US Politics IV - Page 48 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-04-2017, 02:44 PM   #941
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 09:56 PM
The only way to touch Trump while he's in office is by impeachment. Mueller won't be prosecuting Trump for obstruction because he can't.

The most he can do is turn over any evidence that he has to the Speaker of the House, and the rest is up to Congress.
__________________

Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 03:20 PM   #942
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
President tweets something that sounds like an admission of obstruction of justice.

White House them says "oh, that was his lawyer tweeting that." (Experts say: dude, that actually looks worse for you).
Only a true idiot would believe that story.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 04:09 PM   #943
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Harvard Supermodel Activist of the Decade Runner-Up
Posts: 9,562
Local Time: 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Only a true idiot would believe that story.
Yeah, unfortunately there are 63 million of them in the US.
Danny Boy is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 04:19 PM   #944
Refugee
 
kiwilad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malmsbury Villa
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 09:56 AM
LN7 is bang on here. I get Anitram's point re SCOTUS but obviously a Republican senator is still going to vote pro-life. Sure, having a pro-life Alabama candidate isn't perfect, but if they vote Democrat on health, and tax, etc etc, it's better than nothing isn't it?
Besides, it isn't the job of political parties to come up with dogma and tell the people that's what they're voting for. The parties should represent what the people want. And if in Alabama the people want pro-life, well that's democracy. And it makes for a healthier party, having different views sitting around the same table.
kiwilad is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 04:25 PM   #945
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,204
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
god almighty it took the entire morning to catch up on three pages of this thread...
I mean it's better than just having people tell about echo chambers and shit
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 04:27 PM   #946
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwilad View Post
The parties should represent what the people want.
I don't disagree.

They are free to elect their pro-life child molester.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 04:34 PM   #947
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,204
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
The only way to touch Trump while he's in office is by impeachment. Mueller won't be prosecuting Trump for obstruction because he can't.

The most he can do is turn over any evidence that he has to the Speaker of the House, and the rest is up to Congress.
Yes and no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a sitting president can't be indicted, as opposed to members of Congress, where there is specific language to that effect. Question is in whether Mueller himself has the right to is different and would likely end up in the Supreme Court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...304_story.html

Regardless... probably not best for Trump or his lawyers to publicly admit to obstruction of justice with and say it doesn't matter because neener neener neener you can't catch me.

Especially considering, ya know, Nixon and all.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 04:37 PM   #948
Refugee
 
kiwilad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malmsbury Villa
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I don't disagree.

They are free to elect their pro-life child molester.
Or a pro-life Democrat who is infinitely better at humanity than Moore. Why does it have to be all or nothing?
kiwilad is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 04:56 PM   #949
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,458
Local Time: 04:56 PM
I mean I think anitram's original point was of democrat's resources (why waste on *him* in Alabama). There's some point to that, but I think right now it's opportunistic. It's opportunistic for progressivism in Alabama on the fundamental sense.

Not to mention, this is Jeff Sessions seat we are talking about. Talk about an opportunity...
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 05:21 PM   #950
Refugee
 
kiwilad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malmsbury Villa
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I mean I think anitram's original point was of democrat's resources (why waste on *him* in Alabama). There's some point to that, but I think right now it's opportunistic. It's opportunistic for progressivism in Alabama on the fundamental sense.

Not to mention, this is Jeff Sessions seat we are talking about. Talk about an opportunity...
But they're already running a candidate with resources. Why not a candidate more representative of the peoplr he or she is asking to represent?
kiwilad is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 05:36 PM   #951
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I mean I think anitram's original point was of democrat's resources (why waste on *him* in Alabama). There's some point to that, but I think right now it's opportunistic. It's opportunistic for progressivism in Alabama on the fundamental sense.

Not to mention, this is Jeff Sessions seat we are talking about. Talk about an opportunity...
Yeah this was my point and also the fact that Nick said that if Doug Jones had been pro-life, he may have had a better chance. Well my response was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to (a) nominate a pro-life candidate which is in general opposition with the party and most of its supporters, who by the way are the ones that fund the party and organize the infrastructure, and (b) hope that some massive ass scandal takes down the Republican who, going into the race had like a 30-point lead. Sorry, but hindsight is 20/20 so I disagree with the suggestion that the Democrats should put up candidates to suit the majority (i.e. Republican) voters of Alabama.

Also lost in this is the fact that the Democrats have primaries and the same VOTERS of Alabama elected Doug Jones, a pro-choice candidate. So now we are telling them they are wrong and should elect a pro-lifer? I mean how do you say that out of one side of your mouth and out of the other say that the will of the voters of Alabama (majority pro-life Republicans) must be respected?
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 05:37 PM   #952
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwilad View Post
But they're already running a candidate with resources. Why not a candidate more representative of the peoplr he or she is asking to represent?
Why do you think that the Democrats of Alabama don't have the right to elect the candidate that THEY want to represent THEM in the Democratic primary?
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 05:49 PM   #953
Refugee
 
kiwilad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malmsbury Villa
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Also lost in this is the fact that the Democrats have primaries and the same VOTERS of Alabama elected Doug Jones, a pro-choice candidate. So now we are telling them they are wrong and should elect a pro-lifer? I mean how do you say that out of one side of your mouth and out of the other say that the will of the voters of Alabama (majority pro-life Republicans) must be respected?
Fair point. I didn't realise there are primaries for these positions but yeah, that largely destroys my argument.
Curiosity... Did the primaries voters have a pro life candidate to vote for?

I think I get your position re resources being targeted, hindsight and regarding the principles and fundamental values of a party.
What I'm arguing is that if you're trying to take people with you, and a huge chunk aren't following, maybe you're not leading properly.
One of the overwhelming messages from disgruntled Republican voters is that the Dems are educated elites trying to tell us what to think, do and say.
If the goal is a. To be in government and b. To ensure someone like Trump/Bannon never makes it to government, surely the approach has to change.

I don't see why a party can't say 'here are our positions on things, and we hope in time the majority of Americans agree, but state by state we know there are differences of opinion and we respect that'.
kiwilad is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:00 PM   #954
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Yes and no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a sitting president can't be indicted, as opposed to members of Congress, where there is specific language to that effect. Question is in whether Mueller himself has the right to is different and would likely end up in the Supreme Court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...304_story.html

Regardless... probably not best for Trump or his lawyers to publicly admit to obstruction of justice with and say it doesn't matter because neener neener neener you can't catch me.

Especially considering, ya know, Nixon and all.
Well most Constitutional scholars agree that a sitting President can't be indicted. There are some who disagree (notably Rotunda who wrote that opinion piece and a guy named Eric Freedman), but personally I'm of the opinion that he can't be indicted. The Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ has generally taken the same position (that he can't be indicted) over the years. You and others can disagree and that's fine, and it's true the SCOTUS has never definitely ruled on it, so who knows. But in any event I don't believe Mueller is going to try to tread new ground with a case like this. There would be no reason to try to indict Trump while he was in office, especially if it's a process crime. The remedy here is impeachment and removal from office. It's reasons like this that there's an impeachment clause to begin with.

With regards to Nixon, the only reason he stepped down is because the Republicans in Congress decided it was time and went to him. It was either that or face impeachment. The political climate was much different then, so I don't know. Would this current crop of Republicans impeach Trump for obstruction? I'm not convinced. But maybe.

Of course, if Mueller comes up with something more, say conspiracy and a quid pro quo with the Russians, that would be something different entirely. But even in that case, I don't think he could or would indict Trump, it will still be up to Congress to impeach.

And I'm just saying...all everyone has talked about for a year is collusion to hack the election, now no one's talking about that and the thing of the moment on social media is OBSTRUCTION!!!... and I'm frankly not even convinced that there's a case there. And now it's so-called experts coming out of the woodwork saying, well maybe the Logan Act actually is a serious thing, and maybe you can indict a sitting President. I'm not convinced of any of that. A lot of people seem to be so obsessed with "getting Trump" that reason has just gone out the window. I'm sure there will be more guilty pleas and indictments ahead, probably for more process crimes. But I haven't seen anything so far that's going to result in Trump being "perp walked out of the White House in handcuffs" like so many people seem to be dreaming of. Just my opinion.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:11 PM   #955
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwilad View Post
What I'm arguing is that if you're trying to take people with you, and a huge chunk aren't following, maybe you're not leading properly'.

Or maybe a bunch of that “huge chunk” are racists and misogynists. Not leading properly means not pandering to that?
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:20 PM   #956
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 04:56 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/abortion-...130835786.html


Click image for larger version

Name:	de88ea76a2b0baf729c2a5ebb4a236ca.png
Views:	19
Size:	26.9 KB
ID:	11661
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:24 PM   #957
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,204
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Well most Constitutional scholars agree that a sitting President can't be indicted. There are some who disagree (notably Rotunda who wrote that opinion piece and a guy named Eric Freedman), but personally I'm of the opinion that he can't be indicted. The Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ has generally taken the same position (that he can't be indicted) over the years. You and others can disagree and that's fine, and it's true the SCOTUS has never definitely ruled on it, so who knows. But in any event I don't believe Mueller is going to try to tread new ground with a case like this. There would be no reason to try to indict Trump while he was in office, especially if it's a process crime. The remedy here is impeachment and removal from office. It's reasons like this that there's an impeachment clause to begin with.

With regards to Nixon, the only reason he stepped down is because the Republicans in Congress decided it was time and went to him. It was either that or face impeachment. The political climate was much different then, so I don't know. Would this current crop of Republicans impeach Trump for obstruction? I'm not convinced. But maybe.

Of course, if Mueller comes up with something more, say conspiracy and a quid pro quo with the Russians, that would be something different entirely. But even in that case, I don't think he could or would indict Trump, it will still be up to Congress to impeach.

And I'm just saying...all everyone has talked about for a year is collusion to hack the election, now no one's talking about that and the thing of the moment on social media is OBSTRUCTION!!!... and I'm frankly not even convinced that there's a case there. And now it's so-called experts coming out of the woodwork saying, well maybe the Logan Act actually is a serious thing, and maybe you can indict a sitting President. I'm not convinced of any of that. A lot of people seem to be so obsessed with "getting Trump" that reason has just gone out the window. I'm sure there will be more guilty pleas and indictments ahead, probably for more process crimes. But I haven't seen anything so far that's going to result in Trump being "perp walked out of the White House in handcuffs" like so many people seem to be dreaming of. Just my opinion.
And they got Nixon on the cover up, not the crime.

You'd have to have a pretty low opinion of Robert Mueller to think that he's letting Flynn walk, who has committed a multitude of actual, provable crimes, if there wasn't something else there, and there are very few people above Flynn.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:25 PM   #958
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,204
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
2% Hillary Clinton.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:27 PM   #959
Refugee
 
kiwilad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malmsbury Villa
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Or maybe a bunch of that “huge chunk” are racists and misogynists. Not leading properly means not pandering to that?
For sure. A bunch of the huge chunk are those things. And a bunch aren't. You do believe that right? That not every Trump/Moore voter is a racist and/or misogynist?
kiwilad is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:29 PM   #960
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
2% Hillary Clinton.
That's just wacky.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×