US Politics

[pigseye]

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Wrong thread.

You asked so I obliged, too close to home for you? 

You are one of the few level headed posters on this topic so let's be swayed by the others. 

[Goalie]

14 minutes ago, pigseye said:

No double standard here, just as long as their guy wins  

Their guy? WTF. What does that even mean. I don't vote for a party.  I vote for the person i feel will do best for me. Maybe u should 2 unless u think goosestepping down streets is what u want. 

[17to85]

23 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

yes, good point on that one.  It is pretty rich to be sitting here in Canada spouting off critiques of the US system, when here we are sitting with this tyrannical scumbag running our country right now, totally obstructing any investigation into his own wrong-doings!  Mueller, please come up here and fix our mess next!! 

Hey we can easily throw a government out on their asses up here come election. It's a hell of a lot harder for Americans since there's only 2 choices and the government doesn't totally change each time there's an election. 

People get pissed at Trudeau he will join a long and illustrious line of Prime Ministers who pissed off the electorate and lost their jobs. We in Canada don't vote for people generally, we vote to throw the bums out. 

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

You asked so I obliged, too close to home for you? 

You are one of the few level headed posters on this topic so let's be swayed by the others. 

True but you didnt quote me and in either case, we were both off topic.  My point being, there is plenty of commentary that JT broke no laws by trying to influence his AG.  And if thats the case, his fate will be up to the people.  And even if he broke laws, his fate is likely up to the people.  But if we're comparing, so be it...if the Liberals appointed an independent counsel to investigate or even tasked the RCMP with investigating, so be it.  No one would complain about that....(or at least they shouldnt).  But that has nothing to do with Trump.

[pigseye]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

True but you didnt quote me and in either case, we were both off topic.  My point being, there is plenty of commentary that JT broke no laws by trying to influence his AG.  And if thats the case, his fate will be up to the people.  And even if he broke laws, his fate is likely up to the people.  But if we're comparing, so be it...if the Liberals appointed an independent counsel to investigate or even tasked the RCMP with investigating, so be it.  No one would complain about that....(or at least they shouldnt).  But that has nothing to do with Trump.

Shouldn't Trump be given the same benefit now that Mueller found no collusion? There may still be a case for obstruction which is the same boat as JT. If we are going to let the people decide JT's fate then shouldn't they also decide Trumps, is all I'm saying, double standard. 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Goalie said:

Their guy? WTF. What does that even mean. I don't vote for a party.  I vote for the person i feel will do best for me. Maybe u should 2 unless u think goosestepping down streets is what u want. 

The reason I have often qualified my statements with the fact I am a Conservative is for this reason...just as I used to be a Liberal (Cretien days) and moved to the Cons.  The rigt wing movement has been hijacked and the worst part is the people that are basically "Anyone But A Democrat" and it doesnt matter if Trump shows up in a white hood carrying a noose, that just doesnt matter to these people.  

And the fact is, progressive ideas are gaining traction.  Its sort of rich to sit up here in Canada and call AOC (hmmm, why her, I wonder....hmmmm what could it be...) names because she supports universal health care.  Or gun control.  Or higher taxes on the wealthy.  You have to have blinders on to just be totally opposed to good ideas just because it's not the alt right way.  Politicians are supposed to serve the people.  

[pigseye]

Just now, Goalie said:

Ohhh i get it here... Older white males. Say no more. 

 

Please explain what that has to do with anything we are discussing here? 

[pigseye]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The reason I have often qualified my statements with the fact I am a Conservative is for this reason...just as I used to be a Liberal (Cretien days) and moved to the Cons.  The rigt wing movement has been hijacked and the worst part is the people that are basically "Anyone But A Democrat" and it doesnt matter if Trump shows up in a white hood carrying a noose, that just doesnt matter to these people.  

And the fact is, progressive ideas are gaining traction.  Its sort of rich to sit up here in Canada and call AOC (hmmm, why her, I wonder....hmmmm what could it be...) names because she supports universal health care.  Or gun control.  Or higher taxes on the wealthy.  You have to have blinders on to just be totally opposed to good ideas just because it's not the alt right way.  Politicians are supposed to serve the people.  

You couldn't be further from the truth, I was an NDP'er when Doer ran Manitoba, he did a great job which is why he was always re-elected he appeased both the public and private sectors without leaning too far either way. All party's are swinging too far in different directions which is why I only vote for the policies not the candidate. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, pigseye said:

Shouldn't Trump be given the same benefit now that Mueller found no collusion? There may still be a case for obstruction which is the same boat as JT. If we are going to let the people decide JT's fate then shouldn't they also decide Trumps, is all I'm saying, double standard. 

Come on...we dont really know what Mueller found.  Until we see the report and all documents.  

And I didnt say we SHOULD let the people decide JT's fate.  if there is evidence that he broke the law, then he should be prosecuted and removed under whatever mechanism exists in Canada.  Vote of Non-Confidence?  How well will that work?  Is there a means for Parliament to investigate and impeach?

One big difference is that the PMO has far more power than the White House or at least thats the way it was intended (in the US anyway).  Congress runs government, not the President.  

But lets turn this around, if you believe JT should be investigated criminally and politically for obstruction, do you not believe Trump should be impeached (at least the House portion)?  Do you not believe Trump's AG should not be the final word on the investigation?  Because I can side with you on this, if there is evidence of JT criminal wrong doing, he should be criminally investigated and thrown from office.  Just not sure the mechanism in Canada.  In the US, its easier.  So you must agree with the fact this AG summary is not the end nor should it be...?  Do I understand you correctly?

[pigseye]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Come on...we dont really know what Mueller found.  Until we see the report and all documents.  

And I didnt say we SHOULD let the people decide JT's fate.  if there is evidence that he broke the law, then he should be prosecuted and removed under whatever mechanism exists in Canada.  Vote of Non-Confidence?  How well will that work?  Is there a means for Parliament to investigate and impeach?

One big difference is that the PMO has far more power than the White House or at least thats the way it was intended (in the US anyway).  Congress runs government, not the President.  

But lets turn this around, if you believe JT should be investigated criminally and politically for obstruction, do you not believe Trump should be impeached (at least the House portion)?  Do you not believe Trump's AG should not be the final word on the investigation?  Because I can side with you on this, if there is evidence of JT criminal wrong doing, he should be criminally investigated and thrown from office.  Just not sure the mechanism in Canada.  In the US, its easier.  So you must agree with the fact this AG summary is not the end nor should it be...?  Do I understand you correctly?

It's the end of the collusion debate but not the obstruction debate. The Dems will continue to push the obstruction debate as they should and if they can convince the AG to  file charges, then they can impeach. 

If JT is charged with obstruction, the GG would have no choice but to remove him as PM.  

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

It's the end of the collusion debate but not the obstruction debate. The Dems will continue to push the obstruction debate as they should and if they can convince the AG to  file charges, then they can impeach. 

If JT is charged with obstruction, the GG would have no choice but to remove him as PM.  

Dont you think there is far too much already known about Trump's campaign's "mingling" with the Russians to say the collusion debate is over without seeing the entire report?  

Even then, its not up to the AG to file charges for Congress to impeach.  Congress is not beholden to the AG.  

I think the GOP going after Clinton for what many people saw as an effort to hang him for hanky panky, hurt the GOP politically.  People dont like the long drawn out investigations and its possible an impeachment ends up hurting Dems politically...but even so, is it not Congress' duty to fully investigate and impeach should they deem it appropriate?

Regarding JT, what is the mechanism to investigate and charge him?  His AG?  Minority Parliament?  Thats the difference.  Congress exists in part specifically to be a check on the President.  Even in a minority House, there are bodies that investigate and check the President.  What is the equivalent in Canada?

Plus, our election is coming up quickly...

Edited March 25, 2019 by The Unknown Poster

[pigseye]

7 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Dont you think there is far too much already known about Trump's campaign's "mingling" with the Russians to say the collusion debate is over without seeing the entire report?  

Even then, its not up to the AG to file charges for Congress to impeach.  Congress is not beholden to the AG.  

I think the GOP going after Clinton for what many people saw as an effort to hang him for hanky panky, hurt the GOP politically.  People dont like the long drawn out investigations and its possible an impeachment ends up hurting Dems politically...but even so, is it not Congress' duty to fully investigate and impeach should they deem it appropriate?

Regarding JT, what is the mechanism to investigate and charge him?  His AG?  Minority Parliament?  Thats the difference.  Congress exists in part specifically to be a check on the President.  Even in a minority House, there are bodies that investigate and check the President.  What is the equivalent in Canada?

Plus, our election is coming up quickly...

That is the issue in the US, whether or not the AG can file charges or if congress can just decide what is impeachable, they would need 2/3 of the senate vote which won't happen, so unless the AG can file charges it just becomes a political dog and pony show.

Canada is quite clear, if the PMO is charged, then it is assumed he has lost the confidence of the house and the GG has to remove him. 

[pigseye]

Just now, Goalie said:

Try again. I was thinking more ppl who crap on women for no reason. Like i dunno AOC for example. Does she scare u? Cuz she might be right

Unlike our feminist PMO...…..physically assaulting 2 women that we know of and treating JWR like a piece of trash? 

[pigseye]

2 minutes ago, Goalie said:

This thread is ridiculous tho. Ppl can literally sit here and goosestep until the cows come home and pretty much say racism is cool but calling someone a name is wrong. WTF. 

Well quit stereotyping people like that.

Do we call Liberals terrorists just because their base includes members of Isis, who we will welcome back as full citizens. 

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

That is the issue in the US, whether or not the AG can file charges or if congress can just decide what is impeachable, they would need 2/3 of the senate vote which won't happen, so unless the AG can file charges it just becomes a political dog and pony show.

Canada is quite clear, if the PMO is charged, then it is assumed he has lost the confidence of the house and the GG has to remove him. 

But who is initiating the investigation of the Prime Minister?  

In the US, I think it's clear.  The AG will NOT charge Trump based on the DOJ guidelines which have no basis in the Constitution and many scholers disagree.  But THIS AG will not indict Trump.  Congress doesnt have to give a good damn about the AG whatsoever.  And in fact, it's their duty to investigate.

An Impeachment is pretty ugly even if not convicted.  And the evidence gathered could be used in future prosecution.  Thats why the Mueller report MUST be provided in full to Congress at the very least because THIS AG will not be the final word on whether Trump faces charges.  If Congress finds a smoking gun, Trump STILL isn't going to be indicted unless an AG wants to go to the Supreme Court (which it surely would) over whether the President can be charged.  This AG won't.  So even if Congress finds a smoking gun, it wont mean PRESIDENT Trump gets charged.  

Almost surely, Trump could be impeached tomorrow in this House.  But lets assume the Dems do their jobs, impartially, and he is impeached.  If its enough to warrant an indictment if he were NOT President, perhaps the Senate is moved...and the GOP does their job impartially.  Trump is removed and he goes from the White House to the Big House because the second he isnt President, he is no longer able to hide behind the DoJ guidelines.

Why did Nixon resign?  Not only to spare the embarrassment of being removed in the Senate.  But as a deal.  He knew he was cooked if he kept fighting.  Remember, his VP was not Ford, it was Agnew.  Agnew was at risk of being impeached too.  And there was a real possibility that Agnew would be impeached, Congress would not quickly allow Nixon, under investigation, to fill that spot.  Nixon would then be impeached and the Speaker, who I believe was a Dem, would become President and then both Agnew and Nixon would end up prosecuted.  Instead, Nixon fired the Special Counsel to try to make it go away (just like Trump wanted to do).  Agnew was turfed so they could replace him with a Plan B because of Nixon's precarious situation.  Nixon quit, elevating Ford who got the job because he was willing to Pardon Nixon.

And thus, Nixon escapes with only crushing defeat and humiliating resignation.  Ford wears the stain of a quid pro quo.

If we use that as a road map, The GOP might see Trump resigning or declining to run in 2020 and elevating Pence as a reasonable "out".  But Trump has little choice but to run now because he will almost surely be indicted for campaign finance violations if he leaves office and another term can beat the statute of limitations on some of these things.  And always gives him some protections (and probably insider knowledge) of all the various criminal investigations into him and his company and family that are on going right now.    If he's a private citizen he's in way more trouble. 

[The Unknown Poster]

14 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Try again. I was thinking more ppl who crap on women for no reason. Like i dunno AOC for example. Does she scare u? Cuz she might be right

I think the issue with AOC is only partially that she's a woman.  What else could it be...lol

Even on this board we've seen the same guy who insults and belittles AOC defend and support Bernie.  What's the difference there...?  Like...you dont have to be a rocket surgeon to see whats going on here.  Cue the SJW rants in 3...2...

[The Unknown Poster]

13 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Unlike our feminist PMO...…..physically assaulting 2 women that we know of and treating JWR like a piece of trash? 

Outside of the discussion you and I were having, what does this have to do with anything.  

Again, turn it around, if JT's conduct is so horrible, how can you possible want anything less then the complete eradication of Trump's presidency.  Need we remind you of the, what 17, credible claims of sexual assault by him...?

Let's be clear...JT is a hot mess.  That has nothing to do with Trump.  You're projecting the right wing whataboutism aspect to this.  yes, there are people who are blindly liberal as many are blindly conservative but there is little evidence of it in THIS thread.  JT should be toast.  The fact he isnt yet does not mitigate Trump.

And the belief Trump is a crook does not make JT's actions more or less bad.  They are separate.  If anyone here believes JT was not wrong in this Lavelin thing or wasnt wrong in his actions and response to the assault allegations, they are absolutely blindly liberal.

But if you hold those up as examples, you HAVE to come down on *our* side in respect to Trump or you're defeating your own point.

[The Unknown Poster]

13 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Well quit stereotyping people like that.

Do we call Liberals terrorists just because their base includes members of Isis, who we will welcome back as full citizens. 

Totally different.

I dont disagree in respect to how JT has spoken about terrorists and terrorist attacks.  But Trump was served an easy home run before the election when asked to disavow Dukes and white supremacy and he wouldnt do it.  Its not about who votes for the person as much as it is about the person.  Trump seeks out the support of racists and white supremacists.

If there was a KKK party and I said, look, Im not racist but I like their economic platform and I occasionally go to their *ahem* rallies, you would not, at all, believe that I was not a racist.  If the hood fits, wear it.

Way too much evidence of Trump courting and providing comfort to those people, along with the power of a known racist Stephen Miller in Trump's inner circle, and many of his policies to not be, at the VERY least, very concerned about whether Trump is racist.  If you embrace that, what is anyone to think?

There are some things you cannot separate.  Supporting a racist and racist policies sort of makes you a racist.  Im not saying you specifically, im using it generally.  When specifically posters on this board defend Bernie and attack AOC so incredibly irrationally, what conclusion are people to believe.   We cant say it by name or else we get in trouble but lets be honest, there is at least one person here who sure seems like an embracer of the racist right.

Let me qualify, its not about being conservative.  Its about embracing the alt right, white nationalist agenda that is, sadly, infecting way too much of the GOP for many of us Conservatives to handle...and thus, if I were American, I'd vote Dems all day long until my party got their heads out of their asses and eradicated the hateful alt right and got back to doing the best thing for the people.

[pigseye]

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

But who is initiating the investigation of the Prime Minister?  

In the US, I think it's clear.  The AG will NOT charge Trump based on the DOJ guidelines which have no basis in the Constitution and many scholers disagree.  But THIS AG will not indict Trump.  Congress doesnt have to give a good damn about the AG whatsoever.  And in fact, it's their duty to investigate.

An Impeachment is pretty ugly even if not convicted.  And the evidence gathered could be used in future prosecution.  Thats why the Mueller report MUST be provided in full to Congress at the very least because THIS AG will not be the final word on whether Trump faces charges.  If Congress finds a smoking gun, Trump STILL isn't going to be indicted unless an AG wants to go to the Supreme Court (which it surely would) over whether the President can be charged.  This AG won't.  So even if Congress finds a smoking gun, it wont mean PRESIDENT Trump gets charged.  

Almost surely, Trump could be impeached tomorrow in this House.  But lets assume the Dems do their jobs, impartially, and he is impeached.  If its enough to warrant an indictment if he were NOT President, perhaps the Senate is moved...and the GOP does their job impartially.  Trump is removed and he goes from the White House to the Big House because the second he isnt President, he is no longer able to hide behind the DoJ guidelines.

Why did Nixon resign?  Not only to spare the embarrassment of being removed in the Senate.  But as a deal.  He knew he was cooked if he kept fighting.  Remember, his VP was not Ford, it was Agnew.  Agnew was at risk of being impeached too.  And there was a real possibility that Agnew would be impeached, Congress would not quickly allow Nixon, under investigation, to fill that spot.  Nixon would then be impeached and the Speaker, who I believe was a Dem, would become President and then both Agnew and Nixon would end up prosecuted.  Instead, Nixon fired the Special Counsel to try to make it go away (just like Trump wanted to do).  Agnew was turfed so they could replace him with a Plan B because of Nixon's precarious situation.  Nixon quit, elevating Ford who got the job because he was willing to Pardon Nixon.

And thus, Nixon escapes with only crushing defeat and humiliating resignation.  Ford wears the stain of a quid pro quo.

If we use that as a road map, The GOP might see Trump resigning or declining to run in 2020 and elevating Pence as a reasonable "out".  But Trump has little choice but to run now because he will almost surely be indicted for campaign finance violations if he leaves office and another term can beat the statute of limitations on some of these things.  And always gives him some protections (and probably insider knowledge) of all the various criminal investigations into him and his company and family that are on going right now.    If he's a private citizen he's in way more trouble. 

The RCMP has to investigate, I don't think anyone else can?

You can't compare Trump to Nixon. Trump has been under investigation for 2 years now and the best they could come up with is not enough evidence for obstruction. Nixon was caught red handed with the smoking gun. Not even the Dems will impeach Trump for just purely political reasons. I don't even understand the whole SDNY investigation, why wasn't this undertaken before Trump became president, it looks politically motivated too. 

[pigseye]

11 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Outside of the discussion you and I were having, what does this have to do with anything.  

Again, turn it around, if JT's conduct is so horrible, how can you possible want anything less then the complete eradication of Trump's presidency.  Need we remind you of the, what 17, credible claims of sexual assault by him...?

Let's be clear...JT is a hot mess.  That has nothing to do with Trump.  You're projecting the right wing whataboutism aspect to this.  yes, there are people who are blindly liberal as many are blindly conservative but there is little evidence of it in THIS thread.  JT should be toast.  The fact he isnt yet does not mitigate Trump.

And the belief Trump is a crook does not make JT's actions more or less bad.  They are separate.  If anyone here believes JT was not wrong in this Lavelin thing or wasnt wrong in his actions and response to the assault allegations, they are absolutely blindly liberal.

But if you hold those up as examples, you HAVE to come down on *our* side in respect to Trump or you're defeating your own point.

Agreed, let's quit with the double standards. 

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

The RCMP has to investigate, I don't think anyone else can?

You can't compare Trump to Nixon. Trump has been under investigation for 2 years now and the best they could come up with is not enough evidence for obstruction. Nixon was caught red handed with the smoking gun. Not even the Dems will impeach Trump for just purely political reasons. I don't even understand the whole SDNY investigation, why wasn't this undertaken before Trump became president, it looks politically motivated too. 

We dont know what evidence Mueller had against trump because havent seen it.  Same with the SDNY investigations and Congress.  Have to reserve judgement on Trump until later, to be honest.

The RCMP can't just investigate the Prime Minister without a complaining witness, no?  My point being, in the US, it's Congress' job to check the President and they have standing committees to do just that so the mechanism exists to investigate.

What will trigger an RCMP investigation?  Thats my point.  If you ask me should they investigate, yes, ofcourse they should...someone should.  But how.

[pigseye]

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Totally different.

I dont disagree in respect to how JT has spoken about terrorists and terrorist attacks.  But Trump was served an easy home run before the election when asked to disavow Dukes and white supremacy and he wouldnt do it.  Its not about who votes for the person as much as it is about the person.  Trump seeks out the support of racists and white supremacists.

If there was a KKK party and I said, look, Im not racist but I like their economic platform and I occasionally go to their *ahem* rallies, you would not, at all, believe that I was not a racist.  If the hood fits, wear it.

Way too much evidence of Trump courting and providing comfort to those people, along with the power of a known racist Stephen Miller in Trump's inner circle, and many of his policies to not be, at the VERY least, very concerned about whether Trump is racist.  If you embrace that, what is anyone to think?

There are some things you cannot separate.  Supporting a racist and racist policies sort of makes you a racist.  Im not saying you specifically, im using it generally.  When specifically posters on this board defend Bernie and attack AOC so incredibly irrationally, what conclusion are people to believe.   We cant say it by name or else we get in trouble but lets be honest, there is at least one person here who sure seems like an embracer of the racist right.

Let me qualify, its not about being conservative.  Its about embracing the alt right, white nationalist agenda that is, sadly, infecting way too much of the GOP for many of us Conservatives to handle...and thus, if I were American, I'd vote Dems all day long until my party got their heads out of their asses and eradicated the hateful alt right and got back to doing the best thing for the people.

How can you not see the flaw in your own logic?

Guilt by association.

Trump accepts white nationalists, ergo all Trump supporters are white nationalists. 

Liberals accept terrorists, ergo all Liberal supporters are terrorists.

The only distinction is the one you create in your own mind. 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

We dont know what evidence Mueller had against trump because havent seen it.  Same with the SDNY investigations and Congress.  Have to reserve judgement on Trump until later, to be honest.

ABout what is in the Mueller report- absolutely.  For everything else- you can judge. I certainly have, his policies are a tire fire and he's an unmitigated disaster as POTUS.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Whoa... interesting opinion article on fox news...

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mueller-did-not-exonerate-trump-barr-acted-as-judge-and-jury-now-congress-needs-to-do-its-job

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

How can you not see the flaw in your own logic?

Guilt by association.

Trump accepts white nationalists, ergo all Trump supporters are white nationalists. 

Liberals accept terrorists, ergo all Liberal supporters are terrorists.

The only distinction is the one you create in your own mind. 

 

No no.   You're conflating.

Being a terrorist is an act, not just an ideological.  Being a racist can be both.  I dont think the Liberals are pro-terrorism.  In fact, I think thats absurd.  But Trump and his inner circle are clearly pro-racist.  Its a whole movement and to avoid the obvious stigma of being racist they call it White Nationalism.

Im saying, someone can be a Trump supporter because they are ignorant or shallow or a racist.  When I see people specifically demonstrate their general intelligence and knowledge of the racist rhetoric and policies AND carry the water by attacking a person of colour in an irrational way, its pretty easy to draw a conclusion.  Maybe if we really examined the deep feelings that lay in the heart of the person, we'd come up with a nuance explanation, but really, why should we have to...dont come across like a racist if you dont want people thinking you're racist.  (again, not saying you specifically).

The President is a white supremacist.  Thats a red line.  For me and should be for everyone.  For those where its not a red line, they need to examine their own beliefs...but they surely cant be mad when they are judged harshly.  

Liberals supporting terrorism just isnt true and is a red herring.  And in the long list of reasons to dislike JT, that's a silly one to grasp at...way too far down the list.