Impeach Trump


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/27/2019 at 4:17 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I’ve seen a couple of folks on both sides of the aisle suggest that executive privilege doesn’t apply in impeachment proceedings.  I’m not sure there’s case law supporting this proposition.  Even if there is, I doubt the mere existence of an impeachment proceeding would be the pass key to all White House archives that some folks seem to think that it is.  Document requests would still have to be reasonably related to the basis of the proceedings.  Any subpoena that smacks of fishing or of “we just wantz ALL TEH DOCUMENTZ dat makes u luk baads” will get gummed up in court and appellate purgatory, where they will likely stay until after the election.  (I don’t see being under impeachment threat in an election year as being necessarily bad for the Trump admin if they keep playing it the way Lewandowski did—he’s a jerk, but the proceedings were a patent setup/perjury trap; and it was a marvelous thing to watch him sit there and scream that the congressional would-be emperors have no clothes.  Almost made ME want to vote for Trump.  Those antics likely don’t change anyone’s mind, but they’ll keep the base fired up.)

As for the purported deliberate concealment of the IG complaint:  the CIA IG exists to handle complaints by spooks about spooks.  It is highly irregular for the CIA to allege that a President’s conversation with a foreign leader (the sort of thing often well within the realm of executive privilege) constitutes a threat to national security warranting a whistleblower complaint (should a CIA grunt have complained to the IG that Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq threatened national security, and added hearsay about Obama’s conversations with Putin and Assad and whatever Iranian poohbah was representing the Ayatollah in order to nullify executive privilege and trigger impeachment proceedings?)  For the White House to immediately roll over and waive executive privilege this—and, as a matter of precedent, every time the CIA asks them to—is not necessarily a good idea.  That seems particularly so when the substance of the complaint boils down to “Trump asked the Ukrainian president to a)  investigate potential Ukrainian origins of a cyber attack on a DNC server that may have compromised the 2016 election and b) investigate an American (Hunter Biden) who publicly boasted of having used his political clout to shut down a Ukrainian investigation of the American’s corporate cronies; and Trump *may* have threatened Ukrainian foreign aid if they didn’t handle “corruption” the way Trump thought it should be handled (just as Biden’s own father and a handful of Democratic senators had recently done).”

I do agree that Trump wouldn’t be in anything like the mess he’s in if he had cultivated a reputation for honesty and fair dealing and a general lack of vindictiveness all along.  But, I’ve been told that there’s no political advantage to electing leaders with the qualities outlined in D&C 98 . . . 

Ultimately, it’s irrelevant.  The House is run by Dems who want him gone; they’ll vote to impeach (unless Trump can push the process out past the election).  The Senate is run by GOPers who don’t like Trump, but aren’t going to vote to convict in the numbers it’ll take for a 2/3 majority.  

This is an awful lot of sound and fury just for the sake of reminding us, in the run-up to an election, that a known bad guy has kept on being a bad guy.

Little boys often argue over whose dad can win in a fight.  Politics has become, not about who is the best candidate but rather which candidate is worse and is the greater threat to freedoms.  Anyway it has been that - but it has moved from threats to freedoms to threats to entitlements.  Now what the argument is about who is a greater threat to individual entitlements - I am not sure politics and which is the better candidate is worth spilling anyone's blood over is worth even a discussion.  We are better off arguing as children for their "fathers".

I am tired of voting for (trying to figure out) the lesser of two evils.  I cannot support Trump just because the democratic candidates are worse.  Initially I supported Trump because he was not political and I thought he would drain the swamp.  We may be better off - but better off is different than supporting liberty, freedom and justice - which does not appear to be a side in this election. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
41 minutes ago, Colirio said:

But I love that so many creatures on both sides of the swamp are being exposed for the stagnant, bottom-dwellers that they are. 

Amen to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2019 at 4:06 PM, Traveler said:

How do you feel about Romney's stand in this matter?  Do you think he has left behind his spiritual roots for political reasons?

 

The Traveler

The Ukraine investigation request by Trump is for the origins of Spygate.  That’s why Giullani is involved.  After the Meuller investigations ended, Trump put Giullani up as his personal lawyer to investigate the origins of the Steele Dossier, Spygate, and Crossfire Hurricane in the process to build a case on the Government’s attempts to prevent an American Citizen from becoming President.

Now, I have floated my theory of Romney’s involvement in the Intelligence Agencies’ operations to prevent Trump from becoming President.  My theory is based on the senselessly extreme efforts Romney did in 2016 to upend the 2016 election.  I connected the CIA’s 3rd party presidential candidate that tried to wrest the Utah electoral votes using the Mormon connection to prevent Trump from getting to 270 votes.  McCain’s involvement was clear.  He was the guy that officially got the Dossier into the hands of the FBI so the FBI can have cover since McCain is a Republican.  Mitt’s involvement is still not exposed (if my theory is right and his involvement exists).

Mitt puppy dogging for the State Department further supports my theory.  The State Department is neck deep in this.

Mitt now siding against Trump’s investigation into Spygate is further evidence of this.

You think just because Romney is Mormon that he is of impeccable character?  Harry Reid was an active Mormon who was teaching Sunday School while heading the Senate.  Mormons had no problem attacking his character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2019 at 4:22 PM, Traveler said:

I am tired of voting for (trying to figure out) the lesser of two evils.  I cannot support Trump just because the democratic candidates are worse.  Initially I supported Trump because he was not political and I thought he would drain the swamp.  We may be better off - but better off is different than supporting liberty, freedom and justice - which does not appear to be a side in this election. 

 

The Traveler

You supported Trump because you thought he would drain the swamp but now that he is actively exposing the swamp so it can be drained you don’t like it because the fight is ugly?  What did you expect draining the swamp to look like?  The Deep State clasping their hats to their chests as they meekly walk out the door?

Or did you expect the Republicans to support draining the swamp?  Republicans are just as much swamp dwellers as Democrats!  Republican voters just refused to acknowledge it just like they can’t comprehend the possibility that Romney is a swamp creature too.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, @anatess2, I often disagree with your opinion but I always value it, and would appreciate your insight here:

I haven’t been paying very close attention to the details over the past week, but just skimming headlines and lead articles, it’s sounding like either White House surrogates or DOJ officials have requested investigations of or pertaining to Hunter Biden, specifically, from the governments of Ukraine, Australia, China, and Britain—not in generalized off-the-cuff media statements, but as specific messages to specific officials conveyed by duly appointed emissaries.  

That seems . . . irregular.

What am I missing?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, @anatess2, I often disagree with your opinion but I always value it, and would appreciate your insight here:

I haven’t been paying very close attention to the details over the past week, but just skimming headlines and lead articles, it’s sounding like either White House surrogates or DOJ officials have requested investigations of or pertaining to Hunter Biden, specifically, from the governments of Ukraine, Australia, China, and Britain—not in generalized off-the-cuff media statements, but as specific messages to specific officials conveyed by duly appointed emissaries.  

That seems . . . irregular.

What am I missing?

Hunter Biden is a side issue.  Spygate IS THE issue.  

He had Guillani unearthing the origins of Spygate as his personal lawyer to get the events before his inauguration which includes Ukraine (Crowdstrike - the IT firm that was the source of the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC server).  He has Barr running around investigating the items in the Meuller investigation.  So Barr is currently in Italy figuring out the Mifsud connection (the CIA contact that the FBI tried to pass in the Meuller investigation as a Russian spy that Papadapolous “exchanged info with”).

The whistleblower is a CIA guy who went to Schiff about the Ukraine phone call (or Schiff went to the CIA guy to make him whistleblow - we’re not sure of that yet).  There is somebody in the White House inner circle leaking the contents of these phone calls to Congress.  Anyway, Schiff used the mention of Hunter Biden to stop the investigations in Ukraine and this is how the whistleblower story became an impeachment inquiry... 

But the Dems did not plan for Trump releasing the phone call notes.  So now they’re trying their best to make the Hunter Biden story stick through the MSM and through these interrogations.

Trump is a media mastermind.  He was not planning on putting a spotlight on Giullani’s and Barr’s investigations.  So, he’s riding the media frenzy on Hunter Biden to get all that corruption talked about and continuing to get access to Britain and Australia (also involved in Spygate that the deep state is trying to stop by turning these investigations into Trump digging dirt against his 2020 opponents) while the Spygate investigations continue unhindered in the down-low.

China is not on Spygate, I don’t think.  But Trump is currently in a trade war with the US’ biggest trade nemesis who would be very well-advantaged by these current political upheavals.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Hunter Biden is a side issue.  Spygate IS THE issue.  

He had Guillani unearthing the origins of Spygate as his personal lawyer to get the events before his inauguration which includes Ukraine (Crowdstrike - the IT firm that was the source of the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC server).  He has Barr running around investigating the items in the Meuller investigation.  So Barr is currently in Italy figuring out the Mifsud connection (the CIA contact that the FBI tried to pass in the Meuller investigation as a Russian spy that Papadapolous “exchanged info with”).

The whistleblower is a CIA guy who went to Schiff about the Ukraine phone call (or Schiff went to the CIA guy to make him whistleblow - we’re not sure of that yet).  There is somebody in the White House inner circle leaking the contents of these phone calls to Congress.  Anyway, Schiff used the mention of Hunter Biden to stop the investigations in Ukraine and this is how the whistleblower story became an impeachment inquiry... 

But the Dems did not plan for Trump releasing the phone call notes.  So now they’re trying their best to make the Hunter Biden story stick through the MSM and through these interrogations.

Trump is a media mastermind.  He was not planning on putting a spotlight on Giullani’s and Barr’s investigations.  So, he’s riding the media frenzy on Hunter Biden to get all that corruption talked about and continuing to get access to Britain and Australia (also involved in Spygate that the deep state is trying to stop by turning these investigations into Trump digging dirt against his 2020 opponents) while the Spygate investigations continue unhindered in the down-low.

China is not on Spygate, I don’t think.  But Trump is currently in a trade war with the US’ biggest trade nemesis who would be very well-advantaged by these current political upheavals.

So, neither Australia nor China nor the UK were asked to investigate Biden specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, neither Australia nor China nor the UK were asked to investigate Biden specifically?

After MSM went wall to wall with Ukraine/Biden/for Trump impeachment, Trump rode the wave (like he always does) and told China in a press gaggle to give all their information on Hunter's dealings with China. 

But no.  Trump did not personally ask anybody - not even Ukraine - to investigate Biden's potential quid pro quo.  If you remember in the Ukraine call notes, Ukraine brought up Biden when they offered to give Trump information on what happened to the investigation on Burisma.

The MSM, though, is trying to make the Spygate investigations in Britain and UK as something about Biden like they did with Ukraine.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2019 at 9:17 AM, anatess2 said:

The Ukraine investigation request by Trump is for the origins of Spygate.  That’s why Giullani is involved.  After the Meuller investigations ended, Trump put Giullani up as his personal lawyer to investigate the origins of the Steele Dossier, Spygate, and Crossfire Hurricane in the process to build a case on the Government’s attempts to prevent an American Citizen from becoming President.

Now, I have floated my theory of Romney’s involvement in the Intelligence Agencies’ operations to prevent Trump from becoming President.  My theory is based on the senselessly extreme efforts Romney did in 2016 to upend the 2016 election.  I connected the CIA’s 3rd party presidential candidate that tried to wrest the Utah electoral votes using the Mormon connection to prevent Trump from getting to 270 votes.  McCain’s involvement was clear.  He was the guy that officially got the Dossier into the hands of the FBI so the FBI can have cover since McCain is a Republican.  Mitt’s involvement is still not exposed (if my theory is right and his involvement exists).

Mitt puppy dogging for the State Department further supports my theory.  The State Department is neck deep in this.

Mitt now siding against Trump’s investigation into Spygate is further evidence of this.

You think just because Romney is Mormon that he is of impeccable character?  Harry Reid was an active Mormon who was teaching Sunday School while heading the Senate.  Mormons had no problem attacking his character.

I have stated before that I have a political background but have discovered that there is a great deal of evil under the covers in politics.  I am more convinced than ever that Trump is not a good guy or has the good of the country in his mind or heart.  But he is just like so many others in the political arena that see bad things, gets power and then decides that they can go beyond the laws, constitution, freedoms and liberties to do what they think must be done to solve the problem (drain the swamp).  

Many years ago I saw a non-programmer's guide to programmer terms.  Two were very funny - Constants aren't  and Variables don't.   Which I think applies to politics  but said differently comes out -- the more things change the more they remain the same.  The more Trump makes changes the more I see freedoms and liberties slipping away.  Or should I say - the more someone opposes something Trump want to do the more likely he is to stomp on them with whatever power he has at his disposal and the less likely he is to consider he may not be right.  I think Trump's usefulness has surpassed its upper limit.  I am so happy he has exposed the tip of the corruption iceberg in Washington.  I am not so worried about what he wants to do as I am what he is willing to do to accomplish it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have stated before that I have a political background but have discovered that there is a great deal of evil under the covers in politics.  I am more convinced than ever that Trump is not a good guy or has the good of the country in his mind or heart.  But he is just like so many others in the political arena that see bad things, gets power and then decides that they can go beyond the laws, constitution, freedoms and liberties to do what they think must be done to solve the problem (drain the swamp).  

Many years ago I saw a non-programmer's guide to programmer terms.  Two were very funny - Constants aren't  and Variables don't.   Which I think applies to politics  but said differently comes out -- the more things change the more they remain the same.  The more Trump makes changes the more I see freedoms and liberties slipping away.  Or should I say - the more someone opposes something Trump want to do the more likely he is to stomp on them with whatever power he has at his disposal and the less likely he is to consider he may not be right.  I think Trump's usefulness has surpassed its upper limit.  I am so happy he has exposed the tip of the corruption iceberg in Washington.  I am not so worried about what he wants to do as I am what he is willing to do to accomplish it.

 

The Traveler

Provide examples of what unlawful things Trump is doing as President and what liberties he has taken.  While you're thinking about that, have you been following the things he has done to restore liberties such as religious liberties, economic liberties, fighting against human trafficking, opoid addiction, refusal to invest military manpower in response to instigators, refusal to launch a military strike that would result in civilian casualties even after provocation, etc?

And while you're thinking about that, have you been keeping tabs with the extremely unlawful things the intelliegence agencies and Congress have done to his Presidency?

And while you're thinking about that, have you paid attention to the transformation of the Federal Courts from political activists to Constitutionalists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Provide examples of what unlawful things Trump is doing as President and what liberties he has taken.  While you're thinking about that, have you been following the things he has done to restore liberties such as religious liberties, economic liberties, fighting against human trafficking, opoid addiction, refusal to invest military manpower in response to instigators, refusal to launch a military strike that would result in civilian casualties even after provocation, etc?

And while you're thinking about that, have you been keeping tabs with the extremely unlawful things the intelliegence agencies and Congress have done to his Presidency?

And while you're thinking about that, have you paid attention to the transformation of the Federal Courts from political activists to Constitutionalists?

Where to begin?  Let me first say that the opposition (Democratic party) ignoring laws is not an excuse.  But let us list some things.  Granting access to secure information and positions without proper background checks.  Surpassing congress for apporations of funding (specifically - the Wall).  Ignoring legislative processes with executive orders.  Creating taxes without congressional approval.   To name a few.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

Where to begin?  Let me first say that the opposition (Democratic party) ignoring laws is not an excuse.  But let us list some things.  Granting access to secure information and positions without proper background checks.  Surpassing congress for apporations of funding (specifically - the Wall).  Ignoring legislative processes with executive orders.  Creating taxes without congressional approval.   To name a few.

 

The Traveler

1.)  Granting access to secure information - By LAW, the President is the ultimate arbiter of Classification.  Now, specify WHO received secure information and positions then we can discuss whether this was appropriate or not.

2.)  Surpassing Congress for appropriations of funding - the LAW states that a barrier needs to be built on the Southern Border.  The Executive Branch and Congress - who passed that law back in the Reagan years and has never repealed it - refused to execute that law which caused upwards of 12 Million illegal immigrants AFTER the amnesty.  Every President since Reagan has promised to build that barrier.  Every Congress since Reagan has promised to "fix" immigration.  Trump not only promised to do it but DID IT.  He did not surpass Congress to do it.  He FOLLOWED CONGRESSIONAL ORDERS to do it and executed his Prime Executive Function of National Security.

3.)  Executive Orders are not unlawful unless it contradicts existing law.  As you have noticed, Congress is too busy trying to impeach him first with Russian Collusion, then Obstruction, then Ukraine, to do anything about legislative processes.  His first year, he worked his bum off getting the legislative branch to work with him with BOTH branches having Republican majority.  McCain upended the process to fix the healthcare act.  Globalists like Jeff Flake - the Latter-day Saint - upended the process for funding the barrier, etc. etc. all things that the Republicans promised to deliver in their election campaigns.  When you have a Congress that is willfully ignoring the will of the people, the Executive Branch can't wait for "the legislative process" to give power to the people.

4.) A President cannot create taxes - taxes are the created through legislation.  Trump did nothing of the sort.  Tariffs are not taxes.  One of the President's Prime Directive is Foreign Trade - he has the power to levy or remove tariffs on foreign goods and services.

5.) To name a few - well, from the few you named, it seems that if you don't like what the President is doing then you claim it to be unlawful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impeach this:

Trump tweets today:

"The United States was supposed to be in Syria for 30 days, that was many years ago. We stayed and got deeper and deeper into battle with no aim in sight. When I arrived in Washington, ISIS was running rampant in the area. We quickly defeated 100% of the ISIS Caliphate,.... ... including capturing thousands of ISIS fighters, mostly from Europe. But Europe did not want them back, they said you keep them USA!  I said "NO, we did you a great favor and now you want us to hold them in U.S. prisons at tremendous cost. They are yours for trials."  They..... again said ""NO," thinking, as usual, that the U.S. is always the "sucker", on NATO, on Trade, on everything. The Kurds fought with us, but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to do so.  They have been fighting Turkey for decades. I held off this fight for.... almost 3 years, but it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.  WE WILL FIGHT WHERE IT IS TO OUR BENEFIT, AND ONLY FIGHT TO WIN. Turkey, Europe, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the Kurds will now have to ..... figure the situation out, and what they want to do with the captured ISIS fighters in their "neighborhood". They all hate ISIS, have been enemies for years. We are 7000 miles away and will crush ISIS again if they come anywhere near us!"

 

Republican and Democrat heads explosion in 3-2-1...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

1.)  Granting access to secure information - By LAW, the President is the ultimate arbiter of Classification.  Now, specify WHO received secure information and positions then we can discuss whether this was appropriate or not.

Not exactly true - Which is the reason the president was (and is) secretly spied upon. 

Quote

2.)  Surpassing Congress for appropriations of funding - the LAW states that a barrier needs to be built on the Southern Border.  The Executive Branch and Congress - who passed that law back in the Reagan years and has never repealed it - refused to execute that law which caused upwards of 12 Million illegal immigrants AFTER the amnesty.  Every President since Reagan has promised to build that barrier.  Every Congress since Reagan has promised to "fix" immigration.  Trump not only promised to do it but DID IT.  He did not surpass Congress to do it.  He FOLLOWED CONGRESSIONAL ORDERS to do it and executed his Prime Executive Function of National Security.

Wrong again - congress creates laws and appropriates funds - the president has veto power only.  Usually there are arguments over line item veto power which gives the president more power in such matters - interesting we have not heard such arguments with Trump.

Quote

3.)  Executive Orders are not unlawful unless it contradicts existing law.  As you have noticed, Congress is too busy trying to impeach him first with Russian Collusion, then Obstruction, then Ukraine, to do anything about legislative processes.  His first year, he worked his bum off getting the legislative branch to work with him with BOTH branches having Republican majority.  McCain upended the process to fix the healthcare act.  Globalists like Jeff Flake - the Latter-day Saint - upended the process for funding the barrier, etc. etc. all things that the Republicans promised to deliver in their election campaigns.  When you have a Congress that is willfully ignoring the will of the people, the Executive Branch can't wait for "the legislative process" to give power to the people.

Contradicting existing laws is seldom as obvious as one would expect.  Our founding fathers intended that there are separation of powers.  The exact definition of separations are vague by intent - to prevent too much power concentration.  There has been a trend for more power in the presidency and Trump has taken advantage of that - just like all the other swamp creatures. Rule by executive orders is not the intent of the constitution.  To be honest - I very much dislike the argument that it is okay because others have done it or because it is difficult because of separation of powers.  You may be glad to hear that I am even more upset with power concentrated in individuals that chair various congressional committees. But greater evil else where is not a righteous reason to invite (make concessions) evil into your house.

Quote

4.) A President cannot create taxes - taxes are the created through legislation.  Trump did nothing of the sort.  Tariffs are not taxes.  One of the President's Prime Directive is Foreign Trade - he has the power to levy or remove tariffs on foreign goods and services.

Sorry - I very much disagree - Tariffs are taxes and if nothing else fall directly under the category of "hidden taxes".  There is a tendency in governments that when something becomes unpopular - to just redefine it.  This is one of the greatest sign of corruption in governments.  As smart as you are - I am surprised you fall so easily into this argument - perhaps if the shoe was on the other foot? (say a Hillary foot?)

Quote

5.) To name a few - well, from the few you named, it seems that if you don't like what the President is doing then you claim it to be unlawful.

 To be sure - I favor opposition to anyone in power.  I favor the voice of the people - not an individual.  Just because one individual is right is not the excuse to remove agency from individuals.  But to be clear there are many things the president is doing at the border and with trade that I favor and support - but I do not support his methods.  I will not fall to the temptation of "Give me the power and I will make sure that everything you want -- happens."  I believe that argument was made before (in another lifetime) - I opposed it then and I oppose it now.

 

The Traveler. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is especially for the Fake News cycle to talk about wall to wall:

"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I've done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over... ....the captured ISIS fighters and families.  The U.S. has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory. THE USA IS GREAT!"

 

Fake News will not be able to stop themselves from attacking the President on "my great and unmatched wisdom".

And that's how you break through the deep state, folks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Not exactly true - Which is the reason the president was (and is) secretly spied upon. 

SERIOUSLY, DUDE????  This one statement, right here, is very troubling for someone who claims to have ties to intelligence agencies.  Are you even paying attention to Spygate AT ALL????

Trump has been spied upon since THE 2016 CAMPAIGN!  Spygate has proven without a doubt that Trump was spied upon to prevent him from beating Hillary!  The FBI ran operation Crossfire Hurricane to bury their tracks and instigate the Russian Collusion narrative as the "insurance policy" to keep him from being inaugurated and then when that failed - remove him from office.  The current Ukraine impeachment is another move by the CIA to prevent Trump from investigating the origin of Spygate after the Mueller Investigation portion of Crossfire Hurricane fizzled out!!!  There are several facts that has been provided to support this claim!

And you think spying on the President of the USA is the lawful or even moral ground???

 

Quote

Wrong again - congress creates laws and appropriates funds - the president has veto power only.  Usually there are arguments over line item veto power which gives the president more power in such matters - interesting we have not heard such arguments with Trump.

Congress created the law to build a barrier on the Southern Border.  They did that with the Amnesty back in the Reagan Administration.  Both Congress and previous Administrations ran on securing the border and fixing immigration laws.  Now that Trump is delivering on the promise, Congress tries to stop him by not appropriating monies to be able to execute the law.  So Trump used the money Congress appropriated for National Defense to build the barrier as a National Security initiative.  THAT is completely LAWFUL especially since Congress ran several hearings whining about how we have a CRISIS on the border complete with an AOC pictorial.

 

Quote

Contradicting existing laws is seldom as obvious as one would expect.  Our founding fathers intended that there are separation of powers.  The exact definition of separations are vague by intent - to prevent too much power concentration.  There has been a trend for more power in the presidency and Trump has taken advantage of that - just like all the other swamp creatures. Rule by executive orders is not the intent of the constitution.  To be honest - I very much dislike the argument that it is okay because others have done it or because it is difficult because of separation of powers.  You may be glad to hear that I am even more upset with power concentrated in individuals that chair various congressional committees. But greater evil else where is not a righteous reason to invite (make concessions) evil into your house.

Yes, the trend has been giving more power to the Presidency.  This does not make what the President does unlawful.  That's the beauty of Executive Orders - they are only good until the next Executive occupies the office.

Crying about Trump executing the job the States and its people gave him is counter productive when you have not cried about the reason Trump HAD to execute said job in said manner after Congress - Republican and Democrats both - continue to disrespect his office.

 

Quote

Sorry - I very much disagree - Tariffs are taxes and if nothing else fall directly under the category of "hidden taxes".  There is a tendency in governments that when something becomes unpopular - to just redefine it.  This is one of the greatest sign of corruption in governments.

Another "this should be how it is because this is how I want it to be" regardless of how the thing is laid out in the Constitution.  Tariffs are not Taxes.  Only GLOBALISTS consider Tariffs as Taxes.  Tariffs are protectionist levies in foreign trade agreements.  This is not a "sign of corruption in governments" because Tariffs are paid for by OTHER GOVERNMENTS.  How THAT OTHER government comes up with the tariffs - increasing their taxes, increasing the price of their goods, etc. is that government's purview, not the government that demanded the tariff.

These are very valid reasons you want to increase certain tariffs:

1.)  You want your citizens to buy from your own production.

2.) You want to prevent imports from vastly exceeding your exports stagnating economic growth.

3.) You want to apply pressure on other countries to be more amicable in a trade negotiation.

 

Quote

As smart as you are - I am surprised you fall so easily into this argument - perhaps if the shoe was on the other foot? (say a Hillary foot?)

Did you just accuse me of petty American partisanship?  Did you forget I'm a die-hard patriot for my country?

 

Quote

 To be sure - I favor opposition to anyone in power.  I favor the voice of the people - not an individual.  Just because one individual is right is not the excuse to remove agency from individuals.  But to be clear there are many things the president is doing at the border and with trade that I favor and support - but I do not support his methods.  I will not fall to the temptation of "Give me the power and I will make sure that everything you want -- happens."  I believe that argument was made before (in another lifetime) - I opposed it then and I oppose it now.

 

The Traveler. 

Your anti-Trump position regarding how he uses his power to do the job the people gave him to do over the antics of powerful people - including Romney - to prevent him from doing so belies your "favor the voice of the people" statement.  You would rather nothing gets done to stop the bad things happening because you don't like to fight for the good things... you want the good things to just naturally result from hoping for good things.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

SERIOUSLY, DUDE????  This one statement, right here, is very troubling for someone who claims to have ties to intelligence agencies.  Are you even paying attention to Spygate AT ALL????

Trump has been spied upon since THE 2016 CAMPAIGN!  Spygate has proven without a doubt that Trump was spied upon to prevent him from beating Hillary!  The FBI ran operation Crossfire Hurricane to bury their tracks and instigate the Russian Collusion narrative as the "insurance policy" to keep him from being inaugurated and then when that failed - remove him from office.  The current Ukraine impeachment is another move by the CIA to prevent Trump from investigating the origin of Spygate after the Mueller Investigation portion of Crossfire Hurricane fizzled out!!!  There are several facts that has been provided to support this claim!

And you think spying on the President of the USA is the lawful or even moral ground???

 

Congress created the law to build a barrier on the Southern Border.  They did that with the Amnesty back in the Reagan Administration.  Both Congress and previous Administrations ran on securing the border and fixing immigration laws.  Now that Trump is delivering on the promise, Congress tries to stop him by not appropriating monies to be able to execute the law.  So Trump used the money Congress appropriated for National Defense to build the barrier as a National Security initiative.  THAT is completely LAWFUL especially since Congress ran several hearings whining about how we have a CRISIS on the border complete with an AOC pictorial.

 

Yes, the trend has been giving more power to the Presidency.  This does not make what the President does unlawful.  That's the beauty of Executive Orders - they are only good until the next Executive occupies the office.

Crying about Trump executing the job the States and its people gave him is counter productive when you have not cried about the reason Trump HAD to execute said job in said manner after Congress - Republican and Democrats both - continue to disrespect his office.

 

Another "this should be how it is because this is how I want it to be" regardless of how the thing is laid out in the Constitution.  Tariffs are not Taxes.  Only GLOBALISTS consider Tariffs as Taxes.  Tariffs are protectionist levies in foreign trade agreements.  This is not a "sign of corruption in governments" because Tariffs are paid for by OTHER GOVERNMENTS.  How THAT OTHER government comes up with the tariffs - increasing their taxes, increasing the price of their goods, etc. is that government's purview, not the government that demanded the tariff.

These are very valid reasons you want to increase certain tariffs:

1.)  You want your citizens to buy from your own production.

2.) You want to prevent imports from vastly exceeding your exports stagnating economic growth.

3.) You want to apply pressure on other countries to be more amicable in a trade negotiation.

 

Did you just accuse me of petty American partisanship?  Did you forget I'm a die-hard patriot for my country?

 

Your anti-Trump position regarding how he uses his power to do the job the people gave him to do over the antics of powerful people - including Romney - to prevent him from doing so belies your "favor the voice of the people" statement.  You would rather nothing gets done to stop the bad things happening because you don't like to fight for the good things... you want the good things to just naturally result from hoping for good things.

I am saying that no president of the USA has the right to do what he wants without the consent of the people.  In the USA we have what is called a republic democracy.  The house of representatives is the consent of the people (and also the Senate and the President but not as intent as the House).  Our constitution is for the intent that no individual has power over the people but must move forward (always - no exception) with the consent of the people.  Which is why the House (with elections every 2 years to represent the people) has such power over budgets and funds - and why the president has veto power - not the power to create law or spend money according to their whim.

I believe good things will and should only happen when the people are more united.  When people are not united - there is not as much right to force the rest to comply.  And should the people want injustice - one (or a few) person(s) with the power to do otherwise is the very definition of tyranny. 

 

The Traveler

The USA is very divided - and as such the government should not allow the power in a few to move forward with anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I am saying that no president of the USA has the right to do what he wants without the consent of the people.  In the USA we have what is called a republic democracy.  The house of representatives is the consent of the people (and also the Senate and the President but not as intent as the House).  Our constitution is for the intent that no individual has power over the people but must move forward (always - no exception) with the consent of the people.  Which is why the House (with elections every 2 years to represent the people) has such power over budgets and funds - and why the president has veto power - not the power to create law or spend money according to their whim.

I believe good things will and should only happen when the people are more united.  When people are not united - there is not as much right to force the rest to comply.  And should the people want injustice - one (or a few) person(s) with the power to do otherwise is the very definition of tyranny. 

 

The Traveler

The USA is very divided - and as such the government should not allow the power in a few to move forward with anything.

What does that have to do with what Trump is doing?  Trump HAS been doing what he campaigned on.  Absolutely accomplishing each campaign promise one by one.  He did not "create law" nor did anything outside of the bounds of his Constitutional powers.  

You like to say things like, "Good things will and should only happen when the people are more united." without saying what you're gonna do with the situation as it stands.  It's like a professor who just lectures on good things as theories but can't work in the real world because none of his theories work out as he envisioned.  

And newsflash - you've been under Tyranny for several decades.  It has become evident that the Presidency is nothing but a figure head executing the will of the Intelligence Agencies.  Trump is trying to break you out of that Tyranny but YOU are siding with the Intelligence Agencies (I still can't believe you think the spies are the good guys).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2019 at 11:23 AM, anatess2 said:

What does that have to do with what Trump is doing?  Trump HAS been doing what he campaigned on.  Absolutely accomplishing each campaign promise one by one.  He did not "create law" nor did anything outside of the bounds of his Constitutional powers.  

You like to say things like, "Good things will and should only happen when the people are more united." without saying what you're gonna do with the situation as it stands.  It's like a professor who just lectures on good things as theories but can't work in the real world because none of his theories work out as he envisioned.  

And newsflash - you've been under Tyranny for several decades.  It has become evident that the Presidency is nothing but a figure head executing the will of the Intelligence Agencies.  Trump is trying to break you out of that Tyranny but YOU are siding with the Intelligence Agencies (I still can't believe you think the spies are the good guys).

I have determined over my lifetime that politics are not about programs - It is about people and putting honorable and honest people into places of responsibility.  Some have the idea that the private lives of public figures should remain private.  Perhaps, but if their private lives are corrupt - like inability to live up to marriage promises - they are not fit for public life and service.  Quoting again from Elder David O McKay: "There is no worldly success that can compensate for failure in the home."  I believe one can substitute "political success" as well. 

The only institution that I believe is preserving families is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Recent changes in youth programs as an example.  Most other institutions (all of which I am aware) are centered around the preservation of that particular institution.  Even changes being proposed in the Catholic church concerning clergy appear to be to be more centered around protecting the Catholic church first and Families some distant second or third. 

And so I have given up believing any candidate, political party, government program or some non-prophet (or non-profit 😉) organization can or ought to be trusted.

I do not believe Trump is willing to listen and be responsive to anyone's opinion other than his own.  I do not think he cares about anything beyond his personal horizon wishes.  I do not think he can even congratulate any individual for anything without somehow sharing the spotlight with himself.   The only thing I can swallow is that; right now, today he is a better than any Democratic (or standard DC swamp candidate) running.   Which for me is like saying - he being president, is better than being eaten by crocodiles. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have determined over my lifetime that politics are not about programs - It is about people and putting honorable and honest people into places of responsibility.  Some have the idea that the private lives of public figures should remain private.  Perhaps, but if their private lives are corrupt - like inability to live up to marriage promises - they are not fit for public life and service.  Quoting again from Elder David O McKay: "There is no worldly success that can compensate for failure in the home."  I believe one can substitute "political success" as well. 

The only institution that I believe is preserving families is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Recent changes in youth programs as an example.  Most other institutions (all of which I am aware) are centered around the preservation of that particular institution.  Even changes being proposed in the Catholic church concerning clergy appear to be to be more centered around protecting the Catholic church first and Families some distant second or third. 

And so I have given up believing any candidate, political party, government program or some non-prophet (or non-profit 😉) organization can or ought to be trusted.

That being said... A lot your Presidents have had personal weaknesses including not living up to marital promises - FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan... HW Bush is just now found out to be a sexual harasser... W Bush, on an interview, said he drank a lot of alcohol and chased a lot of women although he didn't specify if it's all before marriage or if he continued to do so after marriage.  Yet, several of them are considered one of the "great Presidents".

So sure, we can hold to the ideal that only morally correct people can become President, unfortunately, having morally correct people doesn't always equate to having good leadership qualities or even morally correct political principles.  After all, there are a whole slew of political tyrants - including President Marcos - who were religiously devout and dedicated to their wives and children.

 

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

I do not believe Trump is willing to listen and be responsive to anyone's opinion other than his own.  I do not think he cares about anything beyond his personal horizon wishes.  I do not think he can even congratulate any individual for anything without somehow sharing the spotlight with himself.   The only thing I can swallow is that; right now, today he is a better than any Democratic (or standard DC swamp candidate) running.   Which for me is like saying - he being president, is better than being eaten by crocodiles. 

I don't know where you get your support for such position.  Even Kim Kardashian was able to convince President Trump to commute Alice Johnson's sentence.  He changed his mind on Net Neutrality after Ajit Pai convinced him of the matter.  He was convinced to end separation of illegal immigrant children from their parents for those whose asylum processing exceeds 20 days, etc. etc. etc.  Unfortunately, he can also be convinced to do bad things - like the stupid bump stock bans after he was so adamant about not supporting stupid gun control measures.

Today, right now, he is better than ALL YOUR PRESIDENTS since Kennedy.  And yes, that includes Reagan.  Your economy is headed the right direction.  Your foreign trade deficits are in the process of correction.  Your Federal Courts are getting restored.  Your religious liberties are getting protected/restored.  Your "inner cities" are getting transformed into economic opportunity zones.  Your military is getting restored and your veterans getting care.  The Federal Government is removing themselves from education and healthcare.  Your businesses are getting liberated from excessive regulation.  Illegal immigration is getting stemmed.  Corruption is getting exposed.  And - my personal favorite - you are getting out of wars.

Saying that all that is nothing but "better than being eaten by crocodiles" is sadly disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That being said... A lot your Presidents have had personal weaknesses including not living up to marital promises - FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan... HW Bush is just now found out to be a sexual harasser... W Bush, on an interview, said he drank a lot of alcohol and chased a lot of women although he didn't specify if it's all before marriage or if he continued to do so after marriage.  Yet, several of them are considered one of the "great Presidents".

So sure, we can hold to the ideal that only morally correct people can become President, unfortunately, having morally correct people doesn't always equate to having good leadership qualities or even morally correct political principles.  After all, there are a whole slew of political tyrants - including President Marcos - who were religiously devout and dedicated to their wives and children.

 

I don't know where you get your support for such position.  Even Kim Kardashian was able to convince President Trump to commute Alice Johnson's sentence.  He changed his mind on Net Neutrality after Ajit Pai convinced him of the matter.  He was convinced to end separation of illegal immigrant children from their parents for those whose asylum processing exceeds 20 days, etc. etc. etc.  Unfortunately, he can also be convinced to do bad things - like the stupid bump stock bans after he was so adamant about not supporting stupid gun control measures.

Today, right now, he is better than ALL YOUR PRESIDENTS since Kennedy.  And yes, that includes Reagan.  Your economy is headed the right direction.  Your foreign trade deficits are in the process of correction.  Your Federal Courts are getting restored.  Your religious liberties are getting protected/restored.  Your "inner cities" are getting transformed into economic opportunity zones.  Your military is getting restored and your veterans getting care.  The Federal Government is removing themselves from education and healthcare.  Your businesses are getting liberated from excessive regulation.  Illegal immigration is getting stemmed.  Corruption is getting exposed.  And - my personal favorite - you are getting out of wars.

Saying that all that is nothing but "better than being eaten by crocodiles" is sadly disappointing.

I often wonder how to determine a good or great leader.   Many points you make, I can agree -- however.  Let's look at Germany and Hitler.  Hitler turned around the greatest global economic depression in modern history and put Germany at the forefront and ended their previous debilitating government debt.  He restored order to a failed justice system and courts and virtually ended crime (murder, robbery and white collar crimes).  The Third Reich was the restoration of Christian values integrated into government laws and was a re-establishment (third iteration) of "Holy Christian Empire".  The "inner cities" were transformed into economic prosperous zones (without crime).   Germany's military was not just restored but made into a feared elite force respected world wide.  Health care (especially for veterans) was the best in the world.  Germany's educational system became the most advanced in the world - Even after the fall of Germany, the German scientist were the most sought after and respected scientist in the world.

Now, having posted these things - I very much dislike any comparisons of government politics in the USA today to the Nazi politics of Germany even though there are some scary comparisons.  Foremost because the Nazi movement was a socialists movement (or if you will, a liberal left wing movement) that has somehow become labeled as a ultra right wing conservative movement. 

I have great respect for our founding Fathers here in the USA.  Their outline for a president (as well as federal government) would be considered weak and ineffective but today's standards.  I recommend the little pamphlet titled "The Law"  by Frederic Bastiat.  These founding fathers and Frederic are my examples of a good leader.

Frederic gave us such ideas as:

When goods are restricted at borders and not allowed to flow freely - soldiers will.

The greatest threat to individual freedoms and liberties have always come far more from the internal governments that define our laws - than from any external forces.

If you like - here is a link to a free copy of "The Law"  https://fee.org/media/14951/thelaw.pdf  I would rather this little pamphlet be read by anyone that wishes to debate politics and good political leadership before engaging me - because Frederic states the case much better than I do.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Now, having posted these things - I very much dislike any comparisons of government politics in the USA today to the Nazi politics of Germany even though there are some scary comparisons. 

Yet you just did.

You know what the difference is between Nazi Germany and Trump USA?  The US Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Now, having posted these things - I very much dislike any comparisons of government politics in the USA today to the Nazi politics of Germany even though there are some scary comparisons.  Foremost because the Nazi movement was a socialists movement (or if you will, a liberal left wing movement) that has somehow become labeled as a ultra right wing conservative movement. 

 

The Traveler

 

So, instead of refuting any of the points @anatess2 made about the positive impacts that President Trump has made, you instead compare him to Hitler and daydream about an idealized leadership? 🤣

 

1. The mainstream media is heavily biased and full of lies. Is it even a LITTLE bit possible, even just a smidgeon, that your judgment of the man's character might be influenced by the bias of his enemies? 

 

2. There are no Pahoran, Captain Moroni, or founding father types stepping up to the plate to lead the country. It really does stink, doesn't it?  The ideal you have proposed doesn't seem to be in the running. So, what other option do you propose? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yet you just did.

You know what the difference is between Nazi Germany and Trump USA?  The US Constitution.

It's more than that.  And to show just how blind Traveler is, I'd ask everyone to take him up on his offer.  Read The Law.  It completely destroys the modern Democratic party and everything they stand for.  And it exonerates Trump.

FIRST LINES

Quote

    We hold from God the gift which includes all others.  The gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.

   ...

    Life, faculties, production -- in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man.  And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

   Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.  On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

He wishes to make modern American comparisons to Hitler, using the principles which Bastiat outlined?  I think there would be no more fair comparison.

Hitler opened up the economy and created properity where there was only poverty before.  Is there anything wrong with that?  No, the most righteous societies in scripture also had completely prosperous economies.  So, I'm not sure what he's getting at by saying that is a sign that Trump is like Hitler.  

The problem is the method by which he accomplished that.  The US has the Constitution, yes.  But if we consider it simply a rulebook to be thrown at our political enemies to our benefit, we've missed the point.  The Constitution is the embodiment of the principles of liberty that had been inspired by God long before the Declaration of Indpendence.  We see it as the means by which we can safeguard life, liberty, and property. The devil's in the details.

The Law specifically eschews socialism.  Yet that is what Hitler used to create his prosperity at the cost of tens of millions of lives of his own citizens (Jews, Christians, political enemies, mentally retarded, handicapped, and many more "undesirables" (sounds awfully close to "deplorable", doesn't it).  Then he went forth causing a war that cost even more casualties -- both civilian and military.

Trump hasn't killed anyone. He hasn't waged any wars.  Instead, he's tried to get us out of foreign wars.  He's trying to protect the US citizen regardless of race,  sex, religion, or mental faculties.  He's tried to get government OUT of our lives and let business be free to make their own policies so they can prosper.

Bastiat didn't have Hitler as a case study.  He had Napoleon. And Napoleon used the already existing legal system to give himself more power than other leaders had had.

Quote

Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind.

... the same idea (despotism by opressive, but duly processed, laws rather than fiat)... greatly appealed to Napoleon.  He embraced it artently and used it with vigor.

 -- Parenthetical added.

This is, indeed, what Hitler did.  He didn't just start out using his storm troopers to enforce every whim of his.  He tried it and was jailed.  Instead, he went along with the legal system as it was and got the legislature to pass the Enabling Act which was only a thinly veiled means of declaring him a dictator.  That's right, he didn't flout the law.  He welcomed it.  And they gave him all the power he wanted.

Trump, by comparison, is being blocked at every turn.  And at every turn, he's using the laws that have already been given to previous Presidents to enable this country.  I'd ask anyone to consider, what has he done to get himself any more power than any previous President has ever had?  I submit that he has never done anything to gain such additional power.  He's been quite creative with how he wields it because of the opposition he's unjustly and constantly bombarded with (TDS).  But he doesn't have any MORE power than others.

The Constitution was instituted with checks and balances by the power afforded within the pages thereof.  But the Democrats don't believe in using the powers contained therein.  They believe in using ad hominem attacks and fake news to discredit what their political enemies are doing.  They believe in blinding the populace so they can do whatever they want. 

How else do you explain the UTTER lack of actual legislative work they've accomplished in the last 2.7 years?  What have they actually DONE?  They've been spending almost all their energy to figure out a way to get Trump out of office.  That's ALL they've done.  And they've failed again and again.  Why?  Because they figure they can just lie enough to get him out of office.  And it just doesn't work.  Could they just consider the truth for once?  That he hasn't done anything worth impeachment.  Of course not.  Truth is as foreign a concept to them as ancient Greek is to the average American.

Quote

THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEMOCRATS

   The strange phenomenon of our times -- one which will probably astound our descendants -- is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis:

  • The total inertness of mankind
  • The omnipotence of the law
  • The infallibility of the legislator

These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

   The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social.  So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind.  But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud.

--Format altered for clarity.

He continues with exposition.  But he exactly describes "Democratic Socialists" of today.  He did this almost 200 years ago.  This is not a new concept.  It is a very old, and a very bad, idea that will never work.  Fallible, corruptible men will never be able to take our life, liberty, and property while providing us with prosperity.  It never has worked.  And it never will work.

Then he continues to describe just how important free market is to individual liberty.  Who in the United States has been using political power to make the marketplace in this country more free and open?  Is there anyone who has been doing this more than Trump?  One may ague about his tariff wars.  But that is not as clear as it may seem at first glance.  More on that should someone wish to engage in a discussion.

He also explains that the government is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A CHARITY.  Laws are made and punishments affixed to provide a society with justice.  Without it, the society and its government will not be stable.  Today's so called "social justice" is the opposite of the justice that mankind recognizes instinctively.  He actually specifically addresses things like "higher wages" and "free credit" and "protected class" and "open borders"   as things to run away from.  200 years ago, people!!!  And we still have not learned.  He also points out that religious freedom does NOT mean that we dive headlong into atheism either.

*****

How does Traveler have such a cognitive disconnect that he believes Basiat's words were somehow an indictment of Trump?  They specifically, line by line, speak against almost every plank of the modern Democratic party.  They ENCOURAGE Trump's actions.

Yes, there are many Republican politicians who are just as guilty.  But these points are NOT part of the Republican party platform.  NONE.

And Republicans have at least campaigned on the idea that we should move away from these trappings of government.

Trump is completely exonerated by The Law.  And the Deep State is conversely condemned by the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share