Bill Barr has to go - Page 2 - 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.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15068827
Finfinder wrote:This is why the left needs an intervention. They breathlessly make these dramatic arguments and think people are so stupid they forgot about Eric holder and Obama's pen and a phone. I see what you are doing, you can't beat the Republicans at the ballot box. Everyone is over the lefts whining and crying and false flags, go get yourself an electable candidate, elections have consequences.


late wrote:It only took Putin a year to crush their justice system. It took Erdogan a couple years. It's taking Trump longer, but he is working on it, and will get there eventually.

So does cheating, or at least it used to.. back in the days when we still had Rule of Law.



LOL nice come back The left is reduced to rock chucking.
By late
#15068830
Finfinder wrote:
nice come back The left is reduced to rock chucking.



You try that lie every day. At least half of the couple thousand former DOJ officials that protested the impropriety of what Barr and Trump are doing are Republican.

Most that have expertise in law are horrified.

Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, didn’t mince words on Attorney General William Barr’s fealty to President Donald Trump.

“He’s demonstrated there’s no limit to how much shit he’s willing to eat — or to dish out & toss at the public and the other branches of government — to please his master,” he wrote on Twitter.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15068839
late wrote:You try that lie every day. At least half of the couple thousand former DOJ officials that protested the impropriety of what Barr and Trump are doing are Republican.

Most that have expertise in law are horrified.

Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, didn’t mince words on Attorney General William Barr’s fealty to President Donald Trump.

“He’s demonstrated there’s no limit to how much shit he’s willing to eat — or to dish out & toss at the public and the other branches of government — to please his master,” he wrote on Twitter.



it never ends with you

Who cares this so over used its feckless, besides I doubt its credible never, Trumpers?

News flash the DOJ is part of the executive branch and the attorney general is a political appointment. Get over the last election and beg Hillary Clinton to run for president again so you can fill up the swamp again.
#15068874
late wrote:It only took Putin a year to crush their justice system. It took Erdogan a couple years. It's taking Trump longer, but he is working on it, and will get there eventually.

So does cheating, or at least it used to.. back in the days when we still had Rule of Law.


Again, you don't know, or pretend to not know, anything about Russia, or President Putin, or the Russian judicial system. I'm going to quickly lay out some facts about Russia's judicial system;

The Russian Constitution was basically written by the Clinton White House back in the 1990's, and is a Deep Stater's wet dream.... The Russian judicial system has it's basis in international liberalism and the fact therefore in law that any Russian law passed by the legislature and signed by the President is automatically legally void if it contradicts international treaties and conventions. Russian sovereignty is actually constrained by it's own judiciary, among other bureaucratic elements President Putin doesn't have much control over. And he has acted within those Constitutional restraints, he is not the ''Dictator'' you wish he was.
By late
#15068897
annatar1914 wrote:
Again, you don't know, or pretend to not know, anything about Russia, or President Putin, or the Russian judicial system. I'm going to quickly lay out some facts about Russia's judicial system;

The Russian Constitution was basically written by the Clinton White House back in the 1990's, and is a Deep Stater's wet dream.... The Russian judicial system has it's basis in international liberalism and the fact therefore in law that any Russian law passed by the legislature and signed by the President is automatically legally void if it contradicts international treaties and conventions. Russian sovereignty is actually constrained by it's own judiciary, among other bureaucratic elements President Putin doesn't have much control over. And he has acted within those Constitutional restraints, he is not the ''Dictator'' you wish he was.



I use words people will understand.

Technically, Putin is an autocrat. You seem to be saying he doesn't rule the country with an iron fist, while siphoning billions into his wallet.

That's hilarious. How naive do you think we are?

"In Russia, a day after calling for sweeping constitutional changes, Putin on Thursday set about expediting their enactment. Addressing the body that will draft the articles, the Russian leader said strengthening the role of parliament, as envisioned under his proposals, would also bolster civil society and a diverse array of political parties.

The proposed changes — together with the parliamentary endorsement of a seemingly pliable new prime minister, former tax chief Mikhail Mishustin — were widely viewed by outside analysts as means by which Putin, 67, could hang on to power beyond the end of his presidential term in 2024.

Russia’s leading opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, wrote on Twitter that Putin’s constitutional plans were indicative of his intent to “rule until he dies.”
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-01-16/russia-vladimir-putin-autocrats-power-playbook
#15068901
I use words people will understand.


I.E, you lie.


Technically, Putin is an autocrat.


No, he is not.


You seem to be saying he doesn't rule the country with an iron fist


:lol:

There's no ''Seem'' about it, he isn't, and to think that he is is pretty laughable, because it's so delusional.

while siphoning billions into his wallet.


Got proof of that?

That's hilarious. How naive do you think we are?


I don't think you're naive at all, I have thought you're a bad faith actor from day one.
"In Russia, a day after calling for sweeping constitutional changes, Putin on Thursday set about expediting their enactment. Addressing the body that will draft the articles, the Russian leader said strengthening the role of parliament, as envisioned under his proposals, would also bolster civil society and a diverse array of political parties.

The proposed changes — together with the parliamentary endorsement of a seemingly pliable new prime minister, former tax chief Mikhail Mishustin — were widely viewed by outside analysts as means by which Putin, 67, could hang on to power beyond the end of his presidential term in 2024.


Now I know you're in bad faith. Have you read the proposed changes to the Russian Constitution? They limit Presidents to two terms, and do away with the loophole Putin and Medvedyev did before, entirely Constitutional though that that maneuver was. And Putin himself proposed this.

Russia’s leading opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, wrote on Twitter that Putin’s constitutional plans were indicative of his intent to “rule until he dies.”
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-01-16/russia-vladimir-putin-autocrats-power-playbook


Navalny is an idiot, and a useful idiot to the Liberal West at that. He is simply projecting what his own desires are. Putin himself was a Russian version of a Liberal, and many liberals in the West lauded him for a while and had no problem with his being in office a long time-it kept the Communists and Nationalists out. Problem is, you folks don't want a Russia to exist, liberal or otherwise, and Putin has become wise to that over time. The West doesn't want a partner...

So your kind can just fuck off with your mendacious tripe, again it's going to be a pleasure seeing your degenerate's enterprise come crashing down in flames, whether you folks are western liberals or retarded Fascist scum.
#15069068
late wrote:1) According to thousands of former Justice officials, Trump is so far off the reservation he's left the planet. IOW, you're lying.

It turns out the presiding judge agreed with Barr. So is she lying too? Or are those 2000 former Justice officials just #NeverTrumpers who spoke too soon and now look stupid for having done so?

late wrote:2) The way you constantly distort what I say tells us you know you're peddling crap.

I am simply pointing out the twisted logic you use. For example, your constant comparison of Trump to a dictator while failing to understand why he is likely to win re-election. You simply cannot accept the fact that more people like his positions than like yours. You can't accept that the electoral college requires a weighted input for less populous states by design. You cannot accept that whether the Russians are responsible for hacking Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and the DNC email servers, the net effect of that action was not to compromise votes or vote counting in any way. Rather, the net effect of the hacks was to EXPOSE the private conversations of Democratic party politicians. I could say for years that Hillary Clinton says one thing to private donor audiences and another thing to voters. You would say I have no evidence and that I am therefore a liar. A lot of people want to give politicians the benefit of the doubt, and your trolling for the DNC used to be helpful to them. The hacks meant that voters could see first hand what Hillary was ACTUALLY saying in those emails. Clinton says she has 'both a public and a private position' on Wall Street: WikiLeaks release.

There are 60+M voters who now know that politicians in fact hate them, and the feeling is mutual. Those voters understand that those same politicians hate Trump. That's a big part of the emotional appeal for Trump, because he attacks them constantly to the thrill of his voters.

Finfinder wrote:LOL Yea Beer summits and Tarmac meetings how quickly they forget.

Yeah, the Beer Summit was in the first year of Obama's presidency--and Obama just assumed all white police officers drink beer as though he were somehow beyond racial profiling and stereotyping himself. However, the tarmac meeting is much closer to the arrogance of the establishment--to believe that Clinton and Lynch were just talking about their grandkids just before the DoJ decides not to prosecute Hillary for crimes which were far more serious and for which she was obviously guilty compared to Roger Stone.

Finfinder wrote:Isn't it amazing how they actually believe they have credibility is these discussions.

What's amazing to me is that they did maintain credibility for so long. I don't think they believe they've lost it the way we know they have. That's why I say @late doesn't seem to get why nobody is upset with Russia. All the hacks did was expose the truth of what was really going on inside the inner circles of the Democrat party. It's the exposé that hurt them, not Russia itself. Russia (or whoever actually did it; it probably needed to be an insider although a wifi hack could have done it too) didn't have to make anything up or tell any lies.

I would add that I still don't think we ever got the true story on hacks. The reason I say that is that as a techie, a lot of the raw emails had DKIM signatures. Domain Keys Idenfied Mail usually happens outside of the email server while the email is in transit but before it leaves the server, because even the sending timestamps would cause signature verification to fail if the same email were sent twice but the timestamps were different, for example. The DKIM signatures verified the emails. So I'm more inclined to believe that the emails were wiresharked. That's much easier to do within an organization and remain undetected, because network switches simply copy all traffic to all other network ports unless you set up a VLAN. A techie or someone with explicit instructions and a little guidance can do that rather easily. They just analyze the bytestream and dump all smtp messages to disk. There is no fingerprint at all. This is also why I don't believe the CrowdStrike report, nor do I believe the "17 US Intelligence Agencies." Everytime someone uses that phrase, I know they are full of shit. Geospatial Intelligence, US Coast Guard Intelligence, etc. would have absolutely no opinion whatsoever on Russian hacking of a political party's email servers. They are just so used to lying and parroting lies, that they don't understand that we know their game now.

Finfinder wrote:Obama on television interview "not one smidgen of corruption" :lol:

That was in regard to the IRS harassment of Republican donors and conservative groups seeking 501(c)(4) status, replicating the games played by the NAACP, etc. on the left.

late wrote:A democracy without an independent justice system is no democracy at all.

America is a federated republic, not a democracy. The Department of Justice didn't even exist until 1870. It is not independent of the executive. The courts are independent of the executive.

Finfinder wrote:They breathlessly make these dramatic arguments and think people are so stupid they forgot about Eric holder and Obama's pen and a phone.

Or Obama's military intervention in Syria without a UN resolution or Congressional authorization. These same people were freaking out that we were "betraying our allies, the Kurds" if we pulled troops out of Syria who were once again there without any Congressional authorization or UN resolution authorizing it.

Finfinder wrote:LOL nice come back The left is reduced to rock chucking.

That's the sum and substance of it. I spoke with an anti-Trump friend the other day--who previous to around November last year had not spoken with a pro-Trump friend of mine and I for in excess of three years for our support of Trump against Hillary Clinton. We buttered him up a bit about Biden's chances last month before impeachment to keep him mollified. Yet, a few nights ago we were out with him and he conceded that Trump was likely to win again, as he lamented both Sanders and Bloomberg.

late wrote:At least half of the couple thousand former DOJ officials that protested the impropriety of what Barr and Trump are doing are Republican.

And they have been shown to be wrong by the Obama-appointed presiding judge.
By late
#15069087
blackjack21 wrote:
1) It turns out the presiding judge agreed with Barr. So is she lying too? Or are those 2000 former Justice officials just #NeverTrumpers who spoke too soon and now look stupid for having done so?


2) For example, your constant comparison of Trump to a dictator

3) while failing to understand why he is likely to win re-election.

4) There are 60+M voters who now know that politicians in fact hate them, and the feeling is mutual. Those voters understand that those same politicians hate Trump. That's a big part of the emotional appeal for Trump, because he attacks them constantly to the thrill of his voters.





1) Uh huh. She wants sentencing reform, not just for Trumps Palestinians. You really wouldn't want to ask her about corrupt intent here...

2) Actually, I have linked to historians that study autocrats and dictators a number of times. They know what they are talking about, you have your head in a dark, dark place. If you had read David Cay Johnston's biography of Trump before the election, this would not be especially surprising.

3) The only way he can win is cheating.

4) That's Reality TV, not reality.
#15069118
late wrote:1) Uh huh. She wants sentencing reform, not just for Trumps Palestinians. You really wouldn't want to ask her about corrupt intent here...

What is this repetitive reference to "Trumps Palestinians"? You guys are usually yammering on about how he is the most pro-Israel president ever. As for Amy Berman Jackson, she did go with the amended sentencing guidelines suggesting that the Mueller prosecutors were too aggressive and Trump was correct in complaining about it.

late wrote:2) Actually, I have linked to historians that study autocrats and dictators a number of times. They know what they are talking about, you have your head in a dark, dark place. If you had read David Cay Johnston's biography of Trump before the election, this would not be especially surprising.

I can do that too. Here's Andrew Sullivan's lament: Trump’s Presidency Isn’t a Dark Comedy — It’s an Absurd Tragedy. Your assumption is that I don't read any of these screeds. I do. I just disagree with them. Sullivan even goes further than most to curry some credibility by acknowledging some of the abuses of the Obama administration where he provides links to support his assertions.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:I’m not hostile to every part of the Trump policy agenda, and I can happily accept some mitigating factors in Trump’s defense: Some rogue courts that have denied legitimate presidential authority (especially in immigration matters) only to be rebuffed in the end by SCOTUS; worrying errors in the FISA process early on (Carter Page, ahem); bureaucratic resistance rooted in ideology and partisanship; the shift of the mainstream media into a woke cul-de-sac; and the fever-swamp Maddowism that tried to re-up the Cold War to shore up the reputation of Hillary Clinton. These are points worth taking.

They are worth taking, but Democrats and many Republicans weren't concerned at all with Obama's exercise of power. So why should we be concerned now? They are ever only worried when Republicans are in control.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:Yes, presidents before Trump did bad things we would today deplore (like spying on domestic political opponents). Yes, they committed impeachable offenses which did not lead to exposure, let alone removal from office. Yes, some flouted the rule of law. And, yes, we have tightened standards of executive accountability since Watergate. But no president, however malign, has ever declared that he has an absolute right to commit abuse of power — while he was doing it. Even when Nixon said, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” it was way after his departure from the White House, and prompted gasps. What Trump is doing is openly mocking constitutional constraints on the presidency even as he abuses his office — and has prompted only indifference among Republicans and exhaustion among Democrats.

If a president has a legitimate legal basis for investigating a political opponent, he has the power to do that. The check is in the courts via the Fourth Amendment. However, that check doesn't hold when the former Vice President brags in an AV recorded symposium that he had a prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold $1B of US loan guarantees when that very prosecutor was investigating a company known for corruption before his son took a director job there. If there were no Foreign Corrupt Practices Act--passed by a Democratic-controlled legislature in the 1970s--we wouldn't have the legitimate legal basis; although, intelligence/counter-intelligence would still apply, but the president can't prosecute on intelligence gathered info without a warrant. So the president was perfectly within the lawful exercise of his powers here--and even Republicans who claim it was inappropriate are doing nothing more than defending corruption.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:Look at the precedents that have already been set: A president can now ignore Congress’ power of the purse, by redirecting funds from Congress’ priorities to his own (as in the wall); he can invent a “national emergency” out of nothing and exercise powers that are, at their worst, dictatorial (as Trump did to fund his wall); he can broadly refuse to cooperate with any legitimate congressional inquiries — and defy all congressional subpoenas (as he did with impeachment); he can, reportedly, order illegal acts and promise his subordinates he will subsequently pardon them if they are discovered; he can dangle pardons, obstruct justice, and intimidate witnesses with impunity; he can slander judges and accuse the FBI and CIA of being part of a seditious “deep state.”

Presidents have always had a measure of discretion in spending. Trump's use of discretionary defense funds was upheld by the courts. He isn't ignoring the power of the purse. He's just using discretionary funds at his discretion. The president has had both Article II and Article I (delegated by Congress) authority to declare national emergencies. 20M people illegally in the US is a reasonable basis for declaring an emergency. He can also ignore subpoenas if Congress doesn't vote on an impeachment inquiry, which THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO. He did not say he would order illegal acts and pardon people if they performed them. Again, "fake news" from CNN is just more emotional histrionics from anti-Trump bedwetters. What is wrong with accusing the FBI or CIA of acting as a "deep state"? Chuck Schumer warned Trump of this very thing, and his impeachment was spawned by a CIA whistleblower on mere hearsay and the entire establishment protected his identity as though overthrowing the president is something you get to do without allowing the president to confront his accuser.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:He can wage war unilaterally and instantly, without any congressional approval, while lying about the reason (what Iranian imminent attack?) and denying the consequences (the serious injuries that were inflicted on U.S. service members in Iraq);

Every president has the power to address imminent threats. The injury story was more fake news.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:he can stack his Cabinet with many lackeys who never have to undergo Senate hearings — because they’re only ever “acting” Cabinet members;

A common practice since at least the Bush administration as Congress has decided on non-confirmation as a means of thwarting the exercise of power.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:Are we supposed to believe these precedents will not be cited and deployed by every wannabe strongman president in the future? Are we supposed to regard these massive holes below the waterline of the ship of state as no big deal? And with these precedents in his first term, are we supposed to regard what could Trump get away with in a second term as a form of black comedy? I’m sorry but I don’t get the joke.

There isn't anything Trump is doing that other presidents haven't already done. The idea that Trump is setting these precedents is ludicrous.

Andrew Sullivan wrote: “Ripe for tyranny?” We’re begging for it.

We're not begging for tyranny. We're begging for the deep state to be fired, removed from power, security clearances revoked and criminal actions by such people prosecuted if necessary.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:This is a cult. It’s sustained by constant fanatical rallies, buoyed by a campaign of deliberate falsehoods, and thriving in an alternate reality created by a media company’s propaganda. This is more dangerous than a monarchy, because it is based on charismatic authority, not tradition.

It's buoyed by the American people's fatigue of the establishment pushing for lower wages and job outsourcing in the manner of free trade with communist China, while they attack Trump as his direct and indirect subordinates and try to bolster a pseudo Red Scare while they do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party. Sorry. We're not having it anymore. We're not scared of Russia. We're scared of the unelected American deep state acting contrary to the will of the electorate. They are the primary threat to us. Not Russia.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:and people at the bottom of the ladder are actually seeing real wage gains for the first time in a long while. It is therefore more likely than not that this president will be reelected.

If that happens, every authoritarian precedent being set now will be given deeper democratic legitimacy. Yes, this is exactly how republics die.

It's easy to save the Republic. Just do what the voters want:

- Get illegal aliens out of the country.
- Enact a merit-based immigration system.
- Limit immigration so it isn't wage depressing.
- Curtail trade with totalitarian governments like China.
- Prosecute bureaucrats who abuse power.
- Abolish political correctness.
- Keep taxes and regulations under control.

It's not a mystery what people want. However, if it takes a billionaire interloper to get it done, then so be it. People were not fooled by the Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton race the establishment had in mind. They understand now that Biden is not only too old and increasingly disabled by the onset of dementia, he's also corrupt. Warren is an inveterate self-serving liar. Pete Buttigieg is a homosexual with the temerity to lecture Christians on the meaning of the bible which clearly proscribes men having sex with other men. The whole slew of the Democratic slate of presidential candidates has done not only the exact opposite of the above, they have called for open borders, decriminalization of illegal entry, sanctuary cities and states, the abolition of ICE and CBP, the elimination of private health insurance, higher taxes, and so forth. It's not a mystery why they are going to lose in 2020 bigly. It has nothing to do with Russia. It has to do with their positions being diametrically opposed to the overwhelming majority of Americans--many of whom don't like Donald Trump's personality, but have no other viable political alternative.

This isn't how Republics die. This is how political parties die.

late wrote:3) The only way he can win is cheating.

You guys are going to get crushed in 2020, because you refuse to do what the American voter wants.

late wrote:4) That's Reality TV, not reality.

Throwaway one liners will not save you. Trump rallies are not reality TV. They are reality. Only two candidates have the pulse of the electorate. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Nobody cares about the rest of the candidates. They just aren't inspiring enough to draw throngs of supporters. Face it. What you stand for is politically unpalatable to the electorate, and your excuses aren't fooling anyone.
By late
#15069120
blackjack21 wrote:
1) What is this repetitive reference to "Trumps Palestinians"? You guys are usually yammering on about how he is the most pro-Israel president ever.

2) As for Amy Berman Jackson, she did go with the amended sentencing guidelines suggesting that the Mueller prosecutors were too aggressive and Trump was correct in complaining about it.


3) I can do that too.


4) If a president has a legitimate legal basis for investigating a political opponent, he has the power to do that.

5) The check is in the courts via the Fourth Amendment. However, that check doesn't hold when the former Vice President brags in an AV recorded symposium that he had a prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold $1B of US loan guarantees


6) There isn't anything Trump is doing that other presidents haven't already done. The idea that Trump is setting these precedents is ludicrous.





1) That mistake is on me. I wrote p.a.l.s but the damn site always changes that to Palestinian. I forgot.

2) Read her decision. She implied she was in favor of sentencing reform, not special treatment for friends of the president. She did not say this explicitly, but she appeared to be thinking a half a loaf was better than none. That by giving what the prosecution asked for, she was weakening the case for a pardon.

3) In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not Andrew Sullivan. If you want to know what I think about, start a thread about it.

4) The intent makes the crime, and his intent was to get Ukraine to smear Biden. He was impeached for that, and for damn good reasons.

5) Back to lying.. The EU, IMF and the USA had all been trying to get rid of that guy. When Biden went there, he was representing America, Europe, and the financial aid guys to get rid of that crook.

You're in this because you love the lies. But seriously, that is brain dead.

6) He's done a number of things no other president has done. But the worst, by far, is working with Putin in opposition to the interests of the country.
#15069130
late wrote:2) Read her decision. She implied she was in favor of sentencing reform, not special treatment for friends of the president. She did not say this explicitly, but she appeared to be thinking a half a loaf was better than none. That by giving what the prosecution asked for, she was weakening the case for a pardon.

Oh. So she has something in common with President Trump. How nice.

late wrote:3) In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not Andrew Sullivan. If you want to know what I think about, start a thread about it.

Your identity is undisclosed. So we don't have the pleasure of knowing. I'm simply stating that I can post all sorts of anti-Trump stuff too. I'm not unaware of it.

late wrote:4) The intent makes the crime, and his intent was to get Ukraine to smear Biden. He was impeached for that, and for damn good reasons.

Generally, laws are written down. There isn't any law against what Trump did. So there is nothing to prove or disprove as there was no crime.

late wrote:5) Back to lying.. The EU, IMF and the USA had all been trying to get rid of that guy. When Biden went there, he was representing America, Europe, and the financial aid guys to get rid of that crook.

The more foreigners trying to interfere in the political administration of Ukraine doesn't make it right. You've been yammering on forever now about Russian interference in US politics. You're saying you'd just be a-okay if Russia wanted Barr to be fired? Exactly why do you think the EU, IMF or US have or should have any authority to get prosecutors changed in other countries?

late wrote:6) He's done a number of things no other president has done. But the worst, by far, is working with Putin in opposition to the interests of the country.

Examples? We understand you don't like Putin. Where has he been "working with Putin in opposition to the interests of the country." Generally, the president gets to determine the interests of the country.

So how does it feel? Is Durham's noose beginning to tighten? Are the walls closing in on you folks?
By late
#15069140
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Generally, laws are written down. There isn't any law against what Trump did. So there is nothing to prove or disprove as there was no crime.


2) Exactly why do you think the EU, IMF or US have or should have any authority to get prosecutors changed in other countries?


3) Generally, the president gets to determine the interests of the country.





1) You used to do that lie every day. When the terms of impeachment were written, there was hardly any Federal law "written down". Which is why they said high crimes and misdemeanors. The courts have ruled that impeachment is anything that Congress says it is.

2) It would really help if you knew a little history.

3) The Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances. "Generally" it's the three branches working together.
#15069240
late wrote:1) You used to do that lie every day. When the terms of impeachment were written, there was hardly any Federal law "written down". Which is why they said high crimes and misdemeanors. The courts have ruled that impeachment is anything that Congress says it is.

Whatever. You don't have two-thirds majority in the Senate, so you're just tilting at windmills.

late wrote:2) It would really help if you knew a little history.

Like what? Imperialism? Bigger, richer countries telling smaller, poorer countries what to do if they know what's good for them?

late wrote:3) The Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances. "Generally" it's the three branches working together.

The courts have pretty much no effect on foreign policy, since it's a political question.
By late
#15069309
blackjack21 wrote:

1) Like what? Imperialism? Bigger, richer countries telling smaller, poorer countries what to do if they know what's good for them?


2) The courts have pretty much no effect on foreign policy, since it's a political question.



1) Like how we worked up an elaborate international system, after WW2, to use trade and law to hopefully prevent a WW3..

2) Congress is Article 1, meaning on paper it's the most powerful of the 3 under the Constitution.

Sure, the courts are about setting limits, but there is supposed to be give and take between the president and Congress on everything. You keep saying things that imply Trump is a dictator, but that's nuts. The Founding Fathers created a weak president. There was no standing army, and he had no other resources to draw on. So almost everything required the approval of Congress. While the Modern era developed a stronger president, we have never had anything like Trump except during wartime.

When Nixon tried to stonewall Congress, the courts slapped him down hard. Of course, Congress had to push the issue, which they didn't this time.

This was written shortly after Trump was elected, and it was prescient. What Trump is doing, and why he is doing it, we knew. It took a while to be certain, but even his penthouse in NYC screams dictator chic. This situation makes the bizarre presidency of Bush2 look humdrum.



https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/
#15069360
late wrote:1) Like how we worked up an elaborate international system, after WW2, to use trade and law to hopefully prevent a WW3..

Exactly where does that system allow foreign countries to interfere in the domestic law enforcement operations of other countries? Can you show us where the UN charter calls for that? The United Nations was the formal name of the military alliance we call the "allies" in World War II. Their post war project bears their name--the United Nations. Generally, the UN charter tolerates different systems of government and is primarily concerned about peace and stability. Ukraine wasn't doing anything to undermine peace and stability and there was no UN resolution calling for Shokin's ouster.

late wrote:Sure, the courts are about setting limits, but there is supposed to be give and take between the president and Congress on everything. You keep saying things that imply Trump is a dictator, but that's nuts. The Founding Fathers created a weak president.

You need to reread Madison.

late wrote:While the Modern era developed a stronger president, we have never had anything like Trump except during wartime.

Obama was overturned by 9-0 decisions at the Supreme Court more than any other president, suggesting Obama exceeded his constitutional authority far more often than any other president in modern times. That means even Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted against Obama. In fact, SCOTUS did a far better job of reigning him in than Congress. How many 9-0 smackdowns has Trump received? Obama with his pen and his phone exceeded his constitutional authority frequently according to SCOTUS. I know at your age it's hard to remember as far back as five years ago, but those are the facts.
By late
#15069369
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Exactly where


2)You need to reread Madison.


3) I know at your age it's hard to remember as far back as five years ago, but those are the facts.



1) Truman and Ike rebuilt the world in the hope of not having another World War. This is basic history everyone involved should know. If you start doing your homework, I can help. But that would involved climbing out of your passive/aggressive BS, which will never happen.

2) That isn't a counter-argument. In fact, it's fake, and pathetic. The president could talk to other countries. But he had no army, almost nothing for agencies, and everything he did of any importance had to be supported by Congress. They had to ratify a treaty. Any military actions meant Congress had to do a hundred things, from military contracts to buy everything from ships to bullets, to funding soldiers, etc.

3) You moved the goalposts. I know you can't, but could you at least try to focus?

@Hindsite I have a male doctor Pity. My annu[…]

Liberals, like you, have a hard time accepting th[…]

Election 2020

Trump's actions show that he is more concerned wi[…]

I just finished watching the video, and found it […]