500 legal scholars agree, dump the chump.. - 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.
#15053246
blackjack21 wrote:
1) China has already butt in by trying to influence agriculture-dominant states to vote against Trump.


2) So how does that make Putin more scary than Xi?


3) Tactical nuclear weapons are kind of a dumb idea. Nuclear weapons were always intended principally to destroy the means of war production--bombing industrial sectors. Nuclear weapons were developed, because bombers had a 25% attrition rate and yet rarely hit their targets. Precision bombing has made nuclear weapons practically obsolete--except as a weapon of terror.


4) So are you agreeing with me that Putin isn't that scary compared to Xi?



1) You fight or you don't. It's that simple. And you don't want to fight over the Russian attack. So why ignore Russian meddling, and go after the much less important attack by China????

2) Go proverb: "Rich men don't pick fights"

3) Umm, no. It used to be MAD, mutual assured destruction. Putin is try to build a new generation of tactical nukes, and use them to intimidate Europe from acting to defend against the Russian conquests he is clearly planning.

4) Quite the opposite of that..
#15053252
@BigSteve The interesting thing to note is the language used. It said they would be "well within their rights" to vote to remove the President from office.

It does not say that they should vote to remove him...


This is a good point. They do not say that. And it is not going to happen.

The democrats have fucked this up by the numbers. IF they wanted any political capital out of this at all they would stretch these hearings out for months. They would force the SCOTUS to rule on executive privilege. They would so weaken Trump that the republicans would have to primary him just to ensure that they had someone in the wings. They have the perfect political propaganda tool and are not using it.

There is no doubt that they have are "well within their rights" to vote to remove the President from office." No doubt at all. The thing is that they cannot do it. The republicans will have to have him sleeping with a teenybopper before they would even think about it. And probably not even then. As it stands here is what will happen. (As I said in another thread.)

Trump will be impeached. (He is hoping so too.) He will not be removed from office. Here is what this will do:

It will give the republicans in contested senate seats the opportunity to vote for impeachment knowing that their vote won't hurt him at all.

It will allow senators who have been weak with Trump voters before to stand up and make speeches about how abused he has been by the big bad democrats.

Even though in all likelihood over half of senators will vote for impeachment Trump will not be removed and he will see this as a godsend. He will immediately launch a stadium tour proclaiming that he was "exonerated"; pouring in tens of thousands of supporters and splashing his agenda all over the news for weeks if not months. He will pound home that he was a "victim of the Eastern Elites" "just as you are" and scrape off a shit load of independents from the democratic camp.

President Trump will be reelected and so will Mitch McConnell who will stand back like a "statesman" "just defending the constitution" while the democrats struggle to keep their house majority.

This is sad for democrats because, very seriously, the country was suffering from fatigue over Trumps chicanery. All they had to do was run on the issues of health care, the environment and higher pay for workers and they would have won in a near landslide. Now they have given Trump what he needed to rally his base. (Especially white women.)

It appears that some centrist democrats have started figuring this stuff out and may bail on the whole process. So what if they don't impeach? That is even worse for them. Same stadium tour proclaiming that there was nothing there in the first place and that the democrats wasted tons of time and money trying to "frame an innocent man". Disaster.

It is all up to the New York attorney general now. That is the democrat's only hope.
#15053255
BigSteve wrote:The point is that it seems to be newsworthy that 500 "scholars" say that lawmakers would be "well within their rights" to vote to remove the President.

Well, no shit.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution, and impeachment in particular, knows they would be "well within their rights" to do so. Only an idiot would need 500 people to tell him that.

The interesting thing to note is the language used. It said they would be "well within their rights" to vote to remove the President from office.

It does not say that they should vote to remove him...

LOL!! That is the decision to be made by an impeachment inquiry. Prior to that any call to remove would be based on opinion or at best, personal judgement of facts. So your objection does not stand.
#15053264
late wrote:1) You fight or you don't. It's that simple. And you don't want to fight over the Russian attack. So why ignore Russian meddling, and go after the much less important attack by China??

There's more to the Russian meddling story that the Democrats don't want revealed. The smoking gun would be the server, but the Democrats hid it from criminal investigators, and the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States was directed to agree with whatever report CrowdStrike put together, and then the media was directed to parrot both CrowdStrike and "17 US intelligence agencies" when not one of them had done a single forensic investigation into the server. If you are claiming you were attacked, you generally do not hide the evidence unless a) it didn't happen; or, b) you have something to hide that you don't want discovered in a criminal investigation.

late wrote:2) Go proverb: "Rich men don't pick fights"

Adversaries do.

late wrote:3) Umm, no. It used to be MAD, mutual assured destruction.

For ICBMs. The US even did stupid shit like putting nuclear warheads on top of Nike missiles to use as anti-aircraft in the event of a fleet of Russian bombers. That was all tactical, not strategic.

late wrote:Putin is try to build a new generation of tactical nukes, and use them to intimidate Europe from acting to defend against the Russian conquests he is clearly planning.

So get prepared to fight a limited nuclear war. I think Putin's making a bold move. Most Western leaders are major pussies these days, so it makes sense to push in that direction.

late wrote:4) Quite the opposite of that..

Putin is easy to beat. His conventional forces are a shambles. However, we cannot be fighting two separate wars simultaneously clear on the other side of the planet and still have resources left over to fight Russia. We need a bigger military, or we need to stop starting wars all over the place. Or, the rest of fucking NATO need to stand up armies and put up some leaders with some balls. Who is seriously going to be afraid of Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, etc.? Try to see it from Putin's point of view instead of simply maligning him all the time. What would you do if you were Putin?

Drlee wrote:The democrats have fucked this up by the numbers. IF they wanted any political capital out of this at all they would stretch these hearings out for months. They would force the SCOTUS to rule on executive privilege. They would so weaken Trump that the republicans would have to primary him just to ensure that they had someone in the wings.

They also would not have called so many "disgruntled" witnesses who had never met Trump, never spoken with Trump, and had no direct evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. Schiff screwed the pooch even worse than Nadler at the Mueller hearing.

You are also forgetting something else: it will give Republicans an opportunity to call hostile witnesses--the very thing that was denied to them by Nadler and Schiff. They can even call New York Times and Politico reporters and editors and question them over the Biden stories they ran themselves and from which they are now trying to distance themselves; and, they are germane since Trump mentioned them in the call. Unlike the Nadler and Schiff hearings, which were a virtual bore, Trump gets ratings. People will probably be watching the Senate hearings. If the Democrats were smart, they would kill this off with a vote for censure and move on. I think they are too suicidal at this point.

Imagine if the Trump administration calls in every intelligence official that put out a report on Russian hacking the DNC server. "Did you investigate the DNC server?" "Uh no." "So how do you know that the Russians hacked the server" "Well, uh, uh, we got a report from CrowdStrike." "Isn't CrowdStrike owned by an anti-Russian Ukrainian" "Uh, well uh, yes sir." "So don't you think it would have been a good idea to conduct your own forensic analysis?" "Uh, well uh, yes sir but..." "But what?" "Well, uh, the DNC would not give us access to their server."

An impeachment trial will make the Schiff show look thoughtful and considered even though it went over badly. Trump could make an impeachment trial linger on to make the establishment look terrible. They aren't even considering this.
#15053273
blackjack21 wrote:
1)CrowdStrike


2) Adversaries do.


3) For ICBMs. The US even did stupid shit like putting nuclear warheads on top of Nike missiles to use as anti-aircraft in the event of a fleet of Russian bombers. That was all tactical, not strategic.


4) Putin is easy to beat.



1) That's Russian propaganda debunked by everyone but Putin and Trump. The REPUBLICAN dominated Senate Intel report said it was Russia. Our military says it was Russia. Our intel agencies say it was Russia. State says it was Russia, Europe says it was Russia.

It's a lie.

2) China has a lot of reasons to not go to war with us. They exhibit a LOT of long term planning. But the bottom line is they are winning, they don't need to fight.

3) Until recently, we had a treaty that limited tactical nukes. They are a hideously bad idea. Once you let that demon out of it's cage, no one has any idea how to stop it. Can you say WW3? How about nuclear holocaust?

4) You really have no idea. Putin will make a series of moves like Crimea. No one will risk WW3.

That's why sanctions are crucial, and why Trump lifting sanctions is insane.
#15053296
If the Democrats were smart, they would kill this off with a vote for censure and move on.


Amen. From your mouth to God's ears. But they will not I fear. They are playing right into Trumps hand.
#15053302
Senter wrote:LOL!! That is the decision to be made by an impeachment inquiry. Prior to that any call to remove would be based on opinion or at best, personal judgement of facts. So your objection does not stand.


Of course it does.

To make some grand gesture about "500 legal scholars" saying they would be within their rights is stupid. My 13 year old nephew understands they'd be well within their rights...
#15053309
This goes beyond politics.


I do not disagree. There was a time that it would have. Remember the three Republicans, Senators Goldwater, Scott and representative Rhodes who went to Nixon and told him he must resign? They put what was right above partisan politics. It was a time when personal integrity mattered.

This time is quite different. I can imagine no set of circumstances where the President would be impeached short of a shooting someone and probably not even then. The republican party smells blood in the water here and they ought to. They will prevail on this issue in a big way.

I do not support the democrats falling on their sword over some imagined principle and throwing the country under the bus in the process.

This sort of thing was inevitable. The lack of integrity in our political process has made it almost necessary. But here is the thing. The voters are not far enough in the weeds to understand this. So the democrats should vote to censure Trump, as Blackjack said, put their heads down and walk away.
Last edited by Drlee on 09 Dec 2019 20:33, edited 1 time in total.
#15053310
This is why the Democrats continue to lose elections. Joe bag of donuts voter doesn't give one shit about some liberal biased Democrat supporting scholar.


Drlee wrote:I do not disagree. There was a time that it would have. Remember the three Republicans, Senators Goldwater, Scott and representative Rhodes who went to Nixon and told him he must resign? They put what was right above partisan politics. It was a time when personal integrity mattered.

This time is quite different. I can imagine no set of circumstances where the President would be impeached short of a shooting someone and probably not even then. The republican party smells blood in the water here and they ought to. They will prevail on this issue in a big way.

I do not support the democrats falling on their sword over some imagined principle and throwing the country under the bus in the process.

This sort of thing was inevitable. The lack of integrity in our political process has made it almost necessary. But here is the thing. The voters are not far enough in the weeds to understand this. So the democrats should vote to censure Trump, as Blackjack said, put their heads down and walk away.


I'm curious when you say this sort of thing is inevitable. Personally I think we would be in the same place if Ted Cruise was president possibly any of other repubs if elected. Do you think from here on out every president will be impeached? Your thoughts?
Last edited by Finfinder on 09 Dec 2019 20:40, edited 1 time in total.
#15053312
This is why the Democrats continue to lose elections. Joe bag of donuts voter doesn't give one shit about some liberal biased Democrat supporting scholar.


And here is the proof of what I am saying.

This has nothing to do with "liberals" or scholars. It is all about optics. There is no doubt that Trump screwed the pooch. He should resign not to mention impeachment. The only thing that matters now is what Fox News says. And they will back the republican establishment because that is who pays their bills.
#15053315
Drlee wrote:And here is the proof of what I am saying.

This has nothing to do with "liberals" or scholars. It is all about optics. There is no doubt that Trump screwed the pooch. He should resign not to mention impeachment. The only thing that matters now is what Fox News says. And they will back the republican establishment because that is who pays their bills.


Impeachment was talked about before the guy was sworn in.

I was agreeing with you but your personal disdain has made you go too far. Of course it has to do with liberals and the entire leftist swamp. There is a ton of doubt but you don't want to be honest about it, so OK we know where you stand. I'm surprised you are not taking more of the Alan Dershowitz approach. Curious you think the other news outlets are more credible? I think FOX may have earned that right, they didn't support fake Russian hoax for 3 years. Like I said in the previous post I don't think it mattered if Trump was the nominee, the FBI insurance policy was destined for any Republican who won the presidency.
#15053317
late wrote:1) That's Russian propaganda debunked by everyone but Putin and Trump. The REPUBLICAN dominated Senate Intel report said it was Russia. Our military says it was Russia. Our intel agencies say it was Russia. State says it was Russia, Europe says it was Russia.

Right. None of them examined the server. So why should I listen to them?

late wrote:2) China has a lot of reasons to not go to war with us. They exhibit a LOT of long term planning. But the bottom line is they are winning, they don't need to fight.

Well, they don't have a powerful blue water navy, so they would pretty much lose. We don't have a big enough army to take on a billion Chinese. So we don't attack them either.

late wrote:3) Until recently, we had a treaty that limited tactical nukes. They are a hideously bad idea. Once you let that demon out of it's cage, no one has any idea how to stop it. Can you say WW3? How about nuclear holocaust?

Tactical nukes really only work if you are afraid of them. Generally, all of our bombing campaigns are precision now. We generally don't bunch up forces. So using tactical nukes is just a negotiation against bedwetters.

late wrote:4) You really have no idea. Putin will make a series of moves like Crimea. No one will risk WW3.

Putin already took Crimea without firing a shot. I said in the wake of Benghazi that I had no idea what they were waiting for. Obama telegraphed his weakness when he let an ambassador get killed and simply covered it up. It seems Putin did figure that out and take advantage, which is precisely what a wise leader would do.

late wrote:That's why sanctions are crucial, and why Trump lifting sanctions is insane.

I've got news for you: Putin is not going to give up Crimea because of US sanctions. It's a warm water port for the Russian navy. You want bi-partisan feel goods? Bush couldn't do shit when Putin invaded Georgia either. Why? Forces are overcommitted in the Middle East. We need a bigger military or a lot less "regime change" ambition.

Finfinder wrote:Like I said in the previous post I don't think it mattered if Trump was the nominee, the FBI insurance policy was destined for any Republican who won the presidency.

Perhaps, but I think it was hastily assembled. I don't think anyone ever seriously thought Trump would or even could win until it happened. When I was cheering Trump along in 2016, so were the Democrats right up until he won the nomination. At that point, they thought it was going to be easy street. However, Trump was able to attack Hillary where none of the establishment would have done it. It's precisely why McCain and Romney lost.
#15053319
The IG report is out today and it is not favorable to Trump at all. Not even a little. It won't matter to the republicans but it actually confirmed that Obama did not tap Trump's phone (he will continue to claim they did) and it referred to the Russian attempts as "an attempt to overthrow the government".

Like I said. The republicans will ignore the report and Putin, et al, will go on about their business.
#15053333
Drlee wrote:He should resign not to mention impeachment.


No, he really shouldn't. Democrats were whining about impeachment before the guy's mailing address changed. They were Hell-bent on it, and it's going to bite them in the proverbial ass in November. Good Americans might have supported it if there was something real to go on, but everything the democrats have put forth is little more than opinion and conjecture.

I cannot wait for the Senate to get this. Republicans are going to rip democrats a new asshole over this...

The only thing that matters now is what Fox News says. And they will back the republican establishment because that is who pays their bills.


So what? Good for them!

The idiot left has had CNN and MSDNC in their pockets for decades. If Trump cured cancer tomorrow, MSDNC and CNN left would criticize him for not curing MS.

Or is this just another example of you not wanting to afford the GOP any degree of fairness?
#15053348
You need to do two things BS.

You need to actually read my posts and stop arguing for no reason at all.

And you need to get control of your anger issues. They are making you sound like you are unhinged.
#15053375
Drlee wrote:stop arguing for no reason at all.


He reminds me of an 8 year old grandson I have name of Mason. I said to Mason one day, "Mason, you disagree with everything I say." Mason replied, "No I don't." :lol:
#15053376
Drlee wrote:The IG report is out today and it is not favorable to Trump at all. Not even a little. It won't matter to the republicans but it actually confirmed that Obama did not tap Trump's phone (he will continue to claim they did) and it referred to the Russian attempts as "an attempt to overthrow the government".

It basically confirms all of the FISA abuse with the possible exception of not finding political bias, which isn't surprising since the IG has no subpoena power. It finds no less than 17 issues with the FISA applications. So it's confirming everything that Durham has already found, and Durham has found substantially more, because Durham has subpoena power, has a grand jury and can talk with the 5 Eyes intelligence partners about Mifsud, Steele, et. al. It also further shows that the Steele Dossier was not corroborated at all, and that the "sub source" was surprised that the information provided--apparently in jest while inebriated at a bar--was actually included in a report.
#15053410
Yes. It is so far in the weeds that there is hardly a voting soul who will understand it. And who is surprised here?

This is what happens when you have the perfect confluence of two circumstances... A political party that absolutely does not care at all what the evidence shows and will vote to "exonerate" no matter what and an opposing political party that does not have a clue what they are doing. It is like watching the Gomer Pyle show.

As you said. The master stroke is to vote censure in the house, then, in my opinion, continue the hearings until after the election. Death by a thousand cuts.
Joe Biden

Freud called the above rationalization. How abo[…]

Texas, Florida and Georgia are Republican strongho[…]

Just watched the new bodycam footage. -Floyd comp[…]

If governments would have applied corona logic to[…]