Thread Rating:

Poll

57 votes (48.3%)
32 votes (27.11%)
12 votes (10.16%)
10 votes (8.47%)
4 votes (3.38%)
3 votes (2.54%)

118 members have voted

RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 4063
January 14th, 2017 at 12:07:44 PM permalink
Let's take these items one at a time:

Quote: MathExtremist

No, because Trump has already done things worthy of prosecution and removal from office. He's already under prosecution for fraud



I don't see any search results saying that he is personally indicted or awaiting trial for anything.

Is he actually CHARGED with something? Has he been found guilty in a trial?

Legally, he seems to be in the clear from immediate prosecution at this point (well, as of the 20th):

"According to the memorandum written by the Office of Legal Counsel in 1973, a criminal trial empowering a jury of twelve individuals to, in effect, overturn a national mandate as expressed through the election of a President through a guilty verdict is unacceptable. Instead, as written in that memorandum, the decision to terminate the service of a President “is more fittingly handled by the Congress than by a jury, and such congressional power is founded in the Constitution” through the impeachment process."

Quote: MathExtremist

and on January 20th he will be violating the Constitution with his GSA hotel lease.



Even someone who supports him giving up the lease states that there is no clear violation of the Constitution:

"“The president-elect isn’t going to be ‘admitted’ to the lease, he’s already the tenant,” Drabkin said. “That clause is inartfully written, but the way that it is written talks about admitting someone to the lease after the lease was entered into.”"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-could-keep-dc-hotel-despite-conflict-of-interest-232144

Quote: MathExtremist

He has more conflicts-of-interest than probably all prior presidents combined



Being a successful businessman over a long period of time and having investments all over the world certainly does present a lot of opportunities for conflicts of interest. It is an issue to be taken seriously, but it'd be kind of the lefties to wait for an actual violation before getting in themselves too worked up.

Quote: MathExtremist

(hey, let's hire my son-in-law for a chief advisory post!) yet nobody's doing a thing about it.



"The law prohibits elected officials from appointing relatives to Cabinet positions, but may not apply to a job as White House adviser. However that is not completely certain."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/source-jared-kushner-serve-trump-senior-adviser-n704786

Quote: MathExtremist

What actions do you support being taken given Trump's existing infractions? Nothing?



I guess maybe the first thing we should do is actually examine each issue with an open mind. Then do the necessary investigations, or whatever, if necessary and go from there...

Again, investigate away. Prefer charges when you have something. A Republican Senate and House could, of course, ignore them but there is always a point where they either lose their majority or fear losing it.
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 4063
Thanks for this post from:
Bozbw
January 14th, 2017 at 12:11:47 PM permalink
Quote: gamerfreak

I watched Paul Ryan's townhall on Healthcare.

When asked what the plan was for replacement if the ACA was repealed, he said he didn’t want to get into “all of the legislative mumbo-jumbo.”

Scum of the earth.



I wonder...did you say the same thing about Pelosi when we did not know the details of the ACA and she made the statement about passing the law to know what is in it?

I don't disagree with you about knowing more about what is going to be done and also hope the plan continues to be to replace as they repeal, but shady shit on the whole ACA deal didn't start last week or even with the past couple of years...
gamerfreak
gamerfreak 
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 919
January 14th, 2017 at 12:16:38 PM permalink
Quote: RonC

I wonder...did you say the same thing about Pelosi when we did not know the details of the ACA and she made the statement about passing the law to know what is in it?


Yep that's equally ridiculous. I'm not a democrat, I don't care about the affiliation of politicians that say and do stupid things.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
January 14th, 2017 at 12:32:07 PM permalink
Quote: RonC

Being a successful businessman over a long period of time and having investments all over the world certainly does present a lot of opportunities for conflicts of interest. It is an issue to be taken seriously, but it'd be kind of the lefties to wait for an actual violation before getting in themselves too worked up.

That's like saying you should let the train derail and clean up the mess later, rather than try to stop the train, even though you see the break in the tracks up ahead. Elected officials have a duty to the public to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Foreign diplomats have admitted that they are booking stays at Trump's hotels around the world precisely because it will curry favor with Trump:
Quote: WaPo article

Perhaps nowhere is that possibility more obvious than Trump’s newly renovated hotel a few blocks from the White House, on Pennsylvania Avenue. Rooms sold out quickly for the inauguration, many for five-night minimums priced at five times the normal rate, according to the hotel’s manager.
...
“Believe me, all the delegations will go there,” said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a “Clinton backlash,” but that now it’s the place to be seen.

In interviews with a dozen diplomats, many of whom declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak about anything related to the next U.S. president, some said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new president.

“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.6b9999d1ca4a

If you don't have a problem with foreign diplomats currying favor with the President by lining his pockets, that just proves Trump right. He really could shoot someone and get away with it. If you won't hold him to task for blatant, open corruption, you won't hold him to anything.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 2966
January 14th, 2017 at 12:48:03 PM permalink
Quote: gamerfreak

I watched Paul Ryan's townhall on Healthcare. When asked what the plan was for replacement if the ACA was repealed, he said he didn’t want to get into “all of the legislative mumbo-jumbo.” Scum of the earth.

Since Jan. 19, 2011, the House has voted to repeal or modify the Affordable Care Act 54 times. Each effort was stopped dead in its tracks by none other than the pride of Las Vegas, Mr. Reid. washpost
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 4063
January 14th, 2017 at 1:42:32 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That's like saying you should let the train derail and clean up the mess later, rather than try to stop the train, even though you see the break in the tracks up ahead. Elected officials have a duty to the public to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Foreign diplomats have admitted that they are booking stays at Trump's hotels around the world precisely because it will curry favor with Trump:

Quote: WaPo article

Perhaps nowhere is that possibility more obvious than Trump’s newly renovated hotel a few blocks from the White House, on Pennsylvania Avenue. Rooms sold out quickly for the inauguration, many for five-night minimums priced at five times the normal rate, according to the hotel’s manager.
...
“Believe me, all the delegations will go there,” said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a “Clinton backlash,” but that now it’s the place to be seen.

In interviews with a dozen diplomats, many of whom declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak about anything related to the next U.S. president, some said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new president.

“Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ” said one Asian diplomat.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.6b9999d1ca4a

If you don't have a problem with foreign diplomats currying favor with the President by lining his pockets, that just proves Trump right. He really could shoot someone and get away with it. If you won't hold him to task for blatant, open corruption, you won't hold him to anything.



ME, you still aren't listening.

I didn't vote for Trump. I don't like a lot of what he does and has done. We can argue all day about the choices we had for President; you can pretty much summarize my feelings as they were a bad lot to pick from.

I'm not saying he won't do something wrong or that aren't a lot of potential messes, but just what the hell do you think can be done about any of them now (no one has brought forth a case that worked to derail him on any existing issue) or until he actually does something wrong (not questionable, but something wrong that action can be taken on) after Friday?

Questionable? Obama is doing a lot of questionable things right now to make Trump's job harder. The wet foot/dry foot thing is laughable--if it was really important to him and not just obstructionism, he would have done it earlier... NONE of them are ACTIONABLE...they do not seem to be illegal and many might favor them but they are clearly being done to slow Trump down as opposed to being done on their merits alone.
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 1052
January 15th, 2017 at 8:31:41 PM permalink
Quote: ams288



I have no idea what #disruptj20 is.




I posted this on December 28th, almost three weeks ago. Do you know what it is now?

You better pay attention.
Don't believe anything until it is officially denied.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
January 15th, 2017 at 9:08:02 PM permalink
Quote: RonC

ME, you still aren't listening.

I didn't vote for Trump. I don't like a lot of what he does and has done. We can argue all day about the choices we had for President; you can pretty much summarize my feelings as they were a bad lot to pick from.

And that's still a false equivalency. Say what you will about Hillary's politics or her poor IT choices, but she's always been a public servant. Trump has always been a vainglorious ladder-climber who looks out for nobody but number one. If Trump's actions as president end up benefiting any of his non-wealthy voters, it will only be as a happy accidental side effect of him lining his pockets and accumulating more personal power.

Quote:

I'm not saying he won't do something wrong or that aren't a lot of potential messes, but just what the hell do you think can be done about any of them now (no one has brought forth a case that worked to derail him on any existing issue) or until he actually does something wrong (not questionable, but something wrong that action can be taken on) after Friday?

Beats me, but a good start would be if more people called him on his nonsense. We've never had a president who made a blatant lie out of the oath of office. He's going to swear to uphold the Constitution, yet he will violate its provisions later that night when dozens of foreign diplomats staying at his properties pay their hotel tabs.

Jason Chaffetz heads the House Oversight Committee and said he has "no plans" to look into Trump's international conflicts of interest. Why?
Quote: Jason Chaffetz

I think the world and certainly the American voters understand that Donald Trump has mass holdings. He’s worth billions of dollars. He’s been very successful in business. And I think the American voters understood that when they voted him in.

In other words, the folks in charge of ethics in Congress think that being elected president means you get a pass on breaking the law. As Trump said himself, "the law’s totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest." Can you imagine if Obama had bought a hotel in DC in 2013 and foreign diplomats started staying there? He'd have been impeached.

Might want to buckle up now, we're all getting taken for a ride.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 4063
Thanks for this post from:
SanchoPanza
January 16th, 2017 at 12:44:15 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

And that's still a false equivalency. Say what you will about Hillary's politics or her poor IT choices, but she's always been a public servant. Trump has always been a vainglorious ladder-climber who looks out for nobody but number one. If Trump's actions as president end up benefiting any of his non-wealthy voters, it will only be as a happy accidental side effect of him lining his pockets and accumulating more personal power.



Again, I didn't say anything about the choices being EQUAL--I said that they were bad. That isn't a false equivalence; it is a fact. The Clinton legacy is filled with actual scandals while supposedly serving the country. The Clintons are not unlike Trump in that they are always looking out for number one. They chose to do it through public service instead of in private business. They had a speaker who used to be equal to Trump at convincing people to like him.

You don't listen. I am not not making an argument "FOR" Trump; I am just saying our choices were shitty. The one who was supposed to win failed to run a good enough campaign and didn't get enough votes to win. The election was hers for the taking. She just didn't do enough to take it. The one who did win capitalized on pent up frustration and actually listened to the people. I know you think the people are dumb, but I bet you weren't saying that when there were people making statements about Obama paying their car payment and stupid shit like that. Nope. Those dumb people were just fine because they toed your line.

Perhaps instead of blaming it all on the "deplorables" who voted for Trump, more time should be spent blaming the candidate who did not do the work needed to win. Hell, a couple of more visits to Wisconsin and Michigan might just have done the job for her. Not calling people "deplorables" might have helped. Nope. She was so smart that she didn't learn the lesson of Romney and the 47%.


Quote: MathExtremist

Beats me, but a good start would be if more people called him on his nonsense. We've never had a president who made a blatant lie out of the oath of office. He's going to swear to uphold the Constitution, yet he will violate its provisions later that night when dozens of foreign diplomats staying at his properties pay their hotel tabs.

Jason Chaffetz heads the House Oversight Committee and said he has "no plans" to look into Trump's international conflicts of interest. Why?
In other words, the folks in charge of ethics in Congress think that being elected president means you get a pass on breaking the law. As Trump said himself, "the law’s totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest." Can you imagine if Obama had bought a hotel in DC in 2013 and foreign diplomats started staying there? He'd have been impeached.

Might want to buckle up now, we're all getting taken for a ride.



There is a way off the ride, if that is what it is. There appears to be some wiggle room on some of these issues; I'll leave that to the legal scholars and court decisions, but it doesn't all appear as cut and dry as you seem to think.

If Trump does commit an impeachable offense, and the Republicans don't impeach him, the path to taking care of the issue is to win the NEXT election instead of whining about the PAST election. There are 21 months or so until every single member of the House and about one third of the Senate will have to face an election. The Republicans will have to stand in that election based on what they do in the first couple of years of the Trump Presidency.

Sure, we could be getting taken for a ride. Everything everyone says that is wrong with Trump can be true. The great thing about our election process is that the way out--or at least the way to start getting out--is never more than two years away.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 5245
Thanks for this post from:
BozSanchoPanza
January 16th, 2017 at 4:06:14 AM permalink
I'm about as liberal as one can get, and even I realize Hillary was an awful candidate and Trump is the man we need to be president. Every previous election I voted democrat. Not this one.
"should of played 'Go Fish' today ya peasant" -typoontrav

  • Jump to: