Jump to content

Donald Trump


dimreepr
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

He has more than "ignored intel briefings" he has consistently EVADED them. How can he claim to know things when he won't even listen to the intelligence available? He has his own secret sources?

 

When will the audit of his income taxes be done? He cleverly changes the subject and we forget about his taxes.

 

What will it take to impeach him?

Techinically he isn't elected yet. He isn't elected until the electors meet and make it official. That is part of the problem currently. If the Senate (controlled by the GOP) opens a full blown investigation as is being requested they risk electors bailing on Trump. So it wouldn't be a matter of impeachment but rather a matter of Trump not being elected which would mean the GOP could lose the White House. If they can continue to dismiss the issue until Trump's victory is secured by the electors than they are assured to keep the White House regardless of what a potential investigation reveals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a statement, Trump suggested that the CIA had discredited itself over faulty intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons stockpile more than a dozen years ago.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

The belittling response alarmed people in the intelligence community, which already had questioned Trump’s temperament and lack of national security experience.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cia-on-collision-course-over-russias-role-in-us-election/2016/12/10/ad01556c-bf01-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?utm_term=.a0b4606075bc

 

The Intelligence community believes Russia worked to help Trump win. That doesn't mean Trump was in on it. However, in attacking the intelligence community is Trump willfully or perhaps just ignorantly trying to help conceal it? Is there a point when the facts of this in combination with his behavior become seriousness that our intel community have an obligation to make moves against Trump to protect the nation? Or is Trump right and our intel community simply isn't to be trusted? Either way it seems we have a brewing constitutional crisis.

 

How badly do the GOP want this win. How badly do anger white conservatives want this win. Trump is not in office yet and has already heightened tensions with China, already bullied U.S. defense contractors (Boeing & United Technologies), has ignored Intel briefings, and is now openly antagonizing the CIA for doing their job. Trump is revealing himself to be the exact threat so many of us feared he would be. As a nation do we have the ability to correct this mistake. Does our constitution (inner and legal) allow for us to step back from the edge? We can not allow the cynicism, racism, and partisanship that got Trump elected allow this man to take office. We have a real crisis on our hands.

 

In this case it is not the intelligence community that is suggesting this. It is the CIA that is suggesting this and it is merely an inference that is being promoted here. The FBI has dissented from the CIA's inference because there is no direct evidence suggesting that Russia hacked the DNC or Democrat's accounts.

 

I repeat there is no evidence that the DNC or Democrats were hacked by Russia, it is only an inference made by anonymous people who supposedly work for the CIA.

 

Also, the bolded part is part of the problem. You are suggesting that white people who lean right are the problem with this country. Sounds pretty racist to me.

 

Techinically he isn't elected yet. He isn't elected until the electors meet and make it official. That is part of the problem currently. If the Senate (controlled by the GOP) opens a full blown investigation as is being requested they risk electors bailing on Trump. So it wouldn't be a matter of impeachment but rather a matter of Trump not being elected which would mean the GOP could lose the White House. If they can continue to dismiss the issue until Trump's victory is secured by the electors than they are assured to keep the White House regardless of what a potential investigation reveals.

 

The biggest problem here is that Barack Obama and the Clinton campaign are actively working to overthrow a democratic election that was won through the rules. The problem here is not Trump, the problem is that Barack Obama and the Clinton campaign are trying to use inference and circumstantial evidence to overthrow a democratic election.

 

Also, what happens if they succeed? It could lead to chaos.

 

Edit: It would be nice to get a well reasoned and rational rebuttal before the downvotes start coming in.

Edited by Capayan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In this case it is not the intelligence community that is suggesting this. It is the CIA that is suggesting this and it is merely an inference that is being promoted here. The FBI has dissented from the CIA's inference because there is no direct evidence suggesting that Russia hacked the DNC or Democrat's accounts.

 

I repeat there is no evidence that the DNC or Democrats were hacked by Russia, it is only an inference made by anonymous people who supposedly work for the CIA.

 

Also, the bolded part is part of the problem. You are suggesting that white people who lean right are the problem with this country. Sounds pretty racist to me.

 

 

For Immediate Release

DHS Press Office

Contact: 202-282-8010

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

 

No it is not just the CIA. This isn't even a partisan issue. Mitch McConnell is the Republican's Senate Majority leader and John McCain was the Republcan Patry's nominee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case it is not the intelligence community that is suggesting this. It is the CIA that is suggesting this and it is merely an inference that is being promoted here. The FBI has dissented from the CIA's inference because there is no direct evidence suggesting that Russia hacked the DNC or Democrat's accounts.

 

I repeat there is no evidence that the DNC or Democrats were hacked by Russia, it is only an inference made by anonymous people who supposedly work for the CIA.

 

But it IS the intelligence community, so you're wrong. Multiple agencies weighed in on this. The FBI dissented because their purview is national (where the hacking DID NOT take place), not international. You see, Russia is a different country. CIA territory.

 

It is NOT merely an inference, so you're wrong again. They have direct evidence:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/russia-hacking-conclusions-donald-trump/

Also in September, multiple intelligence agencies briefed House and Senate intelligence committees about information they had gathered showing that Russia was interfering with the elections, according to a congressional source close to the process. The briefers did not explicitly say that Russian hackers were trying to help Trump, but it was a clear from the evidence that they presented that Russia was meddling in the elections -- and Trump was benefiting.

"There was no way that any one could have walked out of there with that the evidence and conclude that the Russian government was not behind this," this source said.

 

I don't know why you've stuck your head in the sand over this. It's a bad habit.

 

And I have to say this. I really hate that so many Trump supporters have picked up his habit of lying and not checking facts. It's one of the most frustrating things to see people like you in your idiotic justifications of this stain of a human being.

Edit: It would be nice to get a well reasoned and rational rebuttal before the downvotes start coming in.

 

Why do you think lawful recounts are attempts to overthrow an election?

 

Why aren't you more concerned that Trump has always favored Putin's government, and they're at the heart of this hacking attempt?

 

Trump lies like he breathes. He won't release his taxes (if you give me that bullshit about being under audit, I'll gladly ignore anything else you ever have to say). He won't turn his companies over to a blind trust. He has had more lawsuits against him than there are episodes of TV shows about lawsuits against people. He's already gone back on most of the things he promised in his campaign, and he hasn't taken office yet. I'm not going to bother with his loathsome behavior towards women and minorities because I'm assuming you feel the same way, but surely you can't trust his business ethics are going to be good for our country, do you?

 

I also wanted to mention that if Trump takes office, wouldn't that mean Russia could threaten to reveal their involvement if Trump doesn't play ball?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/10/how-russian-hackers-can-blackmail-donald-trump-and-the-gop.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you've stuck your head in the sand over this. It's a bad habit.

 

And I have to say this. I really hate that so many Trump supporters have picked up his habit of lying and not checking facts. It's one of the most frustrating things to see people like you in your idiotic justifications of this stain of a human being.

 

I do trust Wall Street Journal and I do trust Mitch McConnell and John McCain. The fact that these three sources are raising red flags does concern me, but I want to see how the investigations turn out before I come to any conclusion.

 

Also, just a critique of your own quote:

 

 

Also in September, multiple intelligence agencies briefed House and Senate intelligence committees about information they had gathered showing that Russia was interfering with the elections, according to a congressional source close to the process. The briefers did not explicitly say that Russian hackers were trying to help Trump, but it was clear from the evidence that they presented that Russia was meddling in the elections -- and Trump was benefiting.

"There was no way that any one could have walked out of there with that the evidence and conclude that the Russian government was not behind this," this source said.

 

The briefers do not have evidence directly identifying Russian hackers otherwise they would have explicitly said it was Russian hackers. Instead they have circumstantial evidence that they are using to create a conclusion that it is Russia who is involved. While their conclusion could be accurate, since they are relying on circumstantial evidence (behavior of hacks over direct evidence of who was hacking) their conclusion could be wrong. This is why we need a full investigation into the hacking before we come to any conclusion.

 

Edit: Also, if this isn't a highly politicized leak, then why is the Clinton campaign trying to use this leak to persuade the electors?

 

https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/808368390402408448

 

 

 

BREAKING: @johnpodesta says Clinton campaign backs effort to get Electoral College voters intel briefing on Russian interference

 

The Clinton campaign is actively trying to use circumstantial evidence that suggests that Russia hacked the DNC in order to release information that would help Trump win in order to persuade Electoral College voters to become "faithless electors". If their persuasion is successful, that means that the Clinton campaigns effort would successfully overthrow our democratic election.

Edited by Capayan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I do trust Wall Street Journal and I do trust Mitch McConnell and John McCain. The fact that these three sources are raising red flags does concern me, but I want to see how the investigations turn out before I come to any conclusion.

 

Also, just a critique of your own quote:

 

 

The briefers do not have evidence directly identifying Russian hackers otherwise they would have explicitly said it was Russian hackers. Instead they have circumstantial evidence that they are using to create a conclusion that it is Russia who is involved. While their conclusion could be accurate, since they are relying on circumstantial evidence (behavior of hacks over direct evidence of who was hacking) their conclusion could be wrong. This is why we need a full investigation into the hacking before we come to any conclusion.

Sl the fact that Trump blows off intel briefs because he feels they're too repetitive, refuses to accept what he is briefed, lies about what he has been briefed (claimed he was shown a video of a deal in Iran), continues to speculate that China may have been involved, and criticizes the intel community broadly is all acceptable to you pending the results of a bipartisan investigation? His behavior isn't of no concern and there is no standard President Elect Trump should be held to. The burden here is on the Intel community. Unless they provide evidence to your liking that passes your sniff test Trump is free to lie, accuse China, insult, and basically behavior in any manner he sees fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do trust Wall Street Journal and I do trust Mitch McConnell and John McCain. The fact that these three sources are raising red flags does concern me, but I want to see how the investigations turn out before I come to any conclusion.

Good. These are men who haven't forgotten the consequence of lying is that people shouldn't believe you so much next time.

 

The briefers do not have evidence directly identifying Russian hackers otherwise they would have explicitly said it was Russian hackers. Instead they have circumstantial evidence that they are using to create a conclusion that it is Russia who is involved. While their conclusion could be accurate, since they are relying on circumstantial evidence (behavior of hacks over direct evidence of who was hacking) their conclusion could be wrong. This is why we need a full investigation into the hacking before we come to any conclusion.

 

Seriously?! It says right in the article is was Russian hackers. You didn't frikkin read it.

 

The US intelligence community concluded Russia meddled with the US election.

 

The evidence they have is not circumstantial. When Russia hacks both the Republicans and the Democrats but only leaks the Dems stuff, it's not hard to see who they favored, unless you've got orange wool pulled over your eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Phi for All, can I get your thoughts on something: Barrack Obama is still POTUS. He is still responsible for the protection of this country. In lieu of Donald Trump's behavior do you feel we are encroaching upon a constituational crisis point where Obama may actually be obligated to move to block Trump from assuming the Presidency? My thought feels fringe and conspiratorial as I type and yet I cannot help but to wonder.

 

Nixon wasn't impeached because he orchestrated the break in at the Watergate Hotel but rather for helping conceal it after the fact. Trump in his denial about the hacks and dismissive treatment of intelligence agencies in a de facto way concealing the crime. In a manner which dangerously places Trumps own personal interests against the national interest. Exacerbating the point is Trump lack of any transparency. Just today he has decide to put off his press conference where he was to explain how he was going to disentangle himself from any potential conflicts of interests. He now plans to explain sometime in Jan. but no date was provided.

 

What would action from Obama look like? Once the electors make Trump official on the 19th would/will Obama even still have the constitutional authority to act? This isn't at the level of Abraham Lincoln being cursed to commit to civil war in order to preserve the nation but it might be the closet we have or will see in our life times. It is mind boggling that despite falling unemployment, falsing crime, the most highly educated population we have had, and etc we are pushing ourselves to this moment for seemingly no reason. As if our comfort created a type of apathy which requires choas and disorder to shake us away from.

 

Am I too concerned. Would action from Obama simply unjustly stir civil unrest? Have I gone down the rabbit hole viewing Trump with an exaggerated partisan perspective? I ask you because from what I have read of your posts we seem to at least believe the same set of basic facts. The questions are of course open to Swansont, iNow, and others who do not openly reject facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posit nearly zero chance Obama does anything of the sort you describe. Senate investigation is what comes next and that won't be done before inauguration, anyway.

 

Bigger possibility is the electors choose in 6 days not to vote for Trump, their pledged candidate. They're called faithless electors when they do that and it's happened 157 times as of 2015, but never once changed the outcome of an election.

 

You need enough of them to agree to break their pledge and align on a consensus replacement for anything to change. These are loyal party members so the GOP electors still want to see a Republican in office. That could trigger its own set of problems since not all will agree on who that should be (though, Kasich has been mentioned a lot in recent days).

 

What I see as most likely is they proceed with the inauguration, find some damning evidence later, then initiate bipartisan steps toward impeachment. By then, there will likely be other reasons to motivating such a removal of Trump from office, anyway. Obvious problem there is Pence is arguably even worse (but that problem gets mitigated if Pence is simultaneously implicated in the Russia hacking and both are ousted).

 

Obama, though? No way. Chance is close to zero, IMO. He'll work with his teams to ensure investigations are done and the facts come out, but he knows it would rip open an even bigger canyon than already exists in the country if he were the one to prevent Trump from taking office.

 

He's unlikely to engage in such seismic and tectonic action, IMO, if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of the office and the institutions that have persisted now for centuries, as well as to avoid setting such a dangerous precedent.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: It would be nice to get a well reasoned and rational rebuttal before the downvotes start coming in.

 

No. There are no reasonable or rational rebuttals for unreasonable and irrational comments.

 

That's why they have down votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Phi for All, can I get your thoughts on something: Barrack Obama is still POTUS. He is still responsible for the protection of this country. In lieu of Donald Trump's behavior do you feel we are encroaching upon a constituational crisis point where Obama may actually be obligated to move to block Trump from assuming the Presidency? My thought feels fringe and conspiratorial as I type and yet I cannot help but to wonder.

 

No president should be able to do ANYTHING to block or forestall their successor, at least not as a function of the office. If an investigation gives him the power to do anything, it should be in support of the other branches and their efforts to ensure fair elections.

 

About all he can do is support due process, but since we're seeing recounts being dismissed by judges, I wouldn't count on any help from judicial (even though you'd think Trump's FBI file would be yuge, considering how many lawsuits across state lines he has).

 

Americans are concerned that Trump shouldn't be in office. Republicans are concerned that if he isn't, Clinton could be. I think Republicans would much rather impeach Trump than have the election called into question. Pence gives them drooling obedience from the religious right for four years. The GOP can ignore them and focus on dismantling the government and deregulating the banks and environment.

 

I have a lot of respect for any Republican politician who is being honest right now about Trump and Russia. Anyone telling you they're positive there's no connection needs to find a leg store, and buy something to stand on. Trump is even putting pro-Russia cabinet picks, and it's likely we'll have a SecState with massive interests in Putin's country. I'm starting to hope that this presidency is going to show the whole country how corrupt we've let ourselves come to be. I still have trouble that half the people like Trump, and the other half would have been happy with Bernie Sanders. The US seems to be some half-crazed lunatic reeling across the world stage these days, simultaneously trying to keep the family going while screaming about darkies taking the jobs, half of us trying to make the jobs better while the other half figures out ways to avoid taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posit nearly zero chance Obama does anything of the sort you describe. Senate investigation is what comes next and that won't be done before inauguration, anyway.

 

 

Obama, though? No way. Chance is close to zero, IMO. He'll work with his teams to ensure investigations are done and the facts come out, but he knows it would rip open an even bigger canyon than already exists in the country if he were the one to prevent Trump from taking office.

 

Just to clarify, I do not believe Obama will do anything. However by ordering the report he has forced the question. What happens if the CIA comes back and tells him that yes Russia influenced the election, Trump was in on it, and provide proorf that includes transations between Trump staff and the Kremlin or excessive debt holdings in Russia? That isn't the only possible outcome or even a likely outcome but by asking for a report before he leaves office it is a possible outcome. In good faith and responsibility to his office and the American people could he stand back and do nothing if a Trump Russian conspiracy were believed? Again, it isn't likely and I understand that is silly to a degree. Probably just a bunch of mental masterbation on my part but asking for the report does have the potential of putting Obama in a precarious positions.

 

 

 

No president should be able to do ANYTHING to block or forestall their successor, at least not as a function of the office. If an investigation gives him the power to do anything, it should be in support of the other branches and their efforts to ensure fair elections.

 

About all he can do is support due process, but since we're seeing recounts being dismissed by judges, I wouldn't count on any help from judicial (even though you'd think Trump's FBI file would be yuge, considering how many lawsuits across state lines he has).

 

Americans are concerned that Trump shouldn't be in office. Republicans are concerned that if he isn't, Clinton could be. I think Republicans would much rather impeach Trump than have the election called into question. Pence gives them drooling obedience from the religious right for four years. The GOP can ignore them and focus on dismantling the government and deregulating the banks and environment.

 

I have a lot of respect for any Republican politician who is being honest right now about Trump and Russia. Anyone telling you they're positive there's no connection needs to find a leg store, and buy something to stand on. Trump is even putting pro-Russia cabinet picks, and it's likely we'll have a SecState with massive interests in Putin's country. I'm starting to hope that this presidency is going to show the whole country how corrupt we've let ourselves come to be. I still have trouble that half the people like Trump, and the other half would have been happy with Bernie Sanders. The US seems to be some half-crazed lunatic reeling across the world stage these days, simultaneously trying to keep the family going while screaming about darkies taking the jobs, half of us trying to make the jobs better while the other half figures out ways to avoid taxes.

 

Obviously the GOP will do anything to preserve this win. They aren't afraid of Clinton on grounds of national interests but rather partisan interest. The GOP want tax cuts, they want to get the majority back in the courts, and would happily have Pence delivering those. They will just let Trump take office and then impeach him. That does appear to be the plan. McConnell, as a member of the Senate Intel committee, was briefed about Russia in Sept yet waited till this weekend to become concerned. So their intentions are not so secret. That said the GOP has failed to stop Trump before. Failed to mobilze against him before. It is a dangerous gamble for them to assume that once Trump becomes the most powerful man in the world they will be able to just hold a vote and he'll go away. Once in power Trump will work agressively to scuttle any and all investigations against him while using all agencies at his disposal to punitively harrash and attack his opposition. We are, after all, talking about a guy who threatened to have his opponent put in prison if he won during a televised debate, and then still won. People weren't horrified by the implication. Rather, the media is treating a possible Clinton imprisonment as a Trump campaign promise that he has has "softened" on. Media never bothers to point out that the President doesn't have such authority or that Clinton was already exonerated by the proper authorities. What stops Trump from threatening to imprison Mitch McConnell or any other official who opposes him? It certianly wouldn't be an out of character move on Trump's part.

 

I agree with what you have said but fear (perhaps irrationally) all beats may be off once Trump assumes office. He has already shown that he can bully his rivals, threaten people, and break protocol at will without any repercussions. He has just flatly refused to show his taxes, been caught lying about matters ranging from innocous to vital, is currently saying he doesn't need intel briefs because he is a smart guy, and the on and on and on. He doesn't even have power yet and he can't be constrained. Hard for me to see Congress impeaching Trump without dystopian level choas. However I concede I could just be being hysterical.

Edited by Ten oz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Phi for All, can I get your thoughts on something: Barrack Obama is still POTUS. He is still responsible for the protection of this country. In lieu of Donald Trump's behavior do you feel we are encroaching upon a constituational crisis point where Obama may actually be obligated to move to block Trump from assuming the Presidency? My thought feels fringe and conspiratorial as I type and yet I cannot help but to wonder.

 

 

 

I am at a loss to think of any way Obama could block Trump. (and to echo Phi, why there would be any such mechanism that could undermine the peaceful transfer of power outlined in the Constitution) What did you have in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I am at a loss to think of any way Obama could block Trump. What did you have in mind?

Nothing, it was more of a question of should than would and or can. Constitutionally the Courts and Congress have the ability to act but Obama does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, I do not believe Obama will do anything. However by ordering the report he has forced the question. What happens if the CIA comes back and tells him that yes Russia influenced the election, Trump was in on it, and provide proorf that includes transations between Trump staff and the Kremlin or excessive debt holdings in Russia? That isn't the only possible outcome or even a likely outcome but by asking for a report before he leaves office it is a possible outcome. In good faith and responsibility to his office and the American people could he stand back and do nothing if a Trump Russian conspiracy were believed? Again, it isn't likely and I understand that is silly to a degree. Probably just a bunch of mental masterbation on my part but asking for the report does have the potential of putting Obama in a precarious positions.

 

 

Then it would be up to the Senate to convict him and toss him from office. (edit: xpost)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However I concede I could just be being hysterical.

 

Let's talk about this.

 

I could just as well argue that we aren't being hysterical enough. Trump verbally threatened many people during his campaign, and he said things others haven't gotten away with in terms of hate speech, yet he wasn't even warned harshly (threatened with fines or jail time if he kept it up, which he did).

 

Trump encouraged foreign powers to illegally attack his opponent in the election. I'm relatively certain that any Democrat using that maneuver against the GOP would be labeled a traitor, and there would be calls of treason. Yet again, no prosecution, no actions were taken, no threats to stop a candidate for POTUS from using a known bad actor like Putin to undermine the integrity of our elections. He got to claim he was joking. Ha ha.

 

Trump has shown himself to be an insensitive, racist, lying, misogynistic, deceptive, larcenous, treasonous stain of a person who can't be trusted. Why is he moving into the White House? Why aren't more people hysterical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then it would be up to the Senate to convict him and toss him from office. (edit: xpost)

As Phi for All points out, Trump operates with impunity.

 

 

Let's talk about this.

 

I could just as well argue that we aren't being hysterical enough. Trump verbally threatened many people during his campaign, and he said things others haven't gotten away with in terms of hate speech, yet he wasn't even warned harshly (threatened with fines or jail time if he kept it up, which he did).

 

Trump encouraged foreign powers to illegally attack his opponent in the election. I'm relatively certain that any Democrat using that maneuver against the GOP would be labeled a traitor, and there would be calls of treason. Yet again, no prosecution, no actions were taken, no threats to stop a candidate for POTUS from using a known bad actor like Putin to undermine the integrity of our elections. He got to claim he was joking. Ha ha.

 

Trump has shown himself to be an insensitive, racist, lying, misogynistic, deceptive, larcenous, treasonous stain of a person who can't be trusted. Why is he moving into the White House? Why aren't more people hysterical?

Trump has active conflicts of interests yet merely saying he'll explain later sufficies, he never released his taxes but that is accepted, he isn't officially elected POTUS yet but continues to speak with world leaders without working with the State Dept, he is taking shots at govt contractors like Lockheed Martin & Boeing, and etc, etc, etc. Iam encouraged that the Senate is investigating but at the same time I see no reason to assume they will have the ability to contain Trump once he has real power. Trump operates above the law and he doesn't even have power yet. Once in office Trump can use executive privilege to block the Congress from access to anyone in his staff while at the same time using the DOJ to launch investigations into the legitimacy of Congress to challange him. I don't believe Congress has the fortitude to stannd against Trump. It is not a united enough body and the media has made it explicitly clear they will give Trump what he wants.

 

What could Obama do? Pending the report he receives from Intel community he could request the Attorney General open and investigation into any connections between Trump and Russia to include Trumps finances/businesses. This would move matters into the judicial branch which is less easily manipulated and undermined than the legislative branch. Of course such a move could potentially hurt Obama's legacy. The media would frame it as an unprecedented act of partisanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Phi for All points out, Trump operates with impunity.

 

Trump has active conflicts of interests yet merely saying he'll explain later sufficies, he never released his taxes but that is accepted, he isn't officially elected POTUS yet but continues to speak with world leaders without working with the State Dept, he is taking shots at govt contractors like Lockheed Martin & Boeing, and etc, etc, etc. Iam encouraged that the Senate is investigating but at the same time I see no reason to assume they will have the ability to contain Trump once he has real power. Trump operates above the law and he doesn't even have power yet. Once in office Trump can use executive privilege to block the Congress from access to anyone in his staff while at the same time using the DOJ to launch investigations into the legitimacy of Congress to challange him. I don't believe Congress has the fortitude to stannd against Trump. It is not a united enough body and the media has made it explicitly clear they will give Trump what he wants.

 

What could Obama do? Pending the report he receives from Intel community he could request the Attorney General open and investigation into any connections between Trump and Russia to include Trumps finances/businesses. This would move matters into the judicial branch which is less easily manipulated and undermined than the legislative branch. Of course such a move could potentially hurt Obama's legacy. The media would frame it as an unprecedented act of partisanship.

 

If I can address the bolded part, I'd like to add that maybe Obama can't do much, but don't you think the part of the electorate that sees Trump as dangerous could be gathered to boycott the media that gives Trump his stage? I've watched many journalists interviewed recently, and it's clear that they cover Trump because people keep watching everything that concerns him, and their ability to generate profit increases. They haven't been doing anything to upset that relationship, as incestuous as it is, because they make so much money from him. Trump even uses that as an excuse to treat people like dirt ("You're going to get so much publicity from working with me that I'm not going to pay you what I said I would").

 

I propose the Middle-class Media Moratorium. Get your news from state sponsors like NPR and BBC, and avoid every outlet that gives Trump unrestricted, uncritical access. No more clicking on "Trump's Most Disgusting Tweet EVER" bait. Let's remove the pump that fills him with hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I can address the bolded part, I'd like to add that maybe Obama can't do much, but don't you think the part of the electorate that sees Trump as dangerous could be gathered to boycott the media that gives Trump his stage? I've watched many journalists interviewed recently, and it's clear that they cover Trump because people keep watching everything that concerns him, and their ability to generate profit increases. They haven't been doing anything to upset that relationship, as incestuous as it is, because they make so much money from him. Trump even uses that as an excuse to treat people like dirt ("You're going to get so much publicity from working with me that I'm not going to pay you what I said I would").

 

I propose the Middle-class Media Moratorium. Get your news from state sponsors like NPR and BBC, and avoid every outlet that gives Trump unrestricted, uncritical access. No more clicking on "Trump's Most Disgusting Tweet EVER" bait. Let's remove the pump that fills him with hot air.

I don't have cable TV. Netflix is my sources for television when I am interested in watching something. Online I do not view (click on) headlines from FoxNews, CNN, NBC, and etc. However millions upon millions do. The new narrative seems to be that we have entered a fact free era. I happen to think that is incorrect. I believe most people who accept the existence of fake news or rebuttals to facts usings fake information simply don't care what the facts are. We aren't in a fact free era much as we are in a who gives a sh*! era. There are people on this very site like tar, for example, who know the facts but willfully ignore them because he just wants what they want. Like an alcoholic who knows drinking too much is bad but isn't interested is stopping.

 

It is a very crazy position we find ourselves in. The majority of the country doesn't believe he is fit for office. That isn't just those who voted for someone else but even amongst those who voted for Trump there is consternation. We are all just moving forward and accepting a Presidnet few actually want because it is what we all agree our system dictates. Yet, this is exacctly what our system was designed to avoid.The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We simply need to will to stop it. The Electors can stop it, Congress can stop it, that just need tobe understood. Sadly, it isn't.

 

As far as procedure is concerned, Trump has no say in the matter.

Murderers have walked free and innocent people have gone to prison. Republicans in Congress held hearings on Banghazi and Hillary Clinton's email server during a presidential campaign to purposely hurt the character of their political rival yet wouldn't hold a vote on the President's Supreme Court. Not onlydoes the Constitution give the President the authority to fill Court positions but the President can do so without a vote in Congress at all. If Congress fails to vote the President can appoint a justice while Congress is in recess. So this year Congress forewent recesskeeping some staff on the Hill to block the President from making a recess appointment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/20/republican-senators-skipping-recess-to-block-obama/

 

I use that as an example of how malleable the law is. Everyone understands that Obama as President has Constitutional authority to appoint a Supreme Court Justices and yet he was successfully blocked. Procedure aside it still take fortitude to act. The Constitution clearly outlaws torture and yet George Bush tortured and nothing happened. Donald Trump on the Campaign trail said he'll bring torture back. Saying that Trump has no say in the matter ignores history a bit in my opinion. Reagan sold weapons to Iran after Congress passed a law specifically outlawing the sale of weapons to Iran. Nothing happened to Reagan because he simply said he couldn't remember the deal. Law is not monolithic when ones has means.

Edited by Ten oz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We simply need to will to stop it. The Electors can stop it, Congress can stop it, that just need tobe understood. Sadly, it isn't.

 

 

The electors can stop it before inauguration day, but I think there are no other avenues that can. Any other pathway assumes he is already sworn in. Then you have impeachment or removal under the 25th amendment, section 4.

 

However, I wonder if impeachment can happen for things Trump did while running for office. I'm guessing no, since the law doesn't apply to him at that time.

 

The 25th amendment seems unlikely, insofar as he's packing the cabinet with cronies.

 

Murderers have walked free and innocent people have gone to prison. Republicans in Congress held hearings on Banghazi and Hillary Clinton's email server during a presidential campaign to purposely hurt the character of their political rival yet wouldn't hold a vote on the President's Supreme Court. Not onlydoes the Constitution give the President the authority to fill Court positions but the President can do so without a vote in Congress at all. If Congress fails to vote the President can appoint a justice while Congress is in recess. So this year Congress forewent recesskeeping some staff on the Hill to block the President from making a recess appointment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/20/republican-senators-skipping-recess-to-block-obama/

 

I use that as an example of how malleable the law is. Everyone understands that Obama as President has Constitutional authority to appoint a Supreme Court Justices and yet he was successfully blocked. Procedure aside it still take fortitude to act. The Constitution clearly outlaws torture and yet George Bush tortured and nothing happened. Donald Trump on the Campaign trail said he'll bring torture back. Saying that Trump has no say in the matter ignores history to an a bit in my opinion. Reagan sold weapons to Iran and Congress passed a law specifically outlawing the sale of weapons to Iran. Nothing happened to Reagan because he simply said he could remember the deal. Law is not monolithic when ones has means.

 

 

Your examples are still following procedure. Trump will not be able, for example, to simply kill a contract with Boeing or Lockheed-Martin (as he's tweeted) just because he wants to. What you're suggesting is that the procedures described by laws will simply be ignored. If that happens then things are much worse than the already bad situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The electors can stop it before inauguration day, but I think there are no other avenues that can. Any other pathway assumes he is already sworn in. Then you have impeachment or removal under the 25th amendment, section 4.

 

However, I wonder if impeachment can happen for things Trump did while running for office. I'm guessing no, since the law doesn't apply to him at that time.

 

The 25th amendment seems unlikely, insofar as he's packing the cabinet with cronies.

 

 

Your examples are still following procedure. Trump will not be able, for example, to simply kill a contract with Boeing or Lockheed-Martin (as he's tweeted) just because he wants to. What you're suggesting is that the procedures described by laws will simply be ignored. If that happens then things are much worse than the already bad situation.

Yes, the situation is already very bad. Trump didn't materialize in a vacuum. From the Bush admin corcing us into war, torture, imprisoning people without trail (Gitmo is still open) to historic levels of opposition against Obama during his 2 terms we have seen elements within our gov't working against itself and to minimize the rule of law for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The biggest problem here is that Barack Obama and the Clinton campaign are actively working to overthrow a democratic election that was won through the rules. The problem here is not Trump, the problem is that Barack Obama and the Clinton campaign are trying to use inference and circumstantial evidence to overthrow a democratic election.

 

 

 

The biggest problem here is this is BS. Electors have asked for the information, and as the letter from them points out, this is part of the process as planned. Suggesting that providing information about foreign interference is somehow subversive is bollocks.

 

https://extranewsfeed.com/bipartisan-electors-ask-james-clapper-release-facts-on-outside-interference-in-u-s-election-c1a3d11d5b7b#.hwavkwbv5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to be a super strict "by the rules" person, Trump hasn't technically won yet.

 

I mean, he's obviously going to, but you can't say that the popular vote doesn't matter because the rules don't elect people based on the popular vote and then turn around and say that trying to get the electors to vote for someone other than Trump is overthrowing a democratic election because, per the rules, the election hasn't even taken place yet, and legally the electors could still vote for whomever they wanted.

 

So nobody has actually won yet according to the rules, and the only way to argue that they have and that trying to influence the outcome still is "overthrowing" the election is if you conclude that the popular vote in each state is what elects the president.

 

But according to the rules, it isn't. As we've established, the popular vote doesn't matter. Only the electors' votes matter.

 

Funny how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to be a super strict "by the rules" person, Trump hasn't technically won yet.

 

I mean, he's obviously going to, but you can't say that the popular vote doesn't matter because the rules don't elect people based on the popular vote and then turn around and say that trying to get the electors to vote for someone other than Trump is overthrowing a democratic election because, per the rules, the election hasn't even taken place yet, and legally the electors could still vote for whomever they wanted.

 

So nobody has actually won yet according to the rules, and the only way to argue that they have and that trying to influence the outcome still is "overthrowing" the election is if you conclude that the popular vote in each state is what elects the president.

 

But according to the rules, it isn't. As we've established, the popular vote doesn't matter. Only the electors' votes matter.

 

Funny how that works.

Well, there is another way to argue it is "overthrowing" the election.

 

For the elector to vote for someone other than for whom they are pledged, they must break the law (in 29 states and D.C.).

Breaking the law to get your candidate elected could certainly be considered an "overthrow" of the election by a reasonable person.

 

Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.%5B2%5D In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, such as Michigan and Minnesota, specify the faithless elector's vote is void,%5B6%5D though no state has yet had cause to enforce such a provision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.