"
.....^ common references to hot buttons like illegal aliens, an obsession of MAGA

"This is an in-your-face *FU* to pelosi and her little angels."
.....^ standard over-the-top hostility

"Seems that laws prevent abortion (murder) make demonrats very sad"
.....^ religious fundamentalist using good vs evil metaphor (demon)

[HR][/HR]

That's Trump supporters and voters for you in a nutshell. This was actually a pretty good cross-section of the kind of things they spew. You can find the same things in Youtube comments, and Canadian alt-right (for example Rebel Media) followers write the same kinds of things. There are recurring themes.

These people feed off each other's negative energy, anger and cutesy metaphors. Really a toxic soup filled with some, honestly, very unpleasant people.

We used to call it trolling but we have to recognize these are real people, not trolls, and they have some serious behavioural problems. Prairie Guy and MrMatt are some of the more polite MAGA folks that I've ever seen; personally I suspect they are holding back, and they probably participate in some other internet forums where they really let loose.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Looks to me like Americans happy with their president (other than those living in a Dem bubble )...I wouldn't know the feeling though as Harper has been gone for awhile.

Anyway Pelosi in the background looked like she ran out of vodka during the speech. Very classy of her to remain sitting when the stage 4 cancer victim came to the stage to receive an award...was nice the rest of the venue stood and applauded though.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Do you ever reflect that it might be you who is in a bubble? You really think all Americans are happy with Trump? I guess you think all polls are lies, too? Trump is not a popular president.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

You might be right but atm Gallup says he has a higher approval rating than Obama had at this stage of his presidency. Or am I lying? He must be doing something to appeal to Americans.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I follow another forum which is more of a right wing hangout full of MAGA people. The kinds of things they write provide some insight into their character and personality. Here are things they posted tonight regarding the Trump speech. I should point out that these were posted in the span of just an hour or two!
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> 
> ...



I'm not not sure how you define "a MAGA guy".
I'm anti-authoritarian, anti-facist, pro equality, pro-immigration, law and order type of guy.

If you believe in individual peoples rights to live their own lives, instead of being told what do do by the elite the ruling class. I guess that makes you "MAGA".



As far as laws against murder, yeah, they make Democrats sad. They do. 
https://freebeacon.com/issues/north...-ensue-between-the-physicians-and-the-mother/

Listen to the interview
He actually says, birth the baby, make it comfortable, then "have a discussion".
Sorry but "post birth abortion" is murder, plain and simple.

Personally I'm all for abortion, if you want to kill babies "because it's my right", you're a bad person and you'd probably make a REALLY BAD parent.


----------



## Tayls77 (Dec 10, 2019)

I know I am new here and have found this site to be excellent for gaining information and opinions on money, markets and even retirement. 
So even though I am new I must say I am however seeing more political threads here than I really care to. I am a political person and trust me I love to share my views but to me this forum should focus on its original intent or soon the ability to share investing and money information will be overshadowed by anger and that would be a shame.
While I am definitely a right wing conservative (more libertarian actually) and James is politically the opposite of that, I have garnered some good information from James posts and replies and would hate to let political views affect that information sharing.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Strictly financial forums typically don't last long. 

Even the biggest and most successful financial websites have large sections of other topics. The Red Flag Deals website is an example.


----------



## Tayls77 (Dec 10, 2019)

sags said:


> Strictly financial forums typically don't last long.
> 
> Even the biggest and most successful financial websites have large sections of other topics. The Red Flag Deals website is an example.


Never hurts to dream


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Personally I'm all for abortion, if you want to kill babies "because it's my right", you're a bad person and you'd probably make a REALLY BAD parent. _

If you believe so fervently about preventing abortions, why would you not support more social programs to aid the parents raising the children ?

I have found that most people who are anti-abortion are also anti-social programs. It seems a contradictory position to me. They do no more than express an opinion and walk away.

I think there are better options than abortion, but there needs to be a considerable increase in the amount of support that is given to parents in need of it.

One way to reduce the number of abortions is to support the parents in raising the child, and encourage and support them in any other way possible.

At the end of the day however, it is strictly the woman's choice.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

Tayls77 said:


> I know I am new here...I must say I am however seeing more political threads here than I really care to


This is the 'General Discussion' forum - General _non-financial_ chat. You could always not read this section.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

It looks like Russia successfully hacked the Iowa caucus... :excitement:


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

More Russian interference...they also rigged the coin toss for Buttigieg :excitement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am2A30IsVVI


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _Personally I'm all for abortion, if you want to kill babies "because it's my right", you're a bad person and you'd probably make a REALLY BAD parent. _
> 
> If you believe so fervently about preventing abortions, why would you not support more social programs to aid the parents raising the children ?
> 
> ...


Just a few points, 
1. I am for abortion. Did you read the statement you quoted? 
2. "Post birth abortion" is murder. 
3. I do think our country needs a family building and birth rate strategy.
4. I have a variety of opinions on various policies and programs. Just because I am against bad policies doesn't mean I'm against all programs in a particular sphere.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> It looks like Russia successfully hacked the Iowa caucus...


Uh, actually looks like the DNC hacked the Iowa caucus.
For all the people who want the government to run everything, you just watched the DNC fail at running an episode of American Idol.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Uh, actually looks like the DNC hacked the Iowa caucus.


I agree...I was just making a joke in honour of those who see Russia behind every tree.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, actually looks like the DNC hacked the Iowa caucus.
> ...


Well I was going to make a joke, but it really isn't funny that they are this incompetent.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I guess it would be a bad joke to point out perhaps the people in charge of the caucus escaped abortion by their parents but their chances of escaping a retro active abortion by the Party looks dim.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Well I was going to make a joke, but it really isn't funny that they are this incompetent.



"Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's campaign contributed money to the technological firm whose voting app contributed to reporting delays in the Iowa caucuses.

Federal Election Commission filings reveal that Buttigieg's campaign gave tens of thousands of dollars to Shadow on July 23, 2019, for "software rights and subscriptions."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...oped-voting-app-blamed-for-iowa-caucus-delays

"Shadow's CEO Gerard Niemira, product manager Ahna Rao and COO James Hickey all worked on the Hillary for America campaign which was defeated by Donald Trump in 2016. 

Other staff include alumni of Obama's presidential campaign, as well as Google, Apple and former DNC staffers."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...caucus-results-delayed-mobile-app-issues.html


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Federal Election Commission filings reveal that Buttigieg's campaign gave tens of thousands of dollars to Shadow on July 23, 2019, for "software rights and subscriptions."


I understand Pete isn't that rich, but tens of thousands of dollars is really not a sufficient bribe.
I really think it's hubris and incompetence. 

DHS offered to review the app for free. 
IMO I think it is okay to have government officials assist in that manner.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> DHS offered to review the app for free.
> IMO I think it is okay to have government officials assist in that manner.


Fun fact: I recently worked with the DHS department which reviews these apps and software


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I understand Pete isn't that rich, but tens of thousands of dollars is really not a sufficient bribe.
> I really think it's hubris and incompetence ...


Or it may be a fixation on the new, iterative development processes that are the rage.

Lots more broken code is making it to production systems because "get it there fast as the deadline is here" mentality that sacrifices testing as well as making sure the testing is comprehensive enough. :eek2:



Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The quality of most software today is just terrible. Everyone wants fancy code but nobody is willing to pay for the quality and expertise needed to do it properly. As a result, practically everything we use is pure garbage.

There are some exceptions to that. Places like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook actually are spending time & money to do correct (and secure) software development... it's very impressive. The practices they are using in these companies are miles ahead of competitors in the world.

Most other companies have no understanding of the kind of work and skill that goes into proper software development. Good software costs $$$ big money. Most companies aren't willing to spend that, or have a totally outdated notion of "what software costs", which is why they inevitably end up with pure garbage.

While the giants (Google, Microsoft etc) will eat their lunch and drive them all out of business, ultimately.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Or it may be a fixation on the new, iterative development processes that are the rage.


Here's some advice for managers who might be reading this: if you encounter the keywords "scrum", "agile" or "sprint" ... you are likely going to end up with crap. Stay away from those projects or at least don't put your name on them.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

james4beach said:


> Here's some advice for managers who might be reading this: if you encounter the keywords "scrum", "agile" or "sprint" ... you are likely going to end up with crap. Stay away from those projects or at least don't put your name on them.


wayyyyy off topic but soo agree with this. I'm stuck in this SAFe agile crap, it's turning a decent job into pure nightmare.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The quality of most software today is just terrible. Everyone wants fancy code but nobody is willing to pay for the quality and expertise needed to do it properly ...


That's the ironic part ... they used to pay for it but the new methods being applied whether it fits or not, never mind if the method was tweaked causes problems.




james4beach said:


> ... There are some exceptions to that. Places like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook actually are spending time & money to do correct (and secure) software development ...


I hadn't noticed they were that great.




james4beach said:


> ... Most other companies have no understanding of the kind of work and skill that goes into proper software development. Good software costs $$$ big money. Most companies aren't willing to spend that, or have a totally outdated notion of "what software costs", which is why they inevitably end up with pure garbage.


Most I have worked for do know what it costs ... they choose to wait for issues. Similar to encrypting laptop drives was too inconvenient or a hassle for the user ... right up until management realised that stolen laptop had strategic documents on it that could easily be retrieved. Then encryption was rolled out asap with costs including overtime as well as the hassle factor being a non-issues.


There's also the chance that the development was awarded or volunteered by people with connections in the Democratic party where the provider wasn't up to what was needed or critical issues were swept under the carpet. 


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mitt Romney, who is not only a Republican but was a past Republican nominee for President, has spoken out:

*Romney will vote to convict Trump*. He calls Trump's actions an appalling breach of the public trust.

It's good to see there is at least one Republican out there who still has a moral compass, and independent thought. The rest of the party should be ashamed of themselves for protecting such a corrupt president.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Romney is a traitor...no big deal as everyone already knew that.

The Democrats will go down in history as the only party to impeach a president for not committing a crime. Trump will be rightfully acquitted this afternoon because they only thing they proved was that Trump was smart enough to disagree with failed Democrat policies.

The Democrats won't accept that, just like they didn't accept the results of the election because they have already stated that they'll immediately start another investigation. They'll make up another BS charge and sags and James will post gleefully and endlessly how the walls are finally closing in.

Yawn...


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Romney is one of the religious right nut jobs no? But now he's a hero because he will vote against Trump as Trump's acquittal is not in jeopardy if he does. Doesn't take much to capture your approval lol.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> It's good to see there is at least one Republican out there who still has a moral compass, and independent thought.


Oh my goodness..................... sigh.........

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> Oh my goodness..................... sigh.........


Yes I share your shock and horror that nearly all Republicans support a corrupt president.

What a sad day for the USA and for the American people.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Yes I share your shock and horror that nearly all Republicans support a corrupt president.
> 
> What a sad day for the USA and for the American people.


Read...... spin ...............

ltr


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Fun fact: I recently worked with the DHS department which reviews these apps and software


Are you admitting fault?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Fun fact: I recently worked with the DHS department which reviews these apps and software


Then you must be aware that it's actually quite easy to make good, stable and secure software, if you're a good security oriented developer.

There is a reason OpenBSD has had so few security holes in many years, despite the extremely small team.

The thing is you want something fast and flashy, it's not likely secure.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Back to the topic, Trump was found not guilty in accordance with US law.

To be fair, the verdict was as political as the whole process to this point, but they gave him yet another chance to claim victory. If the Dems don't like Trump, why are they working so hard to help his re-election?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Romney is a traitor...no big deal as everyone already knew that.
> 
> The Democrats will go down in history as the only party to impeach a president for not committing a crime. Trump will be rightfully acquitted this afternoon because they only thing they proved was that Trump was smart enough to disagree with failed Democrat policies.
> 
> ...


What crime was Bill Clinton impeached for? And impeachment is not just for criminal acts. It is a censure measure for abuse of office. You can't pretend there is no smoke with Trump. How many of his close associates have been arrested or sent to prison?

You really can't complain about the Democrats continuing to investigate Trump, if you supported the multi-year Benghazi gong-show against Hillary. And she wasn't even in a position of power at the time they expended all that political capital trying to hang Benghazi on her.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Back to the topic, Trump was found not guilty in accordance with US law.
> 
> To be fair, the verdict was as political as the whole process to this point, but they gave him yet another chance to claim victory. If the Dems don't like Trump, why are they working so hard to help his re-election?


Good question is why they didn't let Bolton testify in a House committee.

On the subject of traitors, is anyone more treacherous than Trump? I wonder which of his friends/cabinet he _won't_ knife in the back by the time he leaves office.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> What crime was Bill Clinton impeached for?


Lying under oath was one of them. He was also disbarred by the Supreme Court. Don't you do any research?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Back to the topic, Trump was found not guilty in accordance with US law.
> 
> To be fair, the verdict was as political as the whole process to this point, but they gave him yet another chance to claim victory. If the Dems don't like Trump, why are they working so hard to help his re-election?


Well, just like Trudeau...maybe it's better they're wasting time on this instead of screwing up the country.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Good question is why they didn't let Bolton testify in a House committee.


The Democrats bragged they had an airtight case when they sent it to the Senate. If they didn't have a case, the Senate isn't required to waste time looking for one. Perhaps the Democrats should have called Bolton instead of policy hacks with hurt feelings. Or, they could have called the whistleblower...but then he would have had to explain under oath his close ties to Biden and the Democrats.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Lying under oath was one of them. He was also disbarred by the Supreme Court. Don't you do any research?


Lying about a blow job. 

Meanwhile, rampant criminality among Trump's close associates is no problem at all...

And the Republicans are trying to codify Presidential immunity. No act is illegal if it is done to ensure the President's re-election, which is automatically the same thing as the nation's interest. Banana republic reasoning there. Nixon would be proud.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> The Democrats bragged they had an airtight case when they sent it to the Senate. If they didn't have a case, the Senate isn't required to waste time looking for one. Perhaps the Democrats should have called Bolton instead of policy hacks with hurt feelings. Or, they could have called the whistleblower...but then he would have had to explain under oath his close ties to Biden and the Democrats.


They did have a case that Trump abused office. 

Democrats were not allowed to call Bolton because the GOP was terrified of having witnesses. There were witnesses permitted during the Clinton impeachment.

The whistleblower is a red herring. His identity is irrelevant, as what he revealed has been demonstrated to be true.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I was surprised that the house wouldn't allow witnesses or cross examination during the impeachment process. Only 1 reason for that I guess, I'll let other white,angry religious zealots elaborate.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> They did have a case that Trump abused office.


No, they claimed he abused office but couldn't prove it.



> Democrats were not allowed to call Bolton because the GOP was terrified of having witnesses. There were witnesses permitted during the Clinton impeachment.


Why are you bringing up the past? However, since you went there, there were also witnesses called by BOTH sides during the house phase.



> The whistleblower is a red herring. His identity is irrelevant, as what he revealed has been demonstrated to be true.


BS. He has close ties to Biden and the Democrats. His identity is VERY relevant and if the accused can't face his accuser then it's not a real trial...it's a farce.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Lying about a blow job.


No. For lying under oath. You do know that it's a crime, don't you? The Supreme Court didn't disbar him for getting a blow job...they disbarred him for committing a crime.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> No, they claimed he abused office but couldn't prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apparently the idea of a whistleblower is lost on you. The only reason why GOP wanted him named was so he could be destroyed. Why does his identify matter if he pointed out facts that could otherwise be verified? Of course, the Trump white house leaks like a sieve--has any former administration member not blabbed in a tell-all book about the ****-show that is the Trump presidency?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> No. For lying under oath. You do know that it's a crime, don't you? The Supreme Court didn't disbar him for getting a blow job...they disbarred him for committing a crime.


For "lying" about a blowjob, under oath. Impeachment is not a criminal investigation. You can try to make a case that it was a crime, but that's not relevant. It's a question about high crimes and misdemeanors as specified in the constitution. I can see how a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that lying about a blowjob during political testimony does not constitute an abuse of office, etc. Much harder to stretch your imagination that using government resources to pressure a foreign country to produce dirt on a political adversary for personal electoral benefit is not an abuse of office.

GOP has done significant damage to the ability to hold future Presidents to account. Future standard will be to shut down any impeachment proceedings in the Senate regardless of the merits of the case. Hope you enjoy that the next time you are worried about Democratic blowjobs.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf, you won't get much out of engaging with Prairie Guy.

This was a sad day for western democracy in general; we just watched how lawmakers are unable to hold a President to account even when he performs shocking wrongs. All of our standards (really everywhere in the west) have just slipped a notch or two. It appears that a President can leverage the power of his office (and hard-working taxpayer's money) to exert pressure for personal reasons and ambitions... even endangering the country's national interests while doing so!

It also appears that when given subpoenas by the House for information they demand (these are the checks and balances we value in western democracy) the President can just tell them "no" and also instruct all of his staff to not cooperate. _Unbelievable_.

What we saw today is, there are no consequences to these abuses of power. Only a fool would consider this a good thing. Only someone who is ignorant of government's system of checks and balances would celebrate this.

Here is the full text of the articles of impeachment as a PDF. It nicely describes what Trump has done wrong.

The right wingers haven't thought this through at all. If that "socialist" or "communist" President they fear so much ever gets into power, he can also do whatever he wants. He will not have to answer to anybody. Trump is writing the template for how a dictator can act. Several of our resident right wingers have written about how the really dangerous types are the far left governments, who are more authoritarian and dictatorial (they say). OK, let's say they are.

Let's say that horrific socialist President gets elected and is popular with the people. She gets elected, jacks up taxes tremendously. Starts using government resources for personal gains and going after her enemies. Is challenged from the House for suspected abuses, but she refuses their demands and subpoenas; who cares? The House has no power anyway.

People cheer in the streets (keep supporting the dictatorial President) as she hands out tons of free money to everyone and promises to bring down the rich. Maybe to punish some very rich people, she picks certain companies, and uses government resources to destroy them. The masses cheer.

Who's going to stop them? Nobody.

... or would you rather have a government where a President abusing their power can actually be challenged and stopped?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> andrewf, you won't get much out of engaging with Prairie Guy.
> 
> This was a sad day for western democracy in general; we just watched how lawmakers are unable to hold a President to account even when he performs shocking wrongs. All of our standards (really everywhere in the west) have just slipped a notch or two. It appears that a President can leverage the power of his office (and hard-working taxpayer's money) to exert pressure for personal reasons and ambitions... even endangering the country's national interests while doing so!
> 
> ...





> Who's going to stop them? Nobody.
> 
> ... or would you rather have a government where a President abusing their power can actually be challenged and stopped?


Quite honestly that's the way we're going, when the PM of Canada is elected, as long as the party in power supports them, they're basically a dictator.
We don't even have an effective method to hold them to account or remove them.

Look at the SNC scandal, we didn't even get the show trial that the US got with Trump.
He illegally interfered, blocked the investigation and ... nothing.

This was only interfering with a criminal trial, what about the next thing?

I HAVE thought this through, we need a method to drastically reduce the power of government, or at least maintain some control. 
It's crazy, and it's a problem.

I don't have a solution, but the one tool we have is free speech. 
That is why the actions of the Trudeau government to restrict speech are so dangerous.

They're bribing the media with millions to squeeze out the smaller organizations.
Steven Guilbeault is very unclear what they're planning to do with licensing or registering media.
I understand there are concerns, but it should take more than "you're not real media" to block reporters from reporting on parliament or elections.

Do you think that the impeachment trial in the US would have even gotten this far if Trump was able to shut down the media earlier?

Free speech is more important then ever. I really hope that people in Canada look at what Trudeau is trying to do, and stop him before it's too late.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Well said Matt.

The left willingly support the erosion of free speech and allow the government to take more power and they go along with because the right are initially being targeted and they think that their "side" is winning. They don't realize that they're just being used and that they will be next. But when their turn comes there will be no one left to defend them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At times like these, I like to ask myself...........what would President Bernie Sanders do ?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Sanders won't get in...the people counting the votes are the same people who cheated Sanders out of the nomination in 2016. 

It's good that Sanders won't get in because he's a communist. It's also good for the US for people to see another reason why the Democrats can't be trusted. Cooking the books against Sanders is a win/win for the Republicans.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee is because turnout of voters is everything.

Trump won the electoral college because Democratic supporters in key blue collar States stayed home in 2016. They thought Hillary Clinton was heading for an easy victory.

After 4 years of Trump, they won't be staying home this time. Millions more voters will turn out to vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is.

This pollster has done the fine research and says the Democrats will win easily. She predicted the huge victories in 2018 by the Democrats.

The field of Democratic nominees are adding new young voters to registration lists. The Republican support is declining through natural causes.

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...rofile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> Well said Matt.
> 
> The left willingly support the erosion of free speech and allow the government to take more power


You live in a bizarre alternate reality. The right wing (Republicans)... not "the left"... are the ones who just allowed the government to take more unchecked power, side-stepping checks and balances. It happened yesterday.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump thought today was Festivus and held the "airing of grievances" in the White House.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> It doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee is because turnout of voters is everything.
> 
> Trump won the electoral college because Democratic supporters in key blue collar States stayed home in 2016. They thought Hillary Clinton was heading for an easy victory.


Trump won because people didn't vote for Clinton. 
Yes there are hyperpartisans who only vote party, but there are a lot of swing voters.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> You live in a bizarre alternate reality. The right wing (Republicans)... not "the left"... are the ones who just allowed the government to take more unchecked power, side-stepping checks and balances. It happened yesterday.


Trudeau voted against the investigation into his illegal actions a few months ago. Hate to break it to you, unchecked power is a problem here in Canada too.
Actually it's more of a problem here, Trudeau didn't even go to trial, he shut down the investigation way before then. I wish we had the checks and balances the US has.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Yup...there's a huge difference. Trump let them run a sham investigation. Trudeau shut down a legitimate investigation.

Which one is the real threat to democracy?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

sags said:


> At times like these, I like to ask myself...........what would President Bernie Sanders do ?


We know what one of his campaign staffers would do because we have him on video advocating riots if Sanders doesn't get elected, and if he does, gulags and re education camps for MAGA supporters because they are Nazis.

Kyle Jurek, Sanders campaign staffer - cities will burn - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJjLFnV3E7w

In Cuba, what did they do with reactionaries? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC3V2vTTrx4

What Bernie really means when he talks about education for everyone - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC3V2vTTrx4

So is he some kind of nut who snuck into the Sanders campaign? Not exactly, here is another staffer, Martin Weissgerber expressing even more radical sentiments. He wants to do away with Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court and set up Bernie Sanders as absolute dictator.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1219623083666862081

But what about the rest of the staff? Don't they find this kind of thing objectionable? There is no evidence of it, I don't see anyone objecting in these videos. They seem to be speaking quite freely.

And what does Bernie Sanders say about this? This information has been out for two weeks. I went looking for his comments and can't find any. If he repudiated these views, or disciplined or fired these staffers I can't find any sign of it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Trump won because people didn't vote for Clinton.
> Yes there are hyperpartisans who only vote party, but there are a lot of swing voters.


Well, the majority did vote Hillary.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Yup...there's a huge difference. Trump let them run a sham investigation. Trudeau shut down a legitimate investigation.
> 
> Which one is the real threat to democracy?


How would you know if the investigation was a sham?

And more of a sham than investigating a blow job?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I thought Bill was impeached for grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice, there is no law against receiving blowjobs in the White House or Kennedy would be alive and still in jail.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The "perjury" was about a blowjob/sexual relationship. Let's get Trump on the stand and ask about the peepee tape... or Stormy Daniels.

And while the GOP Senators are working on Hunter Biden (not sure what they hope to achieve, Biden won't be the nominee), let's have the Democratic house go hammer and tongs at Ivanka Trump'd business dealings. What a total **** show.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> And more of a sham than investigating a blow job?


The investigation was for perjury, not for getting a blow job. His perjury was deemed severe enough that he was disbarred by the Supreme Court.

This has already been explained to you. Do you suffer from a learning disability or are you trolling?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Well, the majority did vote Hillary.


Yes, but we don't decide by popular vote.

It's why Bernie lost to Mayor Pete (assuming no outright fraud)
It's why Clinton Lost to Trump
It's why Scheer Lost to Trudeau 

There are tradeoffs for all the systems, I think the system we have now is pretty decent.
Ridings/districts are a good idea. I'd like to see ranked ballot, but proportional representation scares me, our PM doesn't need more power. (I said the same thing when Harper was in power)

In Canada the PM has way too much power with almost no accountability, and that's a problem.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

Prairie Guy said:


> This has already been explained to you. Do you suffer from a learning disability or are you trolling?


I find no need for personal attacks in this context. Or ever?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Parliamentary government is far better than the US system. 

Compare the width and depth of legislation the Trudeau government has passed to what little the Trump administration has accomplished over the same time period

The Conservatives floundered on every attempt to defeat Trudeau by casting doubt on his character. In the end it was Andrew Scheer's character that was a deciding factor.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Parliamentary government is far better than the US system.
> 
> Compare the width and depth of legislation the Trudeau government has passed to what little the Trump administration has accomplished over the same time period
> 
> The Conservatives floundered on every attempt to defeat Trudeau by casting doubt on his character. In the end it was Andrew Scheer's character that was a deciding factor.


Huh? 
The executive branch doesn't make legislation. The legislative branch does. 

Neither Trump or Trudeau have made very many court rulings, because that's a different branch. 

Secondly, that's actually my point. In a majority government, the PM is effectively a dictator, which is bad. 

I don't want anyone to have as much unchecked power as the PM does today.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The President signs legislation into law or vetoes it. There is a process to override a Presidential veto but it is a rare occurrence.

Due to their political system, the US has not addressed any of their major issues and it doesn't appear they can or will.

On the other extreme, there are the Europeans with governments so fractured by a range of small parties that nothing gets done.

I will take the Parliamentary system any day over any of those.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The President signs legislation into law or vetoes it. There is a process to override a Presidential veto but it is a rare occurrence.


That's actually my point, the president is literally not able to create laws. 

But to play in the silly world of doing stuff that isn't their job. 

Trump has vetoed several bills passed by the legislature, Trudeau has failed to veto a single bill that was passed by the legislature during.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Huh?
> The executive branch doesn't make legislation. The legislative branch does.
> 
> Neither Trump or Trudeau have made very many court rulings, because that's a different branch.
> ...


PMs are only kind of dictators. They have to remain reasonably popular, or risk the caucus giving them the boot. However, there is a bit of caucus discipline that is not healthy. It's kind of a 'when you come at the king, you best not miss' situation. At the end of the day, if the caucus thinks that the PM is at risk of losing an election or going to cost a lot of them seats, their support tends to crumble and they either take a 'long walk in the snow' and resign or are taken down.

All if this is not to disagree with the idea that MPs should have a more powerful role in Parliament. I strongly support the idea of giving Parliament more teeth to hold the executive to account.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> All if this is not to disagree with the idea that MPs should have a more powerful role in Parliament. I strongly support the idea of giving Parliament more teeth to hold the executive to account.


I'd like someone to be able to hold them to account.
Face it, when the PM does something unsavoury, he can block investigations very effectively.

Even when the PM is found to violate ethics laws, it's up to the PM to decide the appropriate sanctions.

The smug Liberals are pretending this behaviour is okay, because it's "Their Guy", but it won't be their guy forever.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We do have a Senate.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

fstamand said:


> I find no need for personal attacks in this context. Or ever?


I apologize for offending learning disabled people. Andrew has a history of ignoring facts he doesn't like and I should have just asked him if he was being a troll.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt is drawing a false parallel between Trudeau violating ethics rules, and Trump using the power of the US govt for his personal ambitions (not to mention his own business interests, which is another problem).

These things are wildly different in scope and severity. The Canadian ethics commissioner is a recent addition, created by Harper, and Harper & Trudeau are the _only_ PMs ever tested by it. It just doesn't have any historical context or calibration and there are plenty of questions about how those rules should be applied (no case history).

Trump, on the other hand, is running afoul of a ton of regulations that have been in place for decades. The most critical ones, that he's being called out for, are laws that have been in place for *46 years* and applied to all administrations since then. Not only that, but he's simultaneously violating other rules and guidelines. And the severity of the offence is far greater; he's placing a foreign ally in direct danger, and endangering US government workers and diplomats.

Trump has also directly endangered the national interest of the USA including their power and role on the world stage, in Europe, against significant foes.

There is no contest here. The right wingers here with their agendas are making a totally inappropriate comparison... Trudeau has not come anywhere close to these kinds of offences. To suggest that is laughable.

The right wingers are bringing all this up to deflect attention from the true culprit, which is Trump. Every time Trump is criticized, the alt-right flares up and tries attacking one of their own enemies.

I won't take the bait. The problem we are dealing with is that Trump is a crook who is breaking laws and protocols. And these are very serious violations, with really big consequences. There is no Canadian PM, at least in recent history, who has committed any wrongs on this kind of scale.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> MrMatt is drawing a false parallel between Trudeau violating ethics rules, and Trump using the power of the US govt for his personal ambitions (not to mention his own business interests, which is another problem)..


Trudeau violated ethics...no one disputes that. However,Trump was just acquitted of using the government for personal gain.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> Trudeau violated ethics...no one disputes that. However,Trump was just acquitted of using the government for personal gain.


They are not even comparable on severity or scope. And Trump did not just violate ethics rules. He's violating a whole bunch of laws on the books, and violating processes of government (the checks and balances).

Pretty ridiculous to try and draw equivalence of these. Only something an apologist would do.

In any case, pointing to others violating rules does not absolve someone of wrongdoing. Trump is a crook no matter how many other politicians break rules. But I guess you're showing us how the alt-right thinks... who cares if Trump is a crook, since everyone is a crook? Is that your reasoning?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Trudeau violated ethics...no one disputes that. However,Trump was just acquitted of using the government for personal gain.


He was not acquitted in any meaningful way. The Senate GOP said they were going to acquit regardless of evidence. It was a political dog and pony show.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

OK lol...I posted some decent stuff and can't as its deemed in appropriate...nothing in the post was slang,swear or chastising Democrats...whats going on? Trudeau running this board now?

It was James Carville...Democrat posting how they will lose the election because of stuff Bernie & Warren are pushing.

Lol I cant even post the link to the MSNBC interview...flagged as inappropriate.

I guess if you google the headline...

“We’re losing our damn minds”: James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> MrMatt is drawing a false parallel between Trudeau violating ethics rules, and Trump using the power of the US govt for his personal ambitions (not to mention his own business interests, which is another problem).
> 
> These things are wildly different in scope and severity. The Canadian ethics commissioner is a recent addition, created by Harper, and Harper & Trudeau are the _only_ PMs ever tested by it. It just doesn't have any historical context or calibration and there are plenty of questions about how those rules should be applied (no case history).
> 
> ...


Actually I'm comparing the non-investigation of Trudeaus interference with the Criminal trial, where he lied and actively blocked the investigation, to the Trump instance where the investigation took place.

The ethics issue is that even when he's found to have violated the rules, there is no penalty.

As far as "not coming close", Interfering with a criminal case (by trying to get it settled), and interfering with a criminal case (by asking for an investigation to resume) are pretty darn close.

I'm bringing it up as in both cases politics stopped any real consequences, but that in the Canadian side, we didn't even have an investigation.
Trudeau actually voted against an investigation into himself, how that isn't a career ending conflict of interest is beyond me.

Trump was not convicted of the alleged offense, I think calling him a "crook" is a slander against him, and I believe that's against forum rules.
Trudeaus behaviour was never even investigated, and that's the issue I have, and he has a pattern of unethical behaviour.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> They are not even comparable on severity or scope. And Trump did not just violate ethics rules. He's violating a whole bunch of laws on the books, and violating processes of government (the checks and balances).
> 
> Pretty ridiculous to try and draw equivalence of these. Only something an apologist would do.


Actually you're right, and only an apologist would try to draw equivalence.

One was found to have committed an offense (Trudeau)
One was found to have not committed the offense (Trump)

The only equivalence is that there was an actual claim against a national leader.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt, you're pretty good at spinning things. Where did you pick up that skill?

Trump is indeed a crook. And he does it all in plain sight, so it's not hard to see how big a crook he is. He was even a crook (and con man) before becoming President.

The only difference now is that instead of just harming companies and individuals, he's harming the United States of America and its allies.



andrewf said:


> He was not acquitted in any meaningful way. The Senate GOP said they were going to acquit regardless of evidence. It was a political dog and pony show.


Right, this was a bogus trial. I'm pretty sure Trump will still eventually be charged with criminal offences, but only once he's out of office. Likely will be charged by the FBI and New York state for crimes committed in their jurisdiction. Then we'll see what happens in real courts.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

On the contrary...Trump has been very good for the USA. (and I hope he continues to be if Warren or Bernie become the candidate....I'm OK with lil Petey and the other 2 dead white candidates)


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> MrMatt, you're pretty good at spinning things. Where did you pick up that skill?
> 
> Trump is indeed a crook. And he does it all in plain sight, so it's not hard to see how big a crook he is. He was even a crook (and con man) before becoming President.
> 
> ...


Yes it was a bogus trial, but at least there was an investigation and trial.

We didn't even get the investigation for Trudeaus alleged crimes! <<< * that's my whole point.*
To top it off when we do actually investigate Trudeau for improper behaviour, those allegations were substantiated.


Can't we agree that it would be good if there was some method to hold elected officials accountable?
An election every 4-5 years really isn't good enough.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Actually you're right, and only an apologist would try to draw equivalence.
> 
> One was found to have committed an offense (Trudeau)
> One was found to have not committed the offense (Trump)
> ...


Oh come on, the spin to try to claim Trump is an angel is absurd. It is a pattern of behaviour. He settled the fraud suit against him for Trump University. By above standard he has been found to have committed an offense.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Oh come on, the spin to try to claim Trump is an angel is absurd. It is a pattern of behaviour. He settled the fraud suit against him for Trump University. By above standard he has been found to have committed an offense.


Nobody is trying to claim Trump is an angel. I believe I've said he's a horrible person on many occasions. I'm glad he's not our PM, though his personality would likely impossible for him to play Canadian Politics.


I'm just saying that when Trudeau is alleged to have committed a wrongdoing, he was either found to have done so, or blocked the investigation outright.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Nobody is trying to claim Trump is an angel. I believe I've said he's a horrible person on many occasions. I'm glad he's not our PM, though his personality would likely impossible for him to play Canadian Politics.
> 
> 
> I'm just saying that when Trudeau is alleged to have committed a wrongdoing, he was either found to have done so, or blocked the investigation outright.


Okay. Same applies to Trump? His party blocked investigations into him. He ordered federal departments not to comply with subpoenas.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Okay. Same applies to Trump? His party blocked investigations into him. He ordered federal departments not to comply with subpoenas.


Trump directly refused lawful demands for information, and ordered everyone around him to not comply as well. This is one of the reasons he was impeached. The House has certain powers (this is one of the checks & balances on power) but Trump is refusing to comply with them.

It's a power grab. It's what third world dictators do when entrenching themselves into power.

It's a serious problem for US democracy, and even worse that other government reps (Republicans) are cool with it. They are letting their country down.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Other than it was 100% partisan...wonder why that would be lol.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Trump is furious that anyone dare challenge his power. Now he's taking revenge, as any autocrat or dictator would.

Today he fired National security aide Lt.-Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated soldier of 20 years who also has a purple heart. Next, Trump is expected to fire U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/vindman-sondland-fired-1.5456663

Trump is also trying to get Romney expelled from the Republican party. What a small and fragile man he must be, if he can't handle any criticism from respected colleagues who point out mistakes he is making.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> One was found to have committed an offense (Trudeau)



justin trudeau was never charged with anything

the ethics commissioner who "found" wrongdoing in the SNC lavalin case is an airhead & a frivolous flake whose salary & office upkeep are draining the public purse. 

just like the frivolous flake who directs the public prosecution service of canada. She thought it would be fun to sue vice admiral mark norman. Suit blown out of court. She thought it would be fun to sue SNC lavalin. Suit promptly blown out of court.


----------



## capricorn (Dec 3, 2013)

There is no neutral analysis. It is partisan process and justification on both sides are entrenched talking points.. On the other hand Klobuchar might be the dark horse.. Centrist, not billionaire, woman, white, not from perceived coastal liberal belts etc.. Ticking many of the check boxes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After all the expense of a trial....... SNC Lavalin ended up paying a fine. They would have paid a fine without the trial.


----------



## capricorn (Dec 3, 2013)

Sometimes end does not justify the means.. Though in this case JWR chewed more than she could digest. Politics is a partisan business and you need to be a team player. Same for Romney. He literally begged for cabinet and support for senate election.. He needs a payback.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

sags said:


> After all the expense of a trial....... SNC Lavalin ended up paying a fine. They would have paid a fine without the trial.


The problem Conservatives have with all the harping on Trudeau's lobby efforts is that Quebec voters wholeheartedly supported Trudeau.

Scheer may have done better in the election if he had showed the same empathy towards jobs in Quebec as they do about jobs in Alberta.

Scheer chose the battle and lost, and now Conservatives watch as the Liberals put the SNC Lavalin behind them and gain strength for the next election.


----------



## capricorn (Dec 3, 2013)

Current federal Liberals are much better in running the show and sticking to message. They deserve to be in power.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> justin trudeau was never charged with anything
> 
> the ethics commissioner who "found" wrongdoing in the SNC lavalin case is an airhead & a frivolous flake whose salary & office upkeep are draining the public purse.
> 
> just like the frivolous flake who directs the public prosecution service of canada. She thought it would be fun to sue vice admiral mark norman. Suit blown out of court. She thought it would be fun to sue SNC lavalin. Suit promptly blown out of court.


That's the point, there was NEVER an investigation of the SNC affair. That's the problem.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

capricorn said:


> There is no neutral analysis. It is partisan process and justification on both sides are entrenched talking points.. On the other hand Klobuchar might be the dark horse.. Centrist, not billionaire, woman, white, not from perceived coastal liberal belts etc.. Ticking many of the check boxes.


Except no one cares about her. She's not going to win the Dem nomination.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The problem Conservatives have with all the harping on Trudeau's lobby efforts is that Quebec voters wholeheartedly supported Trudeau.
> 
> Scheer may have done better in the election if he had showed the same empathy towards jobs in Quebec as they do about jobs in Alberta.
> 
> Scheer chose the battle and lost, and now Conservatives watch as the Liberals put the SNC Lavalin behind them and gain strength for the next election.


What "empathy towards jobs in Quebec"? The only "Quebec" jobs on the line are Bombardier, and even the Quebec government looks like they've had enough of that trainwreck.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> That's the point, there was NEVER an investigation of the SNC affair. That's the problem.



there has been a total & thorough investigation of SNC's conduct over the past 2 decades. It commenced more than 5 years ago. 

the media has been relentless. The company re-invented itself. Cleaned up its act. The trials of the long-ago fired executives who had caused the trouble have been ongoing. The trials ended recently. Everything has been exhumed, documented, aired, re-aired, reported in the press, reported in parliament, reported in hansard, thrashed out, punished, cured, fined & paid for.

only a rip van winkle asleep for 20 years or a person deluded by some kind of obsession could have missed the story.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

... deleted ...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> there has been a total & thorough investigation of SNC's conduct over the past 2 decades. It commenced more than 5 years ago.
> 
> the media has been relentless. The company re-invented itself. Cleaned up its act. The trials of the long-ago fired executives who had caused the trouble have been ongoing. The trials ended recently. Everything has been exhumed, documented, aired, re-aired, reported in the press, reported in parliament, reported in hansard, thrashed out, punished, cured, fined & paid for.
> 
> only a rip van winkle asleep for 20 years or a person deluded by some kind of obsession could have missed the story.


Trudeaus interference was never investigated. He even voted against the investigation it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The prosecution ended up offering a plea deal. SNC paid a fine. Jane Philpott got the boot from Ontario voters and Jody Wilson Raybould sits in the back corner by herself.

Trudeau was elected PM while Scheer lost his job as leader. Sometimes things work out for the best all by themselves.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Trudeaus interference was never investigated. He even voted against the investigation it.




what interference?

the PM wanted the existing DPA legislation respected. Inevitably, the law is going to be tested again. Next time the candidate could be a western-based, ie conservative-favoured, multinational oil or mining company. Plenty 3rd world bribery going on with those companies.

a PM has every right to differ with a cabinet member's point of view. 

a prime minister is *the* prime minister, not an ordinary cabinet minister. In the event of a recalcitrant cabinet member w the history of stubborn & eccentric non-cooperation which jody wilson-raybould accumulated, a prime minister in a parliamentary system is obliged to remove him or her from cabinet.

it wasn't just the SNC incident. There was also the justice Glenn Joyal incident. JWR was a thorn in the entire cabinet's side over the manitoba court of queen's bench judge. Reportedly there were many other angry incidents. She never did learn to play the political game.

wilson-raybould is an interesting case. Early in her career as minister of justice she had a breathtaking shot at becoming the first indigenous prime minister of canada, let alone the first female prime minister who might hold office more than a few months. She was the golden girl of the 2015 cabinet. No one was ever in as advantageous a position to help indigenous canadians as was wilson-raybould during her early years as justice minister, say from 2015 through 2016.

but for some reason not yet fully understood, wilson-raybould chose to shoot herself squarely in her own foot. Not one single indigenous member of parliament as much as spoke one word in her support during her long-drawn-out complaint campaign of 2018-2019. Neither did a single indigenous member of parliament take one step in her direction, during all those latter months while she paraded herself down to defeat.

hers will be a colourful, indeed a fabulous, chapter in canadian history. It's not over yet. Wilson-raybould is bound to take her place in the pantheon of first nation heroes, celebrated in song & story, along with louis riel, poundmaker, tecumseh. Wait for the movie.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt is trying to spin facts here as he tries to draw a parallel between Trump & Trudeau. This is a ridiculous comparison.

Trudeau was acting properly in his role as PM. Jody was indeed a problem for the party and it seems rooted in personal/behavioural conflict. She secretly recorded a conversation with the Privy Council, secretly kept it as collateral, and then put it on the public record. That's a huge violation not only of trust within that government council but also a violation of ethical standards for lawyers. No government would ever permit such behaviour. Certainly not Harper, or Chretien, nobody... No corporation would permit such behaviour either.

Wernick said: “*I don’t know any lawyer who records conversations with work colleagues or clients. I don’t get the covert ops program or holding on to the tape for a convenient moment*”

All indications are that Trudeau has been acting properly within his role and duties. There is some question about influence on JWR, but this is a tough call to make given that JWR clearly had existing conflicts with the rest of the team _that had nothing to do with SNC_.

The mistake I think Trudeau made was hiring JWR in the first place. Other than that, he appears to have acted properly within the bounds of his role, and also acted with the best interests of Canada in mind. As for the Ethics Commissioner, as I pointed out before, this is an entirely new office that was only created by Harper. There is no historical standard or precedent for the opinions of that Commissioner and it's only ever been applied to Harper & Trudeau.

Compare this to Trump, who is unapologetically breaking well established 50 year old laws, violating norms that have existed for _all presidents_ in history, etc. It's downright nutty to say that Trudeau is doing anything like what Trump is doing.

So no, Trump's actions are not within normal. They are far beyond what any other US pres or Canadian PM has done and there isn't even a comparison point within the last few generations. He's a rogue president unlike any other.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> The mistake I think Trudeau made was hiring JWR in the first place. Other than that, he appears to have acted properly within the bounds of his role, and also acted with the best interests of Canada in mind.


Yeah agreed, and I think he made a good decision when he hired her, it only became a mistake later on - how could he have known what would transpire.

As far as comparisons between Trump and Trudeau, it's meaningless. Everyone should stop doing that. I'm no Trudeau fan for sure, but it has nothing to do with Trump or what he does.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah agreed, and I think he made a good decision when he hired her, it only became a mistake later on - how could he have known what would transpire.
> 
> As far as comparisons between Trump and Trudeau, it's meaningless. Everyone should stop doing that. I'm no Trudeau fan for sure, but it has nothing to do with Trump or what he does.
> 
> ltr


I agree hiring JWR was a mistake. However there is an appearance of inappropriate behaviour. I would have liked to have it investigated.
The thing that pisses me off the most is that he, himself, voted against the investigation into himself. That's a conflict of interest. That's a problem.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Trudeaus interference was never investigated. He even voted against the investigation it.


So you must be appalled by Trump's stone-walling of the investigation against his administration?

consistency....


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> So you must be appalled by Trump's stone-walling of the investigation against his administration?
> 
> consistency....


Yeah, he's a horrible person and a crappy choice for president. I've been rather consistent on that.
Trump and Trudeau are basically the same IMO.

They're both in power because the opposition can't seem to get their act together


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yeah, he's a horrible person and a crappy choice for president. I've been rather consistent on that.
> Trump and Trudeau are basically the same IMO.
> 
> They're both in power because the opposition can't seem to get their act together


Truer words never spoken. Both the US Democrats & our Conservatives have proven to be incompetent enough with horribly distasteful leaders that the bar is unusually low. I don't see either situation changing with Bernie/Pocahontas and Peter McKay. 

We need to up the PM's pay to at least 25 million/year so we can get someone other than a clown to want the job.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> So you must be appalled by Trump's stone-walling of the investigation against his administration?
> 
> consistency....


What stonewalling? Trump has let every single investigation continue until they have all sputtered out from lack of evidence. On the other hand, Trudeau immediately shut down the investigation into his corruption.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the difference. Maybe you're just trolling?


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

The impeachment did not work. Now the media is over blowing coronavirus to cause a recession so Trump does not get reelected. It is not going to work. The media hates Trump more then they care about what happens to their country.

No matter who gets elected now the other side will say they are not my president & do their own thing with no rule of law


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Well the good thing these days is that we need not rely on the MSN to find out what is happening in the world. The bad news is the MSN has reacted by becoming more partisan and sensationalist to stay in business. About the only printed rag that can sell news with a clear conscience is the Wall Street Journal imo.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The Justice Department is supposed to operate independently of the White House but recent developments are raising serious suspicions.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/roger-stone-sentencing-prosecutors-1.5460054

First, Trump tweeted that the recommended sentence for Roger Stone was "very horrible and unfair."

A few hours after that, the Justice Department said it would seek a lighter sentence for Stone.



> Four lawyers who prosecuted Roger Stone *quit the case* Tuesday after the U.S. Justice Department said it would take the extraordinary step of lowering the amount of prison time it would seek for President Donald Trump's longtime ally and confidant.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Sure...Stone deserves 7 years for a process crime that no Democrat has ever once been jailed for even one day.

James shouldn't even comment because he doesn't even know what's going on.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Convicted of multiple serious felonies, Stone is going to be sentenced to prison and it is just a matter of the length of the sentencing.

Despite the interference attempts by AG Barr, the judge makes the final decision and I am thinking she is going "lock him up" for a long time.

Remember, Stone posted a tweet of the Judge with a bullseye on her head. He continually breached bail conditions. He deserves to go to prison for a long time.

Not that it matters how long the sentence is because Trump is going to pardon Stone anyways. Everybody already knows that.

Barr is ruining his own reputation for no good reason as Trump could simply pardon Stone before sentencing, since he is going to do it anyways.

Trump seems to have a hypnotic effect on some people who willingly throw away their reputations for Trump, and then he kicks them to the curb.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Comey went on public TV to announce that Hillary committed 33,000 felonies but it was okay because she really didn't mean to. That was the first time in US history that the head of the FBI publicly exonerated a personal friend who had knowingly and deliberately put national security at risk for her own personal gain.

Stone is being put in jail for being the friend of someone who beat Hillary in a fair election.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The Justice Department is supposed to operate independently of the White House but recent developments are raising serious suspicions.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/roger-stone-sentencing-prosecutors-1.5460054
> 
> First, Trump tweeted that the recommended sentence for Roger Stone was "very horrible and unfair."
> ...


Theres a bit more to this


DOJ has not announced whether it will seek legal or ethical sanctions against any of the attorneys who allegedly lied to DOJ about their rogue sentencing scheme against Roger Stone. In a filing submitted late Tuesday evening, DOJ said the original sentencing memorandum did not reflect the position of the U.S. government and that a nearly decade-long sentence for a non-violent first-time criminal would be inappropriate.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> DOJ has not announced whether it will seek legal or ethical sanctions against any of the attorneys who allegedly lied to DOJ about their rogue sentencing scheme against Roger Stone


That sounds like nonsense to me. I have not heard anything about 'rogue' attorneys. There were 4 prosecutors working on the Roger Stone case, not a single prosecutor. All 4 of them just quit. None of them had agreed to the new Justice Department recommendation.

This is quite clearly a protest action against interference from the Justice Department and the President's influence on the case. Lawyers in their position cannot say it outright but I think you have to be pretty clueless if you don't see the message of 4 prosecutors simultaneously quitting, immediately after their bosses overrule their advice by apparently siding with the President.

It is totally inappropriate for the White House to interfere with prosecution, especially against someone associated with them -- this is conflict of interest. Trump was even trying to exert pressure on the judge involved... this guy acts like a third world dictator.

The US is now in a situation where the President uses the government apparatus to serve his personal interests. (This was why he was impeached after all). He used foreign aid and relationships for personal political interests. Now, via Barr, he's influencing the Justice Department to grant favours and protections to his friends.

Corrupt beyond belief.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And if there's any doubt about where the pressure came from

Trump praises AG William Barr after Roger Stone sentencing reversal leads 4 prosecutors to quit



> President Donald Trump praised Attorney General William Barr after the Justice Department decided to overrule career prosecutors and recommend a shorter prison sentence for Trump’s longtime friend, Roger Stone.
> 
> The DOJ moved to lighten the seven to nine year prison term for Stone first suggested by prosecutors. As that revised recommendation was made public, all four prosecutors dramatically quit Stone’s case.


This kind of thing is common in dictatorships and third world countries. Just as he abused foreign aid and the State Department for personal reasons, Trump is also abusing the justice system for personal reasons and favours.

He's starting small, but it's a slippery slope. First he is subtly influencing cases (such as Stone's). As the departments are purged of people with morals and replaced with cult followers, he will move on to more aggressive steps such as starting criminal investigations and prosecutions of his personal enemies, media outlets which challenge him, etc. Trump will soon be using the whole power of the US government to intimidate and suppress personal enemies.

Trump's constant rantings about CNN and Clinton are, I believe, a prelude to far more sinister actions. He was priming his cult followers so that when he eventually starts prosecuting and convicting political enemies, his cult followers will cheer in support with their eyes glazed over, instead of questioning the abuse of power.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I guess the thing is the sentence is much too extreme for the crime....The statute reads "shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years "... so 7-9 years raises a flag....questions are being asked why. Normal sentencing for similar crimes would range from probation to a few months in jail. The hate for Trump may have influenced the push for prosecutes to recommend an inappropriate sentence. 

I think he get 2 years and spends 3 months in jail in the end...mean while Trump gets to explode more heads which is fun to watch.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> mean while Trump gets to explode more heads which is fun to watch.


It seems to me that you are more interested in seeing Trump cause trouble and "explore more heads" than you are interested in seeing America function properly.

There's no question that Trump is capable of angering and irritating people but that's TV side-show entertainment. The far more important question: is Trump doing what is best for America? Is he performing his duties properly as the President, acting honestly, and respecting the Oath he took?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> What stonewalling? Trump has let every single investigation continue until they have all sputtered out from lack of evidence. On the other hand, Trudeau immediately shut down the investigation into his corruption.
> 
> I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the difference. Maybe you're just trolling?


Trump has instructed federal agencies to ignore lawful congressional subpoenas.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Trump has instructed federal agencies to ignore lawful congressional subpoenas.


In fact, he was impeached for doing this.

More generally, Trump has taken many extraordinary steps to interfere with lawful investigations into him and his associates. Barr has assisted by concealing information and blocking the justice process. Described by this former federal prosecutor:



> The Mueller report paints a picture of a president who took extraordinary steps to undermine a lawful investigation into him and his associates. Trump fired the FBI director, tried to fire Mueller, asked the FBI director to stop investigating former national security adviser Michael Flynn, tried to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal and tank the investigation, and tried to influence the testimony of witnesses.
> . . .
> Barr intentionally misled the American people about Mueller’s findings and his legal reasoning.
> . . .
> Barr stonewalled the House of Representatives, which has a constitutional duty to investigate criminal activity by the president. Despite repeated requests, Barr did not disclose the report to the House prior to its public release


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It all comes down to opinion ... like the notes you quoted.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> In fact, he was impeached for doing this.
> 
> More generally, Trump has taken many extraordinary steps to interfere with lawful investigations into him and his associates. Barr has assisted by concealing information and blocking the justice process. Described by this former federal prosecutor:


Yeah, he's behaving badly. So's Trudeau, what's your point?

My point is that both countries lack sufficient checks on the executive branch of government.
A massive portion our income is seized to pay for all these programs, being run by the all powerful leaders, who have very little accountability, and seem comfortable to violate the ethics laws as they see fit.

Trudeau just broke another one in the past few days.
I guess he was too busy vacationing to fulfill his ethical obligations.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> This kind of thing is common in dictatorships and third world countries. Just as he abused foreign aid and the State Department for personal reasons, Trump is also abusing the justice system for personal reasons and favours.g political enemies, his cult followers will cheer in support with their eyes glazed over, instead of questioning the abuse of power.


Comey went on national TV to exonerate his friend Hillary Clinton for destroying evidence and breaching national security. That's the real abuse of power. 

If they had found a real crime they would have charged Trump with it instead of a vague "abuse of power" that they can't explain.

The man they call an idiot has taken on the media, the FBI, and the Clinton crime family and came out on top every time. No other person in history has done that.

The only surprise is that after getting beaten soundly at every single turn for 3 straight years none of them have caught on. It's hard to believe that so many people with so much power can be so blindingly stupid. It's almost like some of them were being paid to fail.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

President Mike Bloomberg has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

It's ironic that with all the talk about Russian collusion that the leading candidate in the democrat party is a communist. So, I guess if Russia really is interfering in US elections, the only people they got to were Democrats :biggrin:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Communist ?......actually Sanders is a democratic socialist who advocates for policies that are well supported by Americans.

But...I like Mike Bloomberg more and more, because despite the fact he is has a worth of $60 Billion dollars, he is a capitalist with strong socialist tendencies.

And the best part is that Trump and his supporters can't attack Bloomberg as a socialist without looking ridiculous.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Bloomberg is most likely the only candidate that can take on the orange guy but he has a deep closet full of bones to be made public. I doubt Dem's are all dumb enough to believe the free stuff Bernie is promising.

Seems like this is gaining momentum *" #WalkAway movement."*


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> It all comes down to opinion ... like the notes you quoted.


Not at all opinion. Trump gave explicit instructions to the Justice Department in plain view. He publicly tweeted what he wanted them to do (go easy on the sentence), then they did it.

That's blatant interference in the justice system, done in full public view.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Not at all opinion. Trump gave explicit instructions to the Justice Department in plain view. He publicly tweeted what he wanted them to do (go easy on the sentence), then they did it.
> 
> That's blatant interference in the justice system, done in full public view.


It's definitely inappropriate.
If Trump really wanted them to go easy on someone, he can just pardon them.

So I get it, Trump and Trudeau both feel entitled to interfere with the justice system. So what are we going to do about it?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

AG Barr reprimands Trump. He must be planning on getting out while he has something left of his tattered reputation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_So I get it, Trump and Trudeau both feel entitled to interfere with the justice system. So what are we going to do about it?_

Canadians already did something about it ? They had a choice and decided to re-elect Trudeau because he fought for Canadian jobs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _So I get it, Trump and Trudeau both feel entitled to interfere with the justice system. So what are we going to do about it?_
> 
> Canadians already did something about it ? They had a choice and decided to re-elect Trudeau because he fought for Canadian jobs.


Even without the DPA (which SNC wasn't eligible for), the sanctions for their guilty plea didn't result in them being prohibited from government contracts anyway.

Jobs is also a pretty poor reason to interfere with a criminal.

Yes, he likely committed a crime, yes he breached ethics laws again and again, but they're both getting re-elected.
Their behaviour is WHY people have little faith in our democratic institions.

Based on the horrific behaviour of elected leaders, why do they want to give the government so much MORE power?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Repeated attempts at a false equivalence. There is nothing comparable between Trump and Trudeau; MrMatt just has an agenda and is hammering away at it with the hopes of persuading others.

Trudeau has never done anything like what Trump is doing


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Like support blue collar industry...I agree on that.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Special kind of cognitive dissonance to think Trudeau is just the worst for the whole SNC Lavalin influence controversy, yet forgive all of Trump's highly questionable ethics violations, just some of which include:
-failure to disclose financial interests
-failure to properly maintain active business at arms length
-forcing the government to spend many millions at businesses he owns in the course of providing for his security
-giving important roles in his administration to family members (rampant nepotism)
-publicly calling for Russia to release illegally obtained documents from political rivals
-encouraging his campaign to meet with Russian intelligence asset in response to an offer of political dirt on opponents. Failure to report same to FBI. 
-getting his lawyer to pay off a porn star
-refusing to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> Like support blue collar industry...I agree on that.


Trump is doing a bang-up job bringing back the coal jobs! Farmers are just in love with the Chinese tariffs he arranged for their produce!


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eder said:


> Bloomberg is most likely the only candidate that can take on the orange guy but he has a deep closet full of bones to be made public. I doubt Dem's are all dumb enough to believe the free stuff Bernie is promising.
> 
> Seems like this is gaining momentum *" #WalkAway movement."*


Bloomberg bought his way into the process. Next up he'll pay the competition to go away.

But to think he can go toe to toe with Trump is ludicrous....even if he gets his box to stand on he has no chance.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Trump is doing a bang-up job bringing back the coal jobs! Farmers are just in love with the Chinese tariffs he arranged for their produce!


Why purposefully dodge where he has made a difference...after all the lowest unemployment rate in God knows how long someone found a job. (Oh and wages going up) Unlike the oil patch JT is trying to destroy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Running massive deficits is a good way to juice the economy and employment. It's a great evil when Democrats do it, and just fine when Republicans do it.

And are we also saying that when the next recession occurs, it is 100% Trump's fault?


I subscribe to the school of thought that politicians have relatively little to do with economic activity, unless they are doing great harm a la Zimbabwe (ignoring rule of law, etc.).


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm on board with you,I think politicians are more able to harm economic activity then they are able to enhance it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Running massive deficits is a good way to juice the economy and employment. It's a great evil when Democrats do it, and just fine when Republicans do it.
> 
> And are we also saying that when the next recession occurs, it is 100% Trump's fault?
> 
> ...


I actually disagree, politicians generally have a negative impact on economic activity.
Ideally it is offset with a positive elsewhere, but due to their inherent inefficiency, the benefit is rarely worth the cost.

I think the role of government should be to get in the way of peoples free choices as much as possible.


----------



## Dade (7 mo ago)

Look at all the serfs being manipulated...lol...still I bet😄


----------

