Trump and Russiagate - Page 128 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14916095
jimjam wrote:I will just mention one of my favorites: the recent "tax reform" which was nothing but a trillion dollar plus whack on the US treasury gave rich folks and corporate America a big gift while, strictly as a smoke screen, granting chicken feed to the people.

Why do you think bringing US corporate tax rates in line with the rest of the industrialized world is a bad idea? The US had the highest corporate tax rates of any major power--forcing many to book and bank their profits offshore. That is no longer a problem. The rich get a slightly lower rate, but they also don't get to write off mega mansions anymore, which I don't need to explain to you since you are a landowner yourself.

jimjam wrote:Not two weeks later Paul Ryan comes along to inform us that there doesn't seem to be enough $ in the treasury to fund SS and medicare.

The welfare state will collapse within my lifetime, not yours. There is no mathematical way to resolve it. Importing low-IQ illiterates to have babies while sowing the seeds of race and ethnic wars through identity politics is certainly not going to solve the entitlement crisis--which is upon us because a political party has lied consistently for 70 years and keeps denying the obvious fact that you cannot sustain a ponzi scheme.

jimjam wrote:Another great example Is his using the power of the presidency not to further the interests of America's citizens but to punish people he considers his "enemies" (Nixon redux :eek: ) ............. ie. Jeff Bezos.

You want to compare Trump to Nixon after Obama, and you cite Jeff Bezos--the richest man in the world? I'm sure Bezos appreciates your concern for his well being, but I don't think the richest man in the world really needs jimjam's sympathy.

Zamuel wrote:I was watching -whatshisname,- Stormy Daniels lawyer the other day and he's saying he's got at least 2 other women vetted, that Trump paid MORE $$$ to than stormy got, on tap (maybe 3). They all signed "non-disclosures." He's just waiting for them to make up their minds and "jump into the fire." Time for another vacation Melania …

The irony of this is that what Trump is alleged to have done is not illegal. Yet, leaking bank SARs is a criminal offense, which for some reason doesn't seem to bother you at all. Do you see now why people don't take your quasi moral argument seriously?

One Degree wrote:We've come a long way from "Trump wasn't spied on" to "Trump deserved to have a DOJ mole in his campaign."

You mean, "Trump is crazy, because he thinks he was spied on so we need to use the 25th Amendment to remove him from office." These charges are from people who excuse Hillary Clinton and her ties with Bill Clinton and Carlos Danger--who wasn't simply accused of wrong doing, but was dead to rights.

I'm interested in what happens with this Russian company. Mueller may have really screwed the pooch on that one. We shall see.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916099
blackjack21 wrote:The irony of this is that what Trump is alleged to have done is not illegal.

Nah, just his scumbag legacy of screwing three (maybe 4) different chicks while his wife is having his baby, then payin em to shut up so the voters don't find out. "Hail to the chief."

Zam
By Decky
#14916100
Zamuel wrote:Nah, just his scumbag legacy of screwing three (maybe 4) different chicks while his wife is having his baby, then payin em to shut up so the voters don't find out. "Hail to the chief."

Zam


Standard Protestant behavior in a marriage.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916108
Decky wrote:Standard Protestant behavior in a marriage.


Right now Trump isn't so worried about "standard protestants, he's worried about tight-assed evangelicals.

Image

Zam :lol:
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14916141
Context-free political cartoons are always funny if you intend for them to be funny, whereas something like this is always interesting. Can you spot what's wrong with this statement?
https://archive.fo/nR7Hv#selection-217.0-227.30

President Trump accused the F.B.I., without evidence, of planting a mole inside his campaign to undermine his presidential run. But the F.B.I. in fact dispatched a confidential informant to meet with Trump campaign advisers as it began its investigation into possible links between his campaign and Russia.


The problem of course is that the Russian leads ultimately come from the Democrats. At this point, a lot of these people need to go to jail or we need to split up the country because the Democrats have clearly stopped following the rules of this democracy thing.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916203
Hong Wu wrote:Democrats have clearly stopped following the rules of this democracy thing.


"Rules? We don't need no stinking rules" - Mitch McConnell - Senate Majority Leader.

Zam ;)
User avatar
By jimjam
#14916225
blackjack21 wrote:You want to compare Trump to Nixon after Obama, and you cite Jeff Bezos--the richest man in the world? I'm sure Bezos appreciates your concern for his well being, but I don't think the richest man in the world really needs jimjam's sympathy.


I'm not certain how this justifies Donald using the power of the presidency to satisfy his personal grudges. Looking back at history ( i doubt Donald is capable of such an exercise) this behavior looks strikingly similar to one of Nixon's activities that got him booted.

[youtube]Ih22WUKyCaM[/youtube]
#14916354
jimjam wrote:I'm not certain how this justifies Donald using the power of the presidency to satisfy his personal grudges.

If he is not breaking the law, there's not a great deal that can be done about it. For example, Obama's use of the administrative state to punish his detractors went nowhere. The questions arise when the behavior breaks the law. There are questions around someone like Lois Lerner, because there is a clear pattern and practice of political targetting. When you swarm a person like Catherine Engelbrecht with the IRS, BATFE, OSHA, FBI, EPA, etc., it's clearly being done for political reasons. However, can you say Obama broke the law?

I was for the Patriot Act, but I'm essentially against it now due to the rampant abuse of surveillance power. The reality is that Bush could be trusted with that power much more than Obama could be. Now that people went to great lengths to defend Obama's behavior no matter what, you have basically okayed that behavior for political successors. If you think Trump is doing something illegal, that's one thing. However, if you are saying Trump is doing something that Obama would never have done, I think that's being a bit naive.

I think Devin Nunes is doing a great job of uncovering Obama's dirty tricks, but he also voted for sustaining and growing the surveillance state. The problem I have with Nunes' position there is that I think he places too much trust and faith in his fellow man that this power will not be abused; alternatively, maybe he secretly wants to use it against the Democrats the way the FBI apparently had moles in Trump's campaign--another story the media is obviously going to suppress.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#14916379
Decky wrote:Standard Protestant behavior in a marriage.


Catholics break their marriage vows too. It's not a sectarian matter.
By Decky
#14916391
redcarpet wrote:Catholics break their marriage vows too. It's not a sectarian matter.


Everything is a sectarian matter!
User avatar
By jimjam
#14916400
blackjack21 wrote:If he is not breaking the law, there's not a great deal that can be done about it.


Lots can be done about it. Let's get it out there that Donald met on two occasions with the Postmaster General in an attempt to get the USPS to double delivery rates for Amazon which is owned by the same man who is not only not sucking up to The Great Man but actually publishing things that The Great Man doesn't like in his newspaper, the Washington Post. The public needs to know how this petty piece of shit is using their government to settle petty personal grudges.

Donald continues to act as if he is running a family business where can do anything he wants to and not only will people not take him up short for his repulsive behavior ..... they will suck up to him all the more in hopes of receiving some crumbs from The Great Man's table.
#14916449
jimjam wrote:Lots can be done about it. Let's get it out there that Donald met on two occasions with the Postmaster General in an attempt to get the USPS to double delivery rates for Amazon which is owned by the same man who is not only not sucking up to The Great Man but actually publishing things that The Great Man doesn't like in his newspaper, the Washington Post. The public needs to know how this petty piece of shit is using their government to settle petty personal grudges.

The post office routinely loses money and then begs Congress for bailouts. Personally, I think the postal service should be privatized, and the US Post Office primarily concerned with addressing, regulating what can and cannot be sent via courier services, laws surrounding constructive service of process, constructive notice via mails, etc.

That the postal service loses money while providing taxpayer bailed out services to a private organization like Amazon, making Jeff Bezos--the world's richest man--even richer is profoundly frustrating. So I don't have a problem with Trump trying to address that situation at all. However, Amazon isn't the reason that the USPS loses money.

(alternatively, I think we should fire all US citizens and hire illegal aliens to do USPS jobs just to piss off the Democrats.)

jimjam wrote:Donald continues to act as if he is running a family business where can do anything he wants to and not only will people not take him up short for his repulsive behavior ..... they will suck up to him all the more in hopes of receiving some crumbs from The Great Man's table.

Again, this is why I find your arguments mystifying. You are trashing Donald Trump while defending the richest man in the world. It's not exactly a situation where Jeff Bezos is some sort of victim. He gets a sweet heart deal from the US Post Office. Why should the average Joe be helping Jeff Bezos get even richer using an apparatus of state that is constantly losing money at taxpayer's expense? I understand you hate Trump, but taking sides with the Richest Man in the World™ against Donald Trump isn't exactly the sort of populism that's going to sell in today's world. I could be wrong, but I find your argument puzzling.
User avatar
By jimjam
#14916898
blackjack21 wrote:That the postal service

my point has nothing to do with the USPS. My point, that apparently "mystified" you was that Donald is using the agencies of the US government not to serve the American people but to fight his personal grudges. In this case he appears not to be aware that the first amendment of the Constitution protects free speech and that media outlets that question his infallible wisdom need to be punished. So...... his unofficial propaganda outlet, Fox & C. , gets a pass while a media outlet that calls him up short on his lies and bullshit, Washington Post, needs to be attacked in a backhanded fashion thru Amazon.

blackjack21 wrote:Again, this is why I find your arguments mystifying. You are trashing Donald Trump while defending the richest man in the world.


Again, your "mystification" is causing you to miss my point. I don't give a shit about Bezos or Amazon or the USPS. Rather than repeat myself , I refer you to the above paragraph which outlines my point in terms that anyone other than a totally partisan bystander would not be "mystified" by.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916902
jimjam wrote:Donald is using the agencies of the US government not to serve the American people but to fight his personal grudges.

I get it … Trump it seems is now ordering the FBI to "investigate the investigation" against him. There are some serious questions about his authority to do so and the possibility that he is actively obstructing justice. Perhaps Mr. Giuliani can explain all this too …

Zam :smokin:
User avatar
By jimjam
#14916942
Zamuel wrote:I get it … Trump it seems is now ordering the FBI to "investigate the investigation" against him. There are some serious questions about his authority to do so and the possibility that he is actively obstructing justice. Perhaps Mr. Giuliani can explain all this too …

Zam :smokin:

Donald's strategy is obvious. Even he knows that if he outright fires Mueller he will be in deep do-do. The alternative is to create diversions and to discredit the investigation. "Investigate crooked Hillary .... put her in jail .... etc. etc." doesn't seem to be working because all but his rabid base doesn't give a shit. Enter Rudi to dream up more of the same with different names and details. They jumped on this FBI spy in the Trump campaign like chickens on a June bug. So now Donald sez the FBI was spying on him and the FBI sez we were doing what we are paid to do ..... looking for colluders. It's pretty much a given that the Donald/Rudi team will produce no hard evidence. Just a lot of loud hot air. So ............... who ya gonna believe? A guy noted for his daily lies or the FBI? :lol:
#14916944
jimjam wrote:My point, that apparently "mystified" you was that Donald is using the agencies of the US government not to serve the American people but to fight his personal grudges.

Whether it should be or not, that is perfectly legal provided he does so within the bounds of the law. Even malicious prosecution is lawful if it is within the letter of the law. Malicious intent doesn't apply.

jimjam wrote:In this case he appears not to be aware that the first amendment of the Constitution protects free speech and that media outlets that question his infallible wisdom need to be punished.

Trump hasn't punished any of his political detractors yet that I am aware of other than firing Sally Yates and James Comey, which he was clearly within his power to do.

jimjam wrote:So...... his unofficial propaganda outlet, Fox & C. , gets a pass while a media outlet that calls him up short on his lies and bullshit, Washington Post, needs to be attacked in a backhanded fashion thru Amazon.

Neither the Washington Post nor FoxNews have committed any crimes. Amazon hasn't committed any crimes either, although it is a matter of debate whether the US Postal Service is paid enough to deliver packages for Amazon.

jimjam wrote:Again, your "mystification" is causing you to miss my point. I don't give a shit about Bezos or Amazon or the USPS. Rather than repeat myself , I refer you to the above paragraph which outlines my point in terms that anyone other than a totally partisan bystander would not be "mystified" by.

Well, I understand that someone with as much antipathy for Trump as you would be overcome with histrionics at everything Trump does, but we haven't seen him do anything illegal. Obama, by contrast, submitted people to extensive regulatory harassment which never managed to get your ire up. I find it puzzling that you are so upset with Trump looking to raise USPS rates on Amazon while you were nonplussed by Obama sending the FBI, OSHA, IRS, BATFE, EPA, etc. to Catherine Engelbrecht's establishment, because she was trying to prevent voter fraud with her True the Vote organization.

Zamuel wrote:I get it … Trump it seems is now ordering the FBI to "investigate the investigation" against him.

He is asking whether the Obama administration sent FBI informants into his campaign for political purposes. There is no question at this time that the FBI had informants working within his campaign.

Zamuel wrote:There are some serious questions about his authority to do so and the possibility that he is actively obstructing justice.

The POTUS is the chief law enforcment officer of the United States. The DoJ/FBI are his subordinates. They do not get to act independently of the president. If they committed crimes for political purposes, it is proper to investigate them, charge them and attempt to convict them. It certainly is not obstruction of justice to investigate public officials for wrongdoing.

jimjam wrote:Even he knows that if he outright fires Mueller he will be in deep do-do.

Nah. He can fire Mueller if he wants. Having Mueller around serves his "drain the swamp" campaign ethos, because it is now obvious that there was never any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia--and Trump's detractors knew it at the outset since they manufactured the story from whole cloth. Brennan sent a shot across Ryan and McConnell's bow suggesting that they would be blamed for the political fallout and blowback for the failed coup against Trump. That's not the case. As long as Obama's minions remain in government, they will be destroying the reputation of the FBI, DoJ and CIA.

jimjam wrote:The alternative is to create diversions and to discredit the investigation.

Co-prosecution is a valid legal strategy, and it's one that is rarely used, because it takes pretty big balls to do it. Trump seems to have pretty big balls--at least bigger than Marco Rubio's anyway.

jimjam wrote:"Investigate crooked Hillary .... put her in jail .... etc. etc." doesn't seem to be working because all but his rabid base doesn't give a shit.

Hillary Clinton did break the law, and we are aware that you don't give a shit. You do give a shit about everything Trump does, even though you can't point to a statute he has violated for whatever it is that gives you so much heartburn.

jimjam wrote:They jumped on this FBI spy in the Trump campaign like chickens on a June bug.

Trump is an expert at baiting his adversaries. Clapper all but admitted that this was going on--and suggested it was a good idea. By contrast, Brennan flipped out.

jimjam wrote:It's pretty much a given that the Donald/Rudi team will produce no hard evidence.

They probably already know who was in the campaign. The media thrust was to get a reaction and he got his reaction from Clapper, Brennan and Yates. Your argument seems to follow Yates' commentary.

jimjam wrote:So ............... who ya gonna believe? A guy noted for his daily lies or the FBI? :lol:

You are suggesting the FBI has unimpeachable credibility. Not everybody feels this way.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916959
blackjack21 wrote:The POTUS is the chief law enforcment officer of the United States. The DoJ/FBI are his subordinates. They do not get to act independently of the president.

Please show us where it says that anywhere besides Donald Trumps tweets. Polly want a cracker?

Zam
  • 1
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 266

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]